The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Is the abolishing of fossil fuels a solution for the destruction caused by it?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/6/2013 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 872 times Debate No: 35332
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




Well,it's not the answer because of the fact that almost 70 percent of the resources on earth require fossil fuels for their development.
However, the solution lies in the reduction of it's usage.Not many people realize the environmental problems that are caused, namely,the toxic emissions that we produce.The threat of climatic change has made it quite conclusive that we need to find an alternate source of energy.We probably won't be running out of fossil fuel for say,the next 200 year or so,but considerable thought must be given to the future generation.It will take quite some time to get other alternative sources of energy to a point when they become a viable option and thus,it's obvious that we will be facing energy crises if the correct measures are not implemented.


You can't abolish fossil fuels. You CAN abolish the use of fossil fuels for human consumption.

Also; according to this article we'll be running out of fossil fuels a long time before 200 years for now.

So why not just stop now?

You say you're the con but you're confusing me "it's obvious that we will be facing energy crises if the correct measures are not implemented."

Are you both the Con and the Pro then? >_>

Global Warming doesn't exist:

Whatever, this reminds me not to accept challenges when I'm sleepy. Never again.
Debate Round No. 1


Well,I partially agree with your point that we might run out of fossil fuels,maybe before 200 years at the particular rate it is being consumed ,but in the same article that you cited,it was clearly mentioned that there will be new fossil fuel resources to help extend the "lifeline".So,taking into consideration that there will soon be a reduction of it's usage due to awareness that is being spread by various groups and a possible discovery of an alternative,200 years should be a safe approximation.

"No global warming"?Do read this reliable source which clearly states that the major reason behind the formation of green house gases is the burning of fossil fuels.

I was simply trying to put an emphasis on the need to reduce the amount of fossil fuels being used,as it's abolition will do no good to countries who greatly upon it-USA,China.
Life without fossil fuels means no vehicles, no fuel for cooking, and an immense reduction in jobs. Fossil fuels are layers of plants and animals, which have died millions of years ago, compressed and buried deep down the earth. They include coal, oil, and gas. Therefore, we rely heavily on these items and we cannot do without them.

Unless an alternative substitution is found which can be used on a large scale,the best the world can do to save this precious resource is by reducing it's consumption.

I don't deny that there have been several attempts to power the world solely on the wind and solar energy,but again,these studies have been heralded as "scientifically groundbreaking and practically impossible" by experts in this particular field.

Perhaps,soon there will be an alternative that will equal the advantages of fossil fuels without causing any environmental pollution,but for now,as I said,it's best if we use these resources at minimum levels without totally abolishing the use of fossil fuels.


kingoflove21vher forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.