The Instigator
Phil
Pro (for)
Winning
54 Points
The Contender
Nate
Con (against)
Losing
38 Points

River Rafting Should Not Be Regulated

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/15/2007 Category: Sports
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,105 times Debate No: 2
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (28)

 

Phil

Pro

The wild rivers of the USA belong to the people, not to environmental advocates or park rangers. If a group of people want to raft down one of America's rivers, they should not be required to get a permit. Common sense, general safety rules, and environmental care should be used instead.
Nate

Con

Permits should be required on Americas' rivers for three major reasons.

The average white water rafter does not have the training to safely navigate many of the regulated rivers. By requiring permits on rivers, especially those in wilderness areas we are protecting the livelyhood of American citizens. Unfortunately, common sense and general safety rules are strong enough guidelines to follow when rafting down these dangerous rivers.

On rivers where permits are required the environment is extremely fragile. The average American does not have the training or knowledge to inhabit these areas without causing severe harm to the ecosystem. By opening up rivers where permits are required we are going to put pristine and untouched wilderness in extreme danger.

Neither the US government nor the state governments would have enough funding to patrol and monitor these wilderness areas if they were not regulated. By deregulating Americas' rivers we would be further constricting funds that the government just doesn't have.
Debate Round No. 1
Phil

Pro

Let's breakdown your 3 points:

1. America is all about freedom and liberty, and that includes the freedom to do "stupid" things. If I don't have the experience necessary to go down a river, but I decide to do so anyway, that's my fault and I'll have to pay the price. Looking beyond that, I'd love for you to explain how exactly a government application somehow magically proves that I'm qualified to raft down a river. We're also not talking about protecting the livelihood of Americans, we're actually talking about Big Brother controlling the choices of Americans. It's not the government's job to protect Americans from themselves. According to your point of view, we need to get rid of anything that could lead to someone getting injured or dying.

2. Here we go, now we're getting to the heart of the debate..."the environment". Somehow this "extremely fragile...ecosystem" has survived for billions of years, animal herds, and mother nature's worst storms, but people in a rubber raft is going to destroy it. Not to mention that these river's ecosystems stretch for miles and miles beyond the rivers themselves in most cases. If you think about it, groups of people can backpack into these areas without a permit, but we're not worried about them destroying the ecosystem, just the people on the rubber boats. I find it funny that people actually think we humans have the power to destroy this planet. The next time you take a flight, get a window seat and then stare out at the amount of vast emptiness and see if you start to feel a little smaller than you do right now.

3. Are you listening to yourself? "Deregulating America's rivers"??? Are you kidding me, do you think we live in Mother Russia. You would think if something was referred to as "America's rivers" that any and all Americans could actually tour the rivers of their own freewill. Well, that is apparently not the case. As for funding the state governments, thank you for the joke of the day. Please, search your endless database and point to a single government bureaucracy that actually works. And here you are, wanting to give more money to a bureaucracy who's responsibility it is to patrol and monitor our rivers in order to stop the American's from damaging some water and rock ecosystem with a raft. I think you've actually made a strong case as to why we should in fact dismantle these patrolling bureaucrats.

Let's be honest though, permits are required for one major reason...power. Someone wants the power to decide who gets to enjoy the rivers. The reason, well, if you're an environmentalist, then it's because your nose is a little bit higher than the rest of us. If you're a politician, it's to court votes by giving the impression that you're "environmentally friendly". If you're a rafting enthusiast, then it's because you don't want to see other boats when you're on the river. Everyone has their reason, I guess my reason is that I like my freedom, and believe those rivers belong to all of us.
Nate

Con

Hey Phil,

I love the personal attacks in round one of the debate. They just made my day. It's amazing how far away from the real issue a person can get when they are concentrating on attacking their opponent on a personal level.

For this round of the debate I'm not going to bring anything new to the table for two reasons.

First, I want you to re-read the round one argument and really analyze the points you are trying to get across. Focus on the points and not the personal attack strategy.

Second, I am unable to take the time to rip your argument the new one that it deserves because I need to study for midterms and I am also sick with a viral infection.

Good Luck!!!

-Nate
Debate Round No. 2
Phil

Pro

Nate, I did not use any personal attacks, but nice try. This is a trick you undoubtedly learned from your liberal professors and the liberal media. If there's any hint of an aggressive or assertive argument, it's deemed as a "personal attack" in order to make the debater look like a jerk. I called you no names, and in no way did I discuss or attack your personal life. This is a frivolous claim on your behalf.

