I am for more desalination plants in California. The first round is just to accept rules. The rules are simple. 1) Use regular English writing when arguing, and no cussing
2) The first round is just for accepting rules
If the person breaks rules, they forfeit the debate. I hope to have clean debate with whoever.
Thank you. So first things first. We all know that California is in a big drought, and some of the towns are counting their reservoirs to weeks. I think that if we put some desalination plants in California we would have the water that we needed.
Or people could learn to waste less water, create more water treatment plants in order to clean and purify the water that has been used, therefore that water can be used again. It happens all over the world; it works just fine for them, so why not California too? Just because they are on the coast of the Pacific Ocean does not mean they have to use the water from the ocean. That should be a last resort. There are things people could still do right now that would work a lot better than that.
Ok. So it would be impossible to make people use less water. What are we supposed to do, have police officers going into peoples houses and saying "you're going to jail because you had a 30 minute shower". Anyways, we have all the water out in the sea that is just wasted.
My question is simply this; how is the water in the ocean being wasted? People use the ocean water for sea salt, transportation, etc. I wouldn't call that wasting. Also, I was not inferring that we set regulations that would force people to limit their water usage. I only propose a voluntary regulation. I am from Texas, so I will use the approximately one year to a year and a half drought that we just got out of not very long ago. Texas is a coastal state, but we didn't start making desalination plants that could emit harmful emissions while in use that could further ruin the air we breathe. Sometimes it just takes time, sometimes it takes more. But, it is not necessary to spend a lot of money and resources to build something to fix one problem, and possibly cause another one. Just think about what I am saying Pro. I pass the microphone over to you. Whenever you're ready, then fire away!
And my answer is this; do boats need 35,979 feet of water to move. I will go back to your recent idea of water treatment plants. It is a good idea. Except with that method you may end up drinking the same water that a hairy man bathed in. Think about it. Would you want to drink the same water that a hairy man bathed in? This is a question for all of the voters. Would you want to drink the same water that a hairy man bathed in. And about a voluntary regulation, what are you going to say " people of California, the is going to be a drought, so volunteer to not use as much water". People know that there is a drought in California. It hadn't rained for over a month. So if people were going to volunteer to not use as much water, they would have a long time ago! And I have two questions for you. 1) Where exactly did Texas get their water for a year and a half? 2) What would Texas had done if the drought stayed. Now you think about what I said Con, ok. " Now I pass the microphone over to you"
The state of Texas got their water from the lakes and rivers flowing throughout the state. Also, like it or not, you probably already have drank water a big hairy man bathed in. Water is a nonexhaustable resource, meaning we reuse it because we cannot create new water, so if we were not going to reuse the water that we have used, we would not have any water left to use. Reusing water has worked for so long that they are even doing it in space. People turn their pee into water and use it. It is purified, it is safe, and it works. Your turn Pro.
For a year and a half! I live in Northern California, and we have currently been using the Sacramento River. We have been in a drought for about two months and people were having problems. A year and a half! And you may be right about the drinking hairy man water, but the difference of drinking water that a hairy man has bathed every two years and drinking water that a hairy man has bathed in once a week. A very big difference! And when you pee and drink it, it may work for a little while, but when you drink water you use a lot of the water for nutrient uses in your body. And you didn't answer my number 2 question. "2) What would have Texas done if the drought stayed." So I'm done, think about it. You got the floor.
I cannot find any way to try to explain my points any more plainly. What I keep noticing is that you are basing your arguments on "what-ifs". what if you're wrong? What if you're right? We do not know, but we do know what has happened in the past, and that should help us to improve the future. Enough said. To the voters, if you think the situation should be handled logically, and not based on hunches, I urge you to vote con. Thank you.
Reasons for voting decision: This was an excellent, brief debate up till round 3. I kept changing my mind as to who I thought would win. Then, in round 4 and 5, Pro made statements that were either irrelevant or absurd. Of course boats need a lot of water area to move! And the statement where he compared drinking water a hairy man who has bathed in every two years and once a week was very illogical, irrelevant, and absurd. All water has been reused, therefore you are drinking water a hairy man has bathed in EVERYTIME YOU DRINK WATER. OK back to the debate. Pro and Con were tied up till round 3 because they addressed every point they made. But in round 3, Con mentioned the harmful emissions, which Pro essentially ignored throughout the entire debate. Con could have done better if he discussed this issue further. Pro also made a few noticable grammar errors.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.