The Instigator
Epicism
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points
The Contender
charles15
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points

Re: Is using crop Bio fuels morally wrong?

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 5 votes the winner is...
Epicism
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/23/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,495 times Debate No: 7062
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (5)

 

Epicism

Con

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.)

Morally wrong = Unethnical

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.
charles15

Pro

I would first like to start my debate by saying, "thank you Epicism for writting your opening argument and I'm sure we will both have a good time debating.

Epicism: "You have an ethical obligation to reject Pro! Using food for fuel when people are dying of starvation is unethical."

Well, there are a lot of things wrong with this statement; you should make sure, that you are more careful when wording certain phrases or sentences. Now, I am aware of the starvation and poverty problems that are facing the World, its on the news every day, plus many celebrities bring the topic up constantly in an effort to bring awareness to the American people. I say this because, it helps prove the point that millions of dollars are donated, every year, to countries undergoing starvation and poverty. I am also sure that the money donated helps supply clothing, medical care,education, food (such as corn), or any other necessities

Also, how many extra items of clothing do you have that you could afford to loose, or extra video games, toys, or any other items that are not a necessity? What have you done to donate to this cause? Plus, where does one draw the line, since its immoral for America to use corn for fuel, instead of donating it to the starving nations of the World, is it then logical for everyone to give every extra thing they don't need away for this cause? Or, instead, is it morally acceptable for one to keep what one has earned because of their hard work, such as clothes, ipods, food ect. The point is, that it's not America's responsibility to feed the world, if America wants to fine, that is why there are so many organizations that do these kind of jobs. People may or may not decide to donate to the organization, and if they don't, this truth does not make it justifiable for you to say that it is an IMMORAL act. This principle applies to America's decision in using corn to fuel cars as well.

Another problem is, How would the American government pay for all this corn being shipped out, you have to keep America's economy in mind as well. Not everyone is going to be happy about paying extra taxes for a notional project to force corn into starving countries, and for just reasons too because it is not IMMORAL for America to benefit itself through using corn as a fuel. The poor countries ultimately need to depend on themselves for food. I do petty the poorer nations of the World, but they can not just depend on American donations to keep there belly's full. In your next response, please, if you can explain how you would plan on paying for this cause? Also if you are willing to take away an alternative fuel for cars, would this not rase the price of gasoline because, our economy is already suffering enough and you want to rase prices?

Before you wrote your debate, I am beginning wonder if you know the common truth; that the majority of food and money given to these poor countries is given directly to the government or dictator, who ultimately use it to "fuel" their soldiers and buy supplies to build up their armies and continue the fighting. So, the only way that America could get that corn directly to the starving people that need it is through forcing it into there by military means. This would start a terrible war and many Americans along with innocent civilians could die.

All your ideas are very communistic, they involve taking what America has rightfully earned and owns (corn) and MAKING America share it with the starving people of the World or America is deemed IMMORAL. Even though America gives millions of dollars to end poverty and starvation along with the United Nations every year. Let us keep in mind that giving is an option, for instance if I just won the lottery and I could either invest it in stocks or give all of it to the poor would that be immoral? Is it not my choice on how I spend my money? Now, would it be a good thing, of course, I do not doubt this, in fat I prbabbly would donate some money. But, if I did not this does not give you a justifiable reason to say my decision was immoral.

I look forward to your response.

Good Luck.
Debate Round No. 1
Epicism

Con

I thank my oponent for joining me in this debate, and hope for a great few rounds!

First off, I will state my position. My opinion in this debate, is that crop bio fuels are unethnical, and that no country should use them when people are constantly dieing from food shortage. Also bringing up that the use of these crops as fuel will inevitably rise food prices, worsening the fight against poverty in many nations.

On to my opponents arguements;

"I am also sure that the money donated helps supply clothing, medical care,education, food (such as corn), or any other necessities"

I admit, more donations by a number of very kind people have increased, but demand is rising so much faster that simple donations can't make the cut now. Other countries cannot rely on donations for the decades to come. It could be compaired to trying to buy a house off of tips at a Mc Donalds. Also as you stated, most of the donations are given to dictators. You conflict your own arguments.

My opponent states a number of arguments about America helping everyone, and shipping all our food. Unfortunately this isn't in my arguments, I'm only defending that it is wrong to use crop bio fuels and that we should stop using them when there are so many other choices. When I say we I mean anyone who uses them, whether it be the U.S., Russia, or any other country. We as in the human race should not use them.

The economy would not suffer from rise in gasoline prices, for there are better means to fuel already that we should use instead such as 2nd generation bio fuels that don't use crops, nuclear power, hydrogen, or compressed air. All of these are more efficient means that won't cause rising in starvation or poverty. And let me add that I am not defending these alternative means as a resolution, I am only stating that there is more than one mean to alternative fuels.

