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

Planting Excess Trees is a Good Practices

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/8/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,004 times Debate No: 58703
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




Dear readers,

Today I stand against the topic "Planting Excess Trees Is A Good Practice".

Planting Trees is a very good practice, indeed. In this world where the numbers of trees are going down rapidly, trees must be planted in greater numbers. However, anything in excess is not good.

It is true that trees provide us with oxygen, food, shelter and other useful products; but it also snatches away the place to grow crops, the area to build human shelters amongst others. It is said that by build apartment style of buildings, we can save area for planting trees. But I am against this. If this is to be done, what will be the difference between people living in jungles and people living in civilized areas?

Trees are home to millions of animals. But, many of them are poisonous. Turning cities into dense forests would invite them to live with people. I wouldn't be surprised, if in this case, a black widow spider and a man would share the same bed.

Trees must be planted; we cannot do without it. But, they should be planted in reasonable numbers.


To fully understand you stance, you want the number of trees to stay at a relative stable level and for us not to plant more than we use.

The largest factor in deforestation is slash and burn farming. Areas affected by this need excessive reforestation to deal with the massive decline of nutrients in the soil. Much of the "farmland" used in the process is wasted. (yeah its wikipedia, it kind of states my point though)

Additionally, without trying to make this a global warming debate, reforestation will help deal with the increase of CO2 in the air. This will help with global warming (if you believe in it).

As far as I know, land utilization has not become a global issue yet (in some countries yes, but globally no) so reforestation would not mean getting rid of civilized areas. I think you BoP on saying the globe has can't reforest in a large scale because of land restrictions because I couldn't find anything in either direction which leads me to believe its not really an issue.

The thing with animals and humans together: umm.... I am going to wait for clarification on this. As far as I know, there is not a major issue with animals invading peoples homes in rural areas so I don't see how having trees in urban and suburban areas would be an issue.
Debate Round No. 1


Well, for the Second Round, I start with a new point.

First of all, I would like to make some clarifications.

* The Actual Point of Argument : I never said that "the number of trees should be made to stay at a relative stable level and for us not to plant more than we use." I wanted to say that, planting excess trees and turning cities into forests is not at all a good practice.

* Relationship Between Animals (wild) and Humans : In this case, animals are considered to be wild. (it's a You tube Video, though it states my point through a visual approach). Wild animals should be left at a restricted range. They should not be mixed up with human civilization.

Now I would like to state the following points, against the topic:


Now a days, most countries (as far as I know), plant large number of trees annually, more than an average level. They are influenced by some kind of "Environment Saving without caring for Development". They waste their money on buying trees, paying the labourers' salary and some trade taxes (if they import the trees from foreign countries).


Making a forest in cities, limits the area available for public use. We can use the land for making schools, homes for the poor and/or utilize it for some general welfare of the people. For examples, open grounds for playing should not be covered with tall trees. Or take the example of planting too many trees near the houses. In the long run, the roots of the trees would damage the buildings, the cleaning fallen leaves would be a major problem and the houses would be finally termed as "haunted" (according to some, though).

So I would like to conclude with the following:

"Planting trees is good, indeed. But choosing the right type of plant, the right place and the right time is a problem. So, trees must be planted judiciously."


Rebuttal to sources:
Going over the sources you cited:

The first is an anti-carbon sinking site. The idea of carbon sinking is that you store the CO2 in some medium, such as trees. The website argues against this practice and using trees with that practice. I never talked about carbon sinking which is often considered a bad practice but trees help sustain life.

One mature tree supports two people:

The second is saying something that is just a generally good rule, "Don't put animals or plants into an enviornment that don't belong there". The article basically says don't put trees when there has never trees. So instead of trees you restore the enviornment with its natural vegatative life....

I feel like you got in an argument with someone who really wanted cities to turn into some kind of jungle-forest-city thing... which I agree is a dumb idea, because....

Rebuttal to Space Limitations and an Answer to Efficient Reforestation:

Instead it would be more efficient to make areas of high population density and forested areas. Areas of high population density, New York and Hong Kong, have few to no trees but hold populations comparable to expansive cities like Houston.
To be efficient, it would be best to built high-density urban areas that lower CO2 emmisions with smaller transportation infastructure (work is a mile away instead of ten miles away) and allow for the surronding areas to be massive forests.

Rebuttal to Economic Loss:
I couldn't find too much information on what you were saying of countries wasting massive amount of money currently on reforestation. Most of what I found was similar to what China is doing. Their reforestation to an attempt to rebuild the enviornment they destroyed and nature is having its revenge.

Rebuttal to Animals and Humans thing:
Again I feel like you talked with someone who wants jungle-city things. Under my former mentioned idea of high-density urban areas and the rest of the world reforested or back to a more original state, would mean that you wouldn't have tigers eating your kids (Hide you kids, hide your wives, because everybody gettin' eatin' up in here)

I feel like you argued with someone about jungle-cities which are inefficient and unreasonable. Reforestation is a beneficial process and a good practice.

Thanks for the debate :)
Debate Round No. 2
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by aniruddha496 2 years ago
Clarifications shall be posted on the Second Round.

Note: I have not added any sources, since all the text is from my mind.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
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: Global warming outweighs.