The Instigator
DrStrangeLuv
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
FREEDO
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Enviromental protection will inevitably fail, therefore it is futile.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/23/2011 Category: Science
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,379 times Debate No: 14473
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (6)

 

DrStrangeLuv

Pro

The Earth will one day cease to exist by the expansion of the Sun into a red giant. Since the planet will inevitably be destroyed, measures to hinder human expansion and growth due to environmental protections are not only futile but also damaging to human progress.
FREEDO

Con

My opponent argues that protecting the environment is futile since it will eventually be destroyed.

So put this in perspective:
Using the same logic, it would be futile to get car maintenance since your car will eventually break down.

The flaw is obvious.

Also, my opponent makes a second point:
"....but also damaging to human progress."
By saying "also" this point is made as a further conclusion from "Since the planet will inevitably be destroyed", which is obviously a non sequitur.

That is all for now.
Debate Round No. 1
DrStrangeLuv

Pro

Thanks for accepting Con, this can will be a fun little debate.

1)"Using the same logic, it would be futile to get car maintenance since your car will eventually break down"
This can be refuted in two ways:
--- Since the car has been compared to environmental decay, then both are considered to be futile attempts at preservation, it does not prove environmental preservation is worthwhile, and so the original contention stands.
OR
--- Since the car serves a purpose in aiding human progress it indirectly helps humanity provide an answer to life after the planet Earth, and therefore is worthy of repair.

In either case, environmental protection is nullified.

2)By saying "also" this point is made as a further conclusion from "Since the planet will inevitably be destroyed", which is obviously a non sequitur.
--- I was merely making the suggestion that since the Earth is impermanent, and human life does not necessarily depend upon an Earth IN THE FUTURE, that any means that furthers human development is greater than anything that preserves the environment. Environmental preservation tends to put a hamper on technological science, and so hampers humanity's progress.

Con has failed to prove environmental protection is not futile in this round
FREEDO

Con

//--- Since the car has been compared to environmental decay, then both are considered to be futile attempts at preservation, it does not prove environmental preservation is worthwhile, and so the original contention stands.
OR
--- Since the car serves a purpose in aiding human progress it indirectly helps humanity provide an answer to life after the planet Earth, and therefore is worthy of repair.//

It might just be me but I don't see much coherency in these statements, neither do I see how they refute mine. Rephrase.

//I was merely making the suggestion that since the Earth is impermanent, and human life does not necessarily depend upon an Earth IN THE FUTURE, that any means that furthers human development is greater than anything that preserves the environment. Environmental preservation tends to put a hamper on technological science, and so hampers humanity's progress.//

Your claim is unsubstantiated. You have the burden to prove that environmental protections hampers scientific progress.
Indeed, how are you supposed to have scientific advancements without resources?
Indeed, how are you supposed to have resources without sustainability?
Indeed, how are you supposed to have sustainability without environmental protection?
These are all questions Pro must answer.

//Con has failed to prove environmental protection is not futile in this round//

You do realize that you're the one making the assertion here? You are Instigator and are making a positive claim; the burden rests on you.

May I also remind Pro that the debate he instigated is about whether environmental protection is futile BECAUSE the Earth will eventually die, not simply about whether environmental protection is futile in of itself which is a whole other debate entirely.
Debate Round No. 2
DrStrangeLuv

Pro

1) A car and a planet are not the same. A car can keep being repaired, but we know for a fact that the Earth will be destroyed one day. So repairing the Earth in spite of the fact makes our attempts at preserving it futile, since it will be destroyed one day.

At any rate, your example of the car being repaired is a bad one since it basically doesn't prove anything.

2)I quote: "that any means that furthers human development is greater than anything that preserves the environment."
If a preservation provides us with resources then it is considered to be worthwhile. If it is for merely preserving a landscape or saving a few whales, I fail to see how that benefits mankind since the landscape and animals are ultimately expendable will eventually be wiped out by a solar expansion.

Environmental protection, even if it brings us resources and sustainability, is destined to fail anyway and efforts to preserve the environment are futile.
FREEDO

Con

//At any rate, your example of the car being repaired is a bad one since it basically doesn't prove anything.//

Of course it doesn't. It does make your assertion look pretty silly though, by putting it in retrospect. It is not, after all, my duty to prove environmental protection is NOT futile, as I have pointed out. The only burden I have is to attempt negation at any argument steered towards proving that environmental protection IS futile, provided by you. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to make much negations since you haven't offered any evidence. Please, go take a look at some debates between top members and learn how to actually do one.

//2)I quote: "that any means that furthers human development is greater than anything that preserves the environment."//

This does nothing to advance your case. Also, you won't be able to do any of that human development for long without a sustainable environment.

//If a preservation provides us with resources then it is considered to be worthwhile.//

Uuhhh...yeah....that's right. That seems a whole lot like you just conceded to my side of the debate.

//If it is for merely preserving a landscape or saving a few whales, I fail to see how that benefits mankind since the landscape and animals are ultimately expendable will eventually be wiped out by a solar expansion.//

That isn't the majority of environmental protection.

You are also basing your entire mentality in this debate upon the assumption that we should only be concerned with human interests. You give no argument for why we should have no care for animals. Personally, I think we should.
Another mentality of your you propagate in this debate is a lack of care for the present, which was the whole point my example was making. There is a certain level of value for benefiting the present.

Also, you didn't answer any of my questions.

//Environmental protection, even if it brings us resources and sustainability, is destined to fail anyway and efforts to preserve the environment are futile.//

You're like a broken record. Restating your assertion over and over again does not constitute an argument for it.

I thank my opponent for this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Greyparrot 6 years ago
Greyparrot
The environment will be here long after humans are extinct. To not morph the environment to the benefit of humans isn't really a moral issue, rather than a survival and quality of life issue.
Posted by Caramel 6 years ago
Caramel
I would argue it is futile because of capitalism, not because of something that won't happen for another 4 billion years!
Posted by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
lol
Posted by MarquisX 6 years ago
MarquisX
Whats that saying? "Just because you sh!t after eating does not mean eating is a waste of time"
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
DrStrangeLuvFREEDOTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by tigg13 6 years ago
tigg13
DrStrangeLuvFREEDOTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Cobo 6 years ago
Cobo
DrStrangeLuvFREEDOTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Vote Placed by SurvivingAMethodology 6 years ago
SurvivingAMethodology
DrStrangeLuvFREEDOTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by KevinW 6 years ago
KevinW
DrStrangeLuvFREEDOTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
DrStrangeLuvFREEDOTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03