The Instigator
JrRepublican
Pro (for)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
socialpinko
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

Resolved: that CFL bulbs are bad for everyone

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 8 votes the winner is...
socialpinko
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/28/2011 Category: Science
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,497 times Debate No: 15652
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (16)
Votes (8)

 

JrRepublican

Pro

This first round is to issue the challenge. I invite my opponent to begin the debate, I will rebut and argue my position in the second round alone.
socialpinko

Con

The title of this debate is Resolved: that 'CFL bulbs are bad for everyone'. To win this debate I must show that CFL bulbs can be beneficial to some people. Pro must show that they can be beneficial to absolutely no one.

CFL bulbs are beneficial to those who make money by selling them. People that make money are being benefited by that money. Money can be used to buy food, clothing, and basic necessities. So, one who makes money off CFL bulbs is obviously being benefited.

The resolution has been negated as I have shown that contrary to the resolution, CFL bulbs can benefit those who make money off of the sale and distribution of them.

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 1
JrRepublican

Pro

Contrarily, CFL light bulbs are bad for everyone involved because the neurotoxin mercury contained in these light bulbs will negatively affect the lives of everyone on the planet. While the reason for these bulbs-anthropogenic global warming-is most likely a complete fabrication, we know that mercury is a deadly chemical. While it is accurate that the sale of CFL bulbs can be monetarily beneficial, they are still universally detrimental because the mercury will escape into the environment, poisoning the ecosystems and eventually compromising the health of all people by leaking into the water table. Although businesses may make a profit, the ultimate effect is detrimental because of the negative effect upon human health and the environment.
socialpinko

Con

//"Although businesses may make a profit, the ultimate effect is detrimental because of the negative effect upon human health and the environment."//

First, your argument that CFL bulbs are harmful to the environment may be discarded as it is unsubstantiated with evidence. Second, you did not clarify in the first round whether or not 'bad' was short term or long term. While CFL bulbs may have long term negative effects(my opponent has not proven this), they definitely have short term positive effects as you conceded. In the short term CFL bulbs have positive consequence for those who make money by producing and distributing them.

The resolution has been negated and as such I urge a Con vote.
Debate Round No. 2
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by JrRepublican 6 years ago
JrRepublican
Common sense still dictates that profit is useless if you are dead. You can't take it with you. Also, an unhealthy environment and human population lead to poorer business, negating he earlier profits. Besides, the incandescents make money too.
Posted by TUF 6 years ago
TUF
If I were Con, I would have made alot different arguments. But Con wins IMO due to the fact that he provides a standard argument that we need CFL's. Pro's argument was un-substantial and lacked links, while his information on them being harmful may be true, we don't know exactly just how "detrimental" these bulbs are. If Pro would have linked some sources saying how if we continue the use of these bulbs, long terms effects will be ______. Then maybe he would have the vote. However, Con still would probably win due to the fact that he upheld his goal in the debate. All con had to do was prove that these bulbs are not bad for everyone. Even if the mercurery was harmful, the sellers still made profit off of them, thus they benefitted from im it, a Con points out.
Posted by JrRepublican 6 years ago
JrRepublican
Feel free to issue the challenge to me whenever you're available.
Posted by socialpinko 6 years ago
socialpinko
Sure. But not until some time next week as I'm going to debate Annshale, J.Kenyon, and Grape at least. It will probably be a while before I will be accepting new debates.
Posted by JrRepublican 6 years ago
JrRepublican
Okay, would you care to retry the debate??
Posted by socialpinko 6 years ago
socialpinko
Regardless of whether it's common knowledge, you made a claim and thus it was your responsibility to back up that claim with evidence which you did not.
Posted by JrRepublican 6 years ago
JrRepublican
It still remians that it si common knowledge to any informed person. Come on, it's obvious. Even you didn't dispute the claim that mercury is present. And what use is money if you're dead or dying of mercury poisoning? Common sense.
Posted by socialpinko 6 years ago
socialpinko
It's not the voters job to look that up, but your job to provide that information. You did not and only madea baseless claim.
Posted by JrRepublican 6 years ago
JrRepublican
Uhhh. Check out the EPA.s website--I don't need to prove that mercury is in CFL's, it is common knowledge. And my claim was that humanity will be harmed by mercury poisonoing. Fairly obvious.
Posted by socialpinko 6 years ago
socialpinko
That's because you brought no evidence to prove that CFL bulbs were harmful. You simply made a baseless claim. There was nothing to refute.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by TUF 6 years ago
TUF
JrRepublicansocialpinkoTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by anarcholibertyman 6 years ago
anarcholibertyman
JrRepublicansocialpinkoTied
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: See rougefox's vote.
Vote Placed by RougeFox 6 years ago
RougeFox
JrRepublicansocialpinkoTied
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: Semantics win. Not going to look for mercury/environment evidence. You need to provide the evidence. Business argument makes sense. Pro, try to use words like "in general" or add an "on balance" before the resolution. If that's not there, then it will be open to semantics.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
JrRepublicansocialpinkoTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: "In the short term CFL bulbs have positive consequence for those who make money by producing and distributing them." - as noted Pro was arguing on balance, this could have been refuted by noting on balance was not part of the resolution and Pro just introduced it afterwards
Vote Placed by bradshaw93 6 years ago
bradshaw93
JrRepublicansocialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: pro did not clarify on whether bad meant short term or long term. con showed that cfl bulbs could be good in the short term while pro did not prove that cfl bulbs were bad for the environment.
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 6 years ago
Chrysippus
JrRepublicansocialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro fulfilled his burden, establishing that CFL's are bad for everyone. Con tried to win on semantics but failed, as CFL's can be good for some people in the short run and bad for everyone long-term.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
JrRepublicansocialpinkoTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Con won by exploiting a semantics loophole (thus giving him the arguements, but costing him the conduct).
Vote Placed by CiRrK 6 years ago
CiRrK
JrRepublicansocialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: lol social u need to stop taking debates just for the sake of taking debates. But the impact of environmental destruction is plausible from the mercury argument. Just because he didnt say where its from, doesnt negate it. I knew its true anyway, and looked it up myself to confirm. That outweighs the business argument because it subsumes the benefit of profit: profit is necessitated on a healthy environment and unhindered human activity.