Once again, I by no means instigated that we should give excess supply to foriegn nations. I only state that crop bio fuel is wrong and that it should not be used. It would cause food shortages, along with rise in poverty. Extend my impact that if we don't conflict the use of crop bio fuels;

"This will inevitably hit hardest at the poorest people in the world's food-shortage regions."

And

"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."

Vote for Con.

Thank You!
charles15

Pro

charles15 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Epicism

Con

I thank my opponent for posting his argument in the comments section, instead of giving up due to harsh timing. May we resume as normal.

First Pro arguments, then Pro flaws with some extensions on my part.

Pro arguments;
"What you fail to reply to in your response is.... be declined the right to use it for those purposes."

I'm not in the position to argue that we must stop crop bio fuel, technically the resolution is that I must prove it's immoral but I suppose I take this up in some of my points.
1. Wont decline rights because the people who are in poverty now will want these gone, it will only mean starvation (which my opponent has never attacked, thus I am given the right to say my opponent concedes to this and it is now a try or die situation which means you absolutely should NOT vote Pro.)
2. They won't need crop bio fuels, my opponent also concedes that we have other alternatives now that are way more efficient. (i.e. 2nd gen bio fuel, compressed air, nuclear power, hydrogen)
3. My opponent consistently uses "corn" as the only crop, when I have stated throughout the debate that many more crops are at stake.

"The corn that is grown as a source for fuel is to be distributed by the country in any fashion they desire."
1. It is true they may, but I'm stating that no one should when we have cheaper more viable alternatives, and that THEY WILL ALL DIE if they do use first gen bio fuels which my opponent concedes throughout the debate.

"You can not call that act immoral, simply, because....should do this and not be obligated in giving it away."
This is the only topical argument Pro has stated this debate so far. Thank You.
1. It is clearly immoral for a dictator or any other ruler to use crop bio fuel, it takes food away from their OWN people who are already STARVING. Surely you can't call that moral, you talk as if all the countries people get to decide but they don't. If they do, they are just dooming themselves.
2. You cant expect to win that crop bio fuel is moral when you haven't even answer my contentions, starvation and poverty which are direct reasons why its not.

"Also you fail to explain how you would make this plan work. How would you pay for it? tax payers money? You cant just send tons....I discussed this in my previous argument but you failed to answer reply to it."
This is ludicrous.
1. I did answer it, my opponent seems to be skipping several lines while he reads my last 2 posts.
2. I stated that I'm not giving anything to anyone, I only state that everyone stops using them and if they want to move to a better source. Why do you think I want to give away the "corn" that you only state when its many crops we're dealing with. The countries need to stop using crop bio fuels so they can feed THEMSELVES!
3. Reverse my opponents argument seeing how it's now mine, if people don't stop using crop bio fuel then we WILL have to feed them because they WILL starve and it WILL cause military actions just as he states. All my opponents impacts with this scenario will happen only if we DON'T STOP USING CROP BIO FUELS. Now he must answer to his own argument as well.
4.Once again this is highly non-topical to this debate... So even if it did apply to me it's not a voter.

Pro flaws;
Pro spends one sentence to answer the actual debate resolution which is over ruled by my arguments. He would only have a chance to win if the resolution was changed to "Should we send food to poor nations???"

Pro never answers my impacts which I extend;
"This will inevitably hit hardest at the poorest people in the world's food-shortage regions. This would not be ethical by any means!"

And

"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."

These are two strong reasons to vote.

As you can see you should not vote for Pro's ludicrous, non-topical arguments.

Vote Con.
Thank You!
charles15

Pro

Thank you for your response.

What you fail to reply to in your response is, why should America, or any other country using corn for fuel, be declined the right to use it for those purposes. The corn that is grown as a source for fuel is to be distributed by the country in any fashion they desire. Country's are not breaking some kind of "moral code" just because they decide to use the corn for fuel instead of feeding purposes. You can not call that act immoral, simply, because it isn't. If a country has figured out away to convert corn into fuel then they should do this and not be obligated to giving it away.

Also you fail to explain how you would make this plan work. How would you pay for it? tax payers money? You cant just send tons and tons of corn to the starving of this world for free. You would have to pay for shipping, which includes hundreds of men loading an unloading packages of corn, you would also have pay for the transportation trucks, planes and ships. Not to mention, once the corn arrives to its destination, do you just leave the corn sitting
there? No, you have to deliver it to the poor people that are starving. And to do this you must first get clearance from the foreign government, which will be unlikely because the foreign government won't to give that corn directly to the people but to the soldiers who will continue to spread violence. This scenario has happened time and time again. So, in result the only way to deliver corn directly to the people would have to be by forcing the corn in there by military action. I discussed this in my previous argument but you failed to answer reply to it.

So, again I will ask you how would you plan to pay for this? I believe your heart is in the right place because donating is a good thing, but there are a lot of things to consider before doing what you have suggested.

I look forward to your response
charles15
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Epicism 7 years ago
Epicism
Geez we must be low on the voting period list...
Posted by Epicism 7 years ago
Epicism
Oh never got to say, thank you for the debate!
Posted by Epicism 7 years ago
Epicism
Oh come on... I answered all those Charles lol the shipping and paying part was my adv. I stated reasons why as well. I also answered the part about why we should "deny" them the right to use it which isn't the situation. But it's OK I guess good debate.

In the future just read your opponents arguments more thoroughly, and most of all don't call out your opponent for not answering an argument when you never answered any of mine, and I kept giving you an opportunity too. Even if you could get away with the shipping and tax arguments, or even the forceful entry it wouldn't matter much because my impacts of starvation and poverty on a global scale wasn't answered and that would cause more deaths than a thermonuclear war/ genocide going on 15 years straight. It's referred to as "magnitude".
Posted by Epicism 7 years ago
Epicism
Are you in LD? Not all debate formats do that, but I will do it next time in case anyone else feels the same.
Posted by Bnesiba 7 years ago
Bnesiba
for the below reason, i vote TIE.
Posted by Bnesiba 7 years ago
Bnesiba
you're right, unethical and morally wrong are the same... but you don't tell me what is ethical?

there are hundereds of different, conflicting ethical philosophies... neither of you tell me what 'ethical' means...

it's not the website, the site has no standard case structure.

and my comment about knowing is that you both assume that I know what YOUR definition of ethical or morally right is, without telling me...
Posted by Epicism 7 years ago
Epicism
I stated that "Morally wrong" is equivilant to unethnical. Sorry if you wanted something more clear. I'm new still to this website, are definitions usually required? Why would you suppose we don't know its meaning because we didn't type the definition?
Posted by Bnesiba 8 years ago
Bnesiba
you both have yet to define morality...

how can you possibly know what is moral without knowing what moral means?
Posted by Epicism 8 years ago
Epicism
Didn't fail to answer lol... Why do think I'm proposing to give corn away? I'm only suggesting that countries shouldn't use crops of any kind for bio fuel when they already have issues feeding themselfs... In fact if we do use crop bio fuel then we WILL have to give our stuff away because they will all starve... but not if we get rid of crop bio fuel... Anyways I'll post my arguments in a few hours, as i'm in school. Don't worry about missing the deadline I don't mind.
Posted by charles15 8 years ago
charles15
I had 2 seconds left to submit my debate and when I clicked submit apparently it did not go through. I am sorry about the inconvenience but here is my 2nd argument.

Thank you for your response.

What you fail to reply to in your response is, why should America, or any other country using corn for fuel, be declined the right to use it for those purposes. The corn that is grown as a source for fuel is to be distributed by the country in any fashion they desire. Country's are not breaking some kind of "moral code" just because they decide to use the corn for fuel instead of feeding purposes. You can not call that act immoral, simply, because it isn't. If a country has figured out away to convert corn into fuel then they should do this and not be obligated in giving it away.

Also you fail to explain how you would make this plan work. How would you pay for it? tax payers money? You cant just send tons and tons of corn to the starving of this world for free. You would have to pay for shipping, which includes hundreds of men loading an unloading packages of corn, you would also have pay for the transportation trucks, planes and ships. Not to mention, once the corn arrives to its destination, do you just leave the corn sitting
there? No, you have to deliver it to the poor people that are starving. And to do this you must first get clearance from the foreign government, which will be unlikely because the foreign government won't to give that corn directly to the people but to the soldiers who will continue to spread violence. This scenario has happened time and time again. So, in result the only way to deliver corn directly to the people would have to be by forcing the corn in there by military action. I discussed this in my previous argument but you failed to answer reply to it.

Please, in your next argument include how you would pay for getting the corn to other poorer nations and without having to do it military-wise or by making it to expensive for tax payer
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by mrsmooth27 7 years ago
mrsmooth27
Epicismcharles15Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
Epicismcharles15Tied
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 Epicism 7 years ago
Epicism
Epicismcharles15Tied
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 Bnesiba 7 years ago
Bnesiba
Epicismcharles15Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by charles15 7 years ago
charles15
Epicismcharles15Tied
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