I don't need to re-read any of the previous arguments. I've made a very clear case as to why the rivers should be open to all Americans, not just those people who fill out a lengthy permit application, pay a fee, and in some cases wait for several years.

I think I did an excellent job explaining who wants access to the rivers limited to only a few, and what their motives are. I also explained why we're not damaging the so called eco-system.

Just because you claim to be able to "rip [my] argument" doesn't mean you are actually able. Maybe in your closing argument you'll get around to wooing us.

I hope you get better soon, and I look forward to your closing argument.
Nate

Con

This is going to be short and sweet because I am too damn sick to really think of anything to type or really to take the time to type.

People are stupid. It's human nature. Some people are smart and some people are stupid. Rivers are regulated to keep the stupid people from going down them. When stupid people go down regulated rivers illegally often times they get hurt. Once they get hurt the smart people have to go in and rescue them which costs money.

Many rivers require permits because the stupid people that like to get hurt and white water raft like morons can't figure out how to get permits. The permit system was put in place to keep the stupid people out. The one thing they do understand is that they will get in trouble if they go down the river without a permit.

Most of the world's ecosytem isn't extremely fragile but the government likes to label it as such because stupid people understand the word fragile and they are less likely to hurt fragile things (unless they are really stupid). If you were to take all the stupid people who like to raft and deregulate the rivers then all the stupid people would definitely hurt the ecosystem because stupid people in packs turn into REALLY stupid people and really stupid people mess with fragile things.

So what have we learned here today kids? Well we learned that rivers should be regulated by a permit structure or other means to keep the stupid people out that like to get hurt and also hurt the ecosystem. For stupid people the permit structure is like a lock on prescription bottles for children. Yay!!!

Thank You,
Nate
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Nate 6 years ago
Nate
Honestly, my closing argument was more of a joke then anything, though it was insightful. I do believe that it is a mixture of smart and stupid people that puts the smart people in charge of making these decisions. Or we could just got with a long established means of choosing things...Natural Selection!!!

-Nate
Posted by tela5 6 years ago
tela5
This is in reference to Nate's closing argument.

I am curious as to WHO puts the smart people in charge of making these type of decisions for the stupid people anyway?
Are they self appointed?
Posted by PreacherFred 6 years ago
PreacherFred
From a debate point of view, I had to side with Phil. It bothers me, however, that he believes "I find it funny that people actually think we humans have the power to destroy this planet. " I don't think it is funny at all. Sad, really!
Posted by Harlan 6 years ago
Harlan
The shape was not the sifnificant point of my statement. I was referring to the utilization of almost all of Americas plains for farming. It is disgusting. I am not against farming or food. I am lamenting upon the death of the environment.
Posted by easy2know 6 years ago
easy2know
As a small town farmer, rectangular fields worked quite well with our equipment, maybe in the future we could do circles. Seriously Phil is so right on, if we continue to let our government set regulations on everything we do our freedoms will completely disappear.

Dorothy Thompson:
When liberty is taken away by force it can be restored by force. When it is relinquished voluntarily by default it can never be recovered.
Posted by Harlan 6 years ago
Harlan
Phil's statement about the plane thing actually discouraged me from his argument. When I fly in a plane and look out the window (when flying in the US) I am disgusted. The landscape has been transformed man made world stretching out for miles. All I can see are little rectangles: Farm field after farm field to make a sellable crop. WE LIVE IN A RECTANGULAR WORLD.
28 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by NiamC 1 week ago
NiamC
PhilNateTied
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 FuzzyCatPotato 4 weeks ago
FuzzyCatPotato
PhilNateTied
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 talks safety pro talks stupidity
Vote Placed by ANONYMOUS2282 1 month ago
ANONYMOUS2282
PhilNateTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: IDK
Vote Placed by CheeseFries 3 months ago
CheeseFries
PhilNateTied
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:40 
Vote Placed by Seeginomikata 5 months ago
Seeginomikata
PhilNateTied
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: Neither sited cited sources. Both sides had negative tone. Con arguments made more sense, as common people cannot be trusted with navigating white water rivers, nor can they be trusted not to hurt the environment. Both these facts have been proven historically and are undeniable.
Vote Placed by m93samman 3 years ago
m93samman
PhilNateTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by iKaleb 3 years ago
iKaleb
PhilNateTied
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:04 
Vote Placed by tbar 4 years ago
tbar
PhilNateTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Phil 5 years ago
Phil
PhilNateTied
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 ChevySdyme99 6 years ago
ChevySdyme99
PhilNateTied
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