The Instigator
Ixaax
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
Dik_Dawg
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Environmental protection

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Ixaax
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/14/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,617 times Debate No: 22846
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (2)

 

Ixaax

Pro

Pro will argue that the $10.5 billion that the EPA requested for 2010 is justified in that the ideal ramifications upon local and global ecology will be beneficial to humanity, easily worth the $10.5 billion price tag. Pro will also support environmental regulations such as the Clean Air Act.


Con will argue that environmental protection does not merit the amount of money it receives. Con will not argue the validity or efficiency of programs like the EPA, but Con will rather debate the ideals behind such organizations and the money they receive. Con will also argue that environmental regulations hurt society by damaging business, and that environmental regulations do not merit this economic damage.

Definitions:
"success of humanity" is defined as an overall increase in the standards of living (i.e. wages, life expectancy, education, etc.)
"ecology" Flora and fauna. Indirect affects obviously included (i.e. poisoning a stream that runs through a forest).


Rules
No semantics
No "straw man" arguments


Structure
First round is acceptance with a 500 character max opening statement from Con.
Final round, Con may make a closing statement but may not dress any new points.
Dik_Dawg

Con

Environmental protection does not merit the amount of money it receives. I will not argue the validity or efficiency of programs like the EPA, but I will rather debate the ideals behind such organizations and the money they receive. I will also argue that environmental regulations hurt society by damaging business, and that environmental regulations do not merit this economic damage.
Debate Round No. 1
Ixaax

Pro

The Clean Air Act
The CAA Was implemented in order to control the amount of hazardous pollutants issued into the atmosphere, targeting sources capable of releasing a combined total of 25 tons of "Hazardous Pollutants" each year. These pollutants include Chlorine, Hydrogen Sulfide, and even Chloroform [1]. Because of Earth's atmosphere, these gasses compile in and around the troposphere and stratosphere, building up each year. Why i this a problem? This blanket of toxicity is directly detrimental in countless ways, but perhaps the two most prominent factors acid rain and smog.
Acid rain occurs when toxic gasses combine with water vapor in the troposphere, producing an acidic solution that can pollute ecosystems year round. Fish, for example, have been found with hormone overloads, infertility, and even cancer [2]. The question is, how long will it be until these ever-increasing toxin deposits begin to affect us in these ways? What's to say that people in third world countries are not already suffering from these effects? This would obviously be a decrease in the quality of life.
This brings me to my second point: smog is an especially pressing issue in areas where not as much money is devoted to environmental issues, such as developing countries. Smog's affects are almost immediate, damaging the respiratory system: "children who were exposed to more air pollution scored more poorly on respiratory tests" [3] “Teenagers in smoggy communities were nearly five times as likely to have clinically low lung function, compared to teens living in low-pollution communities” [3]. Once again, immediate effects upon the quality of life.


I'll leave it at that for now. I hope to have a good debate, and wish you the best of luck.





[1] http://www.epa.gov...
[2] http://www.peta.org...
[3] http://www.sciencedaily.com...
Dik_Dawg

Con

Dik_Dawg forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Ixaax

Pro

Continue all arguments. I do hope I can get a good debate here.
Dik_Dawg

Con

Sorry I was away on holidays.
Debate Round No. 3
Ixaax

Pro

Continue all arguments. I do hope you don't just plan on presenting scores of new points that I'll be unable to reply to in the last statement. Also, have a nice vacation!
Dik_Dawg

Con

Dik_Dawg forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ixaax 4 years ago
Ixaax
Okay no problem. I didn't write any more.
Posted by Dik_Dawg 4 years ago
Dik_Dawg
Excuse the round that I was forced to forfeit. Some circumstances were out of my control and I was unable to access DDO
Posted by Dik_Dawg 4 years ago
Dik_Dawg
B!tch please
Posted by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
Petition for Imabench to troll the f*** out of this debate. Sign up below
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Posted by Ixaax 4 years ago
Ixaax
Why doesn't someone challenge me to this debate with these parameters and I'll argue Con? Perhaps I've poorly phrased some section of the parameters, but the intent really isn't all that controlling. Con can argue that the damage to the economy outweighs the benefits, Con can argue that the extinction of nonessential species is just Darwinism at it's best, Con can argue that the environment will naturally regulate it's self as new species evolve to flourish in extenuating circumstances. I really don't see what all the fuss is about... either you (plural) just want to complain or you are so utterly lacking in imagination that ruling out two of the thousands of possible tangents has left you lost and bewildered.
"Con will rather debate the ideals behind such organizations and the money they receive. Con will also argue that environmental regulations hurt society by damaging business, and that environmental regulations do not merit this economic damage."
Can you really not formulate anything? It would be interesting to debate someone so helplessly unimaginative.
Posted by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
jesus christ why not make the con concede all arguments and not be allowed to give rebuttals while youre at it???
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
I find your overly explicit parameters of debate puerile and cowardly.
Posted by Ixaax 4 years ago
Ixaax
I'm not telling opponent what to say, just that they will argue- clearly setting boundaries so that the debate doesn't deteriorate into a cat-and-mouse game where any point can be brought up. But, if people agree with you, which they well may, I will delete that section and re-post in 7 days.
Posted by larztheloser 4 years ago
larztheloser
It's not exactly fair to do a debate if you tell your opponent what to say. That's no better than arguing with yourself.
Posted by Raisor 4 years ago
Raisor
"Con will argue that environmental protection does not merit the amount of money it receives. Con will not argue the validity or efficiency of programs like the EPA, but Con will rather debate the ideals behind such organizations and the money they receive. Con will also argue that environmental regulations hurt society by damaging business, and that environmental regulations do not merit this economic damage."

Wow very little ground for Con. How are you supposed to argue that environmental regulations don't warrant the economic damage if you aren't allowed to argue about the efficiency of the EPA?

Similarly how do you astablish what money the EPA deserves based on its merit if you can't argue about what the merits of the EPA are, I.e. it's efficiency.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
IxaaxDik_DawgTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by CalvinAndHobbes 4 years ago
CalvinAndHobbes
IxaaxDik_DawgTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF