Rural areas are more beneficial than urban areas
Debate Rounds (4)
whosoever accepts the debate will be my opponent..
BEST OF LUCK
By the way, i'm assuming that this is proportionate, i.e. 1km of rural space against 1km of urban space. I'm also assuming that this debate is based both on what the areas currently produce (farms produce food) but also their potential to produce (cities could produce food if they had to).
Currently many governments and organisations are trying to reduce pollution.
More can be found by simply googling: "Air Pollution reforms". In the very near future pollution will probably drop thanks to such reforms.
You say more people are moving to rural areas. That is not true at all. A UN report (esa.un.org/unpd/wup/Highlights/WUP2014-Highlights.pdf) has shown that urban population exceeded that of rural population in 2005 and that rural population and now beginning to drop. More people are living in urban areas.
You say that our whole life depends on rural areas. While we may rely on food for life, I made this clear in the first round (I assume that I was right because you did not contradict me) that we were not talking about ALL rural areas against ALL urban areas. While rural areas as a whole may be more beneficial (depending on your definition of beneficial) there is A LOT (www.newgeography.com/content/004088-rural-character-america-s-metropolitan-areas, www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18623096) of rural space against a tiny amount of urban space. If you were to remove from rural areas the surface area of a city there would still be 95% or so (see above sources) of rural spaces left. 100 kilometres squared of urban gives more benefits than 100 kilometres of rural space, because there is already a lot of rural space and if we were to take away 100km squared it would not make much of a difference in food production.
Urban spaces provide