The Instigator
MASTERY
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Kleptin
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

It should be compulsory to recycle recyclable material and waste.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
Kleptin
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/8/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,162 times Debate No: 48704
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

MASTERY

Pro

Welcome to this debate on whether it should be compulsory to recycle recyclable material and waste.
Round 1 is for defining the argument.
I define compulsory as parallel with the law, recycle as either
(a) deliver it to a place where it is recycled, or
(b) recycle it yourself.
I define waste as anything used and material as anything that is useful for some purposes, such as cloth, bark etc.
Kleptin

Con

I thank my opponent for creating this debate and I accept his definitions and arguments.

I want to first ask my opponent to grant me some permissions:

I would ask that my opponent stick to his exact definitions and not introduce any additional restrictions or definitions in his later rounds. I do not want later rounds to turn into a fight over who meant what when who said what.

I would also ask that my opponent respect the values and morals upon which I base my arguments and judge/respond on the arguments themselves, giving me the freedom to disagree however I choose, for whatever reason I choose, not just in a manner that my opponent believes is proper, so long as my arguments are valid and logical. If my opponent agrees, then please post the first argument. If not, let us communicate via comment.

Thanks! Let's have a great debate!
Debate Round No. 1
MASTERY

Pro

My first argument on why recycling should be mandatory is that we would be wasting massive amounts of money on the things we throw away had we not recycled them. Say for example, if all mobiles were just dumped into landfill, we would have wasted millions of dollars not recovering precious material such as metals in the phones. These metals can be used to do many, many things, such as constructing lifts. Think about it - why throw away lifts? Also, had the mobiles been thrown away, huge amounts of pollution such as methane would have been produced. Methane is a very destructive polluter. I will expand on this in my next arguments.

Thanks.
Kleptin

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting all of my conditions and for his first round of arguments. Basically, we can break down his argument into two main points:

1. Recycling is a way to save money
2. Recycling can reduce dangerous environmental hazards

In the vast majority of cases, I agree with my opponent that recycling will help with the above two things. However, I do not believe that it should be compulsory to recycle the things my opponent has defined as waste.

My opponent has defined waste as "anything used and material as anything that is useful for some purposes, such as cloth, bark etc." And yes, that means *anything* that is useful for some purposes.

Oily Chinese take-out containers, used toilet paper, fecal matter, urine, hair, sweat, dust, these things all have many uses, but recycling them is usually hazardous or expensive. It doesn't make any sense for the government to enforce recycling these things.

I await my opponent's response.

Thank you
Debate Round No. 2
MASTERY

Pro

I take my opponent's rebut into one main points - it is useless to 'recycle' some things that can be reused. But please take note that reusing is recycling. Onto my main argument.

Have you ever thought about how much land is wasted by landfills? Landfill space can easily be used to do other more useful things, such as building houses. Please note that houses built on landfills will collapse. The space can also be used to do many other things, but is instead used to do something harmful. So we are combining harmful actions + harmful environment damage + space waste. We could prevent all that by recycling.
Kleptin

Con

My opponent has misinterpreted my argument.

My argument is that it is IMPRACTICAL to have the law enforce people reuse ALL things that have a possible further use. My fecal matter and urine can be used to fertilize soil, but I find it absurd to pass a law saying that I need to take time out of my busy schedule to collect it, give it to someone, or compost it myself.

As for the argument about landfills, please see the following source:

http://www.slate.com...

This article teaches that landfills can be improved to protect the environment, that there is land to open more, and that money and jobs can develop because of it.

Landfills will always be necessary, but we must balance land with cost. My opponent's suggestion to recycle EVERYTHING with a further use is expensive and impractical. I suggest we continue recycling what we are recycling now and spend money more wisely: Improve landfills.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
MASTERY

Pro

Yes, if there is land to open more for, why can't we do something more productive in it? I agree that money and jobs can develop from it, but so can the same develop from recycling plants. And why not spend the money on improving recycling plants instead of landfills? I agree that landfills will always be necessary for those things without further use, but for those things with a further use, we can always reuse it. 'Reusing is recycling'. Thank you
Kleptin

Con

Thanks to my opponent for his post:

1. Recycling plants cost more money than they save as a rule. Reusing waste requires work to restore them to usable condition.

2. Some things have a use, but in order to reuse it, we either have to do a lot of extra work, a lot of extra money, or hurt the environment even more.

3. My opponent argues that we should make it a LAW, and PUNISH those who do not use or re-use everything that has an additional use, no matter how silly, expensive, or time-wasting it is.

"It should be compulsory to recycle recyclable material and waste"
"I define waste as anything used and material as anything that is useful for some purposes"

This means that the leaves that fall from trees, human excrement, dead bodies, rotting food, confidential paper, bloody needles from HIV patients, we should spend additional money and time to find a way to recycle and reuse them instead of isolating them away.

Sometimes we need to be practical in our suggestions.
Debate Round No. 4
MASTERY

Pro

Thank you for your arguments in this debate. Yes, recycling plants do cost more than they save, but landfills, although quick and cheap, leave the left garbage produce METHANE which is 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide.

My opponents arguments are in bold.

"Some things have a use, but in order to reuse it, we either have to do a lot of extra work, a lot of extra money, or hurt the environment even more."

Even though we may need to use more work and money to recyle useable waste, we will eventually have to ANYWAYS. So, why not start early and stop the bad side of landfills?

"My opponent argues that we should make it a LAW, and PUNISH those who do not use or re-use everything that has an additional use, no matter how silly, expensive, or time-wasting it is. "

It does not take much time for a person to dump a piece of waste in the recycling bin.

Needles can be melted, rotting food can be composted, and leaves can be used to make decorations.

Thank you for the wonderful debate we had today.
Kleptin

Con

As we typically leave the last round for conclusions, not new arguments, I will let the audience decide whether or not the conduct point is to be deducted.

We as a country do a lot to try to recycle, but my opponent's suggestion that we should make an effort to legalize and punish those who do not recycle or reuse *everything* is absurd. There are many things that others can subjectively think are useful but it is irrational to force everyone to think and act the same way.

The question here has never been about whether we should recycle or not, but whether it should be a law to recycle *everything* my opponent thinks has even the slightest use instead of just recycling what we do now.

My opponent has not given a strong case as to why recycling needs to be changed in such a drastic and excessive way, has not shown a need, and has even agreed that it is expensive and time consuming beyond practicality.

I thank my opponent and the audience for their time.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by MASTERY 2 years ago
MASTERY
I agree, with many reasons. Accept the challenge, if you wish.
Posted by ZebramZee 2 years ago
ZebramZee
I disagree.
Posted by Hematite12 2 years ago
Hematite12
I agree.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
MASTERYKleptinTied
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: Pro just doesn't do the job he has to in order to win this debate. I'm not seeing responses to Con's main point, which is that it is impractical to force everyone to recycle. I would have liked to have seen more arguments from Con on how the punitive end of this would cause incredible harms, but he's given me enough to say that the harms to human beings in the punitive sense is very large. He's also given me enough on what it would be ridiculous to recycle that I would be unsure how it ever could be done at reasonable cost and without further harms to the environment. Pro simply ignores or undercovers most of these points, which is sufficient for me to give the vote to Con. As for conduct, much as it is untoward to provide new arguments in the last round, as it was not established from the beginning that this was part of the rules here, it doesn't constitute a conduct violation for me. I disregard his arguments in the final round, but I don't grant extra points as a result.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
MASTERYKleptinTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made great points about how hard it would be to enforce compulsory recycling and pro never could get around those arguments.
Vote Placed by Mikal 2 years ago
Mikal
MASTERYKleptinTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Welcome to the world of kleptin. Vanish from DDO for a year at a time, come back smash someone and leave again. After con defined waste as something hazardous and pro failed to object to this, the debate was all con. He was able to show that hazardous materials should be prioritized when recycling. This did not prove pros point because were con succeeded was showing how impractical and absurd it would be to recycle everything that pro labeled as waste.