The Instigator
Sean_Norbury
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
emilydebate
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points

Is America doing enough to protect the environment?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
emilydebate
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/2/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 836 times Debate No: 45103
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

Sean_Norbury

Con

The environment is the most important issue humanity is facing. Here in America, we have the potential to change the entire world, but instead we focus on less important issues. Obama doesn't even have the spine to say no the the Keystone Pipeline, which should be a simple decision. Money seems to be the main focus here in America. If America is so great, how come we are incapable of long-term thinking?
emilydebate

Pro

First let me start by saying you put the word the twice towards the end of your paragraph. America has 59 National Parks in 27 states. These areas are protected. The protected areas cover 1,006,619 Square Miles of the USA. That is 27.08 percent of America. America could use this 27.08 % for factories, theme parks, or even shopping malls. We have set aside time, and money to run these National Parks. One of the problems the World faces is the Amazon Rain Forest is being cut down. How can America stop that? Does America have control South America? We could do more, you can always do more. America has other more demanding problems. People are starving, the citizens of America are homeless! Before we put all our money in the environment, we have to first take care of these problems.
Debate Round No. 1
Sean_Norbury

Con

First, let me start by saying thanks for pointing out my error. I usually don't make grammatical mistakes, but formalities such as those are unimportant to me anyway. I joined this site last night and maxed out my allowable debate starts, so I was kind of excited while writing. This site is great. If you were attempting to insult my intelligence by correcting me, let me know, if you were being nice, like I said, thank you. The number of National Parks in America means nothing to me when it comes to protecting the environment. I love all of those parks you speak of because I am a fan of Mother Nature, but those numbers you threw at me in no way defend the argument that America is doing enough to protect the environment. Yes, we have set aside time and money to run these National Parks, but again, that is not even remotely close to doing enough to protect the environment. If we don't stop certain entities from pulling the strings when it comes to the governance of this country, they will eventually take whatever resources they want from those National Parks. The Amazon Rain Forest being cut down is a huge problem, and yes, it would be hard for us to stop that, but we have our ways. You should look into who is destroying the Amazon and why. You will find that America is not an innocent party when it comes to the destruction of that beautiful and ecologically important part of our planet. Me and you have differing views on what is more important when it comes to the problems humanity is facing. You complain about people here being homeless and starving, I believe that is unfortunate, but saving the environment is even important to those homeless and starving. The Earth is EVERYBODY'S home, so if we don't take care of it we will all be homeless and starving. America has the money, technology, knowledge, potential, etc... to lead the world in saving the environment. Greed is holding us back. More can and will be done.
emilydebate

Pro

First, I am not sure how National Parks have nothing to do with protecting the environment. As I pointed out before, they could have turned this 1,006,619 Square Miles of environment into anything. Your right the American Government could sell the resources and make money. That would be greedy, but we still have the parks don't we? I was not complaining about homeless and starving people I was stating, in my opinion, starving and homeless people is more of a problem. If every one dies by starvation who is going to be left to take care of "everyone's home". I also believe that if you were homeless you would have a different viewpoint. If you were the president of the USA would your first act be to save the Amazon Rain Forest? What about terrorism, was George Bush's first instinct after 911 to "save the trees". I think it is important to take care of the environment. I love to hike and be outside myself. Although I do think it is important to first take care of the bigger problems.
Debate Round No. 2
Sean_Norbury

Con

I said the number of National Parks meant nothing to me when it comes to saving the environment. My comment about the park's resources being sold was a shot at the fact that corporations are controlling America. I am more concerned about protecting "life" in general. Humans are only one part of our ecosystem. The simple definition for a system is a number of components working together. Our ecosystem is a system just like any other. The component destroying the ecosystem is the human component. That same component is capable of fixing the system. There are other life forms on this planet besides humans. We are a very greedy and selfish species. There has never been a species like us on this planet before. We have left a trail of extinction behind us as we spread across the globe. If you were to view the planet as a single biological entity, we would be considered a parasite. If I were president of the USA, no, my first act would not be to save the Amazon Rain Forest. My first act would be to form a Committee of actual scientists to make this country's scientific decisions, not a bunch of religious fanatics. It really boggles my mind how people do not see the environment as the most important issue of our time. The main reason for that is greed, and that needs to change. What about terrorism? More people in this country died off of prescription pill overdoses than people died from terrorism worldwide a few years ago. That is a subject for another debate. What do you think the biggest problem facing humanity is? I'll let you find your own grammatical error.
emilydebate

Pro

How exactly are we being greedy? Other creatures on Earth were not built the same as us. They do not have the brain capacity we have. After you get your Committee and they decide to make new laws to help the environment how do you know The Jury, and everyone else that has to say yes to a law is going to agree with you and your little "committee"? Obviously you care about the environment, and so do I. You never really stated how we are are being greedy or what America is doing to the environment. I think before we fix the environment, and your right we need to, we need to first protect the American citizens, create more jobs, build more homeless shelters. There are dozens of things that need to be done. When there done call me then we can talk about the environment.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Sean_Norbury 3 years ago
Sean_Norbury
Maybe I should have publicized her grammatical error, it lost me a point. Oh well, I am new to this.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
Sean_NorburyemilydebateTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I personally don't think there were any grammatical errors big enough to warrant points allocation there, but arguments led me to a bit of a struggle. On the one hand, I agree with Con that America isn't doing enough. On the other hand, I have absolutely no idea what "enough" is following his argument. When Pro brings forward the national park argument, I find it convincing because all Con responds with is "it's not enough." Again, I don't know what is enough. I'm left pondering that question, and so long as I'm wondering what it is, Con's advocacy is simply to vague. Meanwhile, I get from Pro as well that we have limited funds and those funds should go towards the public benefit. I don't get the kind of response I need to throw this argument away, and as such, it remains a powerful point for Pro throughout the round. So the vote becomes easy - Pro wins by showing the vagueness of Con's case, and by presenting a good and apparently mutually exclusive alternative.
Vote Placed by theta_pinch 3 years ago
theta_pinch
Sean_NorburyemilydebateTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: S&G goes to pro for con's "the the." "The Earth is EVERYBODY'S home, so if we don't take care of it we will all be homeless and starving." That line was very convincing(and correct) and not responded to; con responded to pro's argument so arguments go to con.