The Instigator
Epicism
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
vorxxox
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points

Is using crop bio fuel morally wrong?

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 3 votes the winner is...
Epicism
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/12/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,852 times Debate No: 6899
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

Epicism

Con

(Crop Bio fuel is using edible plants such as corn to make corn ethanol or in other words, fuel. Any other questions on crop bio fuel, comment.)

I must say I am strongly against crop bio fuels!
My first argument is global starvation.

You have an ethical obligation to reject Pro! Using food for fuel when people are dying of starvation is unethical. The world's cropland resources seem totally inadequate to the vast size of the alternative energy challenge. We would effectively be burning food as auto fuel in a world that is not fully well fed now, and whose food demand will more than double in the next 40 years. The traditional human priorities on use of good cropland start with food. Famine, after all, is a human society's ultimate failure. Tightening the world's food supply by diverting major quantities of its grain stocks into fuels will drive up the prices of all food. This will inevitably hit hardest at the poorest people in the world's food-shortage regions. This would not be ethical by any means!

Rising food prices raises my next argument,
Global poverty.

Diverting grain and oilseed crops from dinner plates to fuel tanks, bio fuels are jacking up world food prices and endangering the hungry. The grain it takes to fill an SUV tank with ethanol could feed a person for a year. Harvests are being plucked to fuel our cars instead of ourselves. The U.N.'s World Food Program says it needs $500 million in additional funding and supplies, calling the rising costs for food nothing less than a global emergency. Soaring corn prices have sparked tortilla riots in Mexico City, and skyrocketing flour prices have destabilized Pakistan, which wasn't exactly tranquil when flour was affordable. With food prices so high, people wouldn't be able to afford to eat! Even a nuclear war cannot begin to compare with structural violence, which continues year after year. In other words, every fifteen years, on the average, as many people die because of relative poverty as would be killed in a nuclear war that caused 232 million deaths; and every single year, two to three times as many people die from poverty throughout the world as were killed by the Nazi genocide of the Jews over a six-year period. This is, in effect, the equivalent of an ongoing, unending, in fact accelerating, thermonuclear war, or genocide, perpetrated on the weak and poor every year of every decade, throughout the world.

It is our moral and instinctive obligation to combat famine and poverty.

I thank my opponent for joining this debate with me. Good luck.
vorxxox

Pro

First, I would like to thank my opponent for posting this topic. To refute your argument.

wrong as defined by merriam-webster 1 a: an injurious, unfair, or unjust act : action or conduct inflicting harm without due provocation or just cause b: a violation or invasion of the legal rights of another ; especially : tort

inflict as defined by merriam-webster: to give by or as if by striking b: to cause (something unpleasant) to be endured

You're trying to say that it's WRONG for us not to GIVE people OUR stuff. I have a few challenges for you
1) Name a country that is in poverty that's OUR FAULT
2) Name a country with poverty without some crazy dictator hogging all the wealth
3) PROVE to me that it is OUR RESPONSIBILITY to supply OTHER nations, and that we're guaranteed that the hungry people will get fed
4) PROVE to me that it is WRONG not to give people our stuff.

Anyway, my point is that if those countries are in poverty, that's kind of their leaders' fault.

Now for my argument:

I must say I am strongly against global warming!

Global Warming is how you get outrageously powerful storms like Katrina. And it's how you melt the polar ice caps and make sea water less salty. And it sorta helps kill a whole lot of animals. E85 reduces our emissions from gasoline by... 85%(hint hint). That would be nice since it contributes to about 22% of CO2 emmisions. Oh, and the U.S. needs to really do something about our foreign fuel dependency.

Well, uhhh, I didn't have a lot of time to write this so bear with me. I'll get to the real debate soon.
Debate Round No. 1
Epicism

Con

I thank my opponent for joining me in this topic.

Going off Pro's order,

"You're trying to say that it's WRONG for us not to GIVE people OUR stuff."
Incorrect. Extending the intro to my last argument, I'm stating that it is wrong or "immoral" to use crop bio fuel as a resource as it does more harm to society than good.
1) It doesn't have to be our fault. I only stand by the position that countries shouldn't use bio fuel.
2) I already stated that the worsened poverty would be due to lack of money for food. This goes for all countries.
3) Why should I have to prove to you that it is our responsibility? I state that we (human beings) should not use crop bio fuels.
4)No idea where this keeps coming from, I restate my position;
"I must say I am strongly against crop bio fuels!" because they are immoral. I never state that we need to give people our "stuff".
I presume this came from my last statement "It is our moral and instinctive obligation to combat famine and poverty" but what this means is we combat it by stop using crop biofuel.

"Anyway, my point is that if those countries are in poverty, that's kind of their leaders' fault."
It doesn't matter whos fault it is, my argument is that crop bio fuel will only make it WORSE.

On to global warming;
This argument is extremely irrelevant, since it has nothing to do with why crop bio fuel is not immoral (your position) and doesn't even have to do with morality in the first place. I'm taking this as some kind of counter concern, but I'll challenge it anyways.

First off my opponent has no warrants about CO2 being the cause of warming, and doesn't state how a 22% reduction in these emitions can make a dent in warming. Also the only weight his argument carries is the impact of storms and some animals dying. I strongly urge you to outweigh my impacts, which seeing that my opponent didn't reject them he concedes that this is a try or die situation. That means you should vote con to overule crop bio fuel as immoral or you can extend my impacts;

"Even a nuclear war cannot begin to compare with structural violence, which continues year after year. In other words, every fifteen years, on the average, as many people die because of relative poverty as would be killed in a nuclear war that caused 232 million deaths; and every single year, two to three times as many people die from poverty throughout the world as were killed by the Nazi genocide of the Jews over a six-year period. This is, in effect, the equivalent of an ongoing, unending, in fact accelerating, thermonuclear war, or genocide, perpetrated on the weak and poor every year of every decade, throughout the world."

As for my opponents forign fuel dependency, a large piece of Obama's stimulis is going towards alternative energy like RPS, which will lower the amount that all industries consume, Cap & Trade, which will drastically lower our level of consumption, as well as Syn fuel.

Pro clearly missed the main argument that crop bio fuel is immoral, and concedes to the entirety of my position.
It's now a matter of "Try or die"

I look foward to my opponents next arguments now that I have clarified them.
vorxxox

Pro

vorxxox forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Epicism

Con

My opponent concedes to my arguments, and the impacts. Please vote Con.

I thank my opponent for joining me in this debate, It's unfortunate he couldn't finish.

It is our moral and instinctive obligation to combat famine and poverty.
vorxxox

Pro

vorxxox forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Epicism 8 years ago
Epicism
Hate these bombers.. lol really don't see where he went with his vote.
Posted by Epicism 8 years ago
Epicism
Anyone Interested in this years alternative energy debate, I have another round set up or you can challenge me. I'm only accepting challenges on this years international topic and next years (poverty)
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by FlamingSheep 8 years ago
FlamingSheep
EpicismvorxxoxTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
EpicismvorxxoxTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by vorxxox 8 years ago
vorxxox
EpicismvorxxoxTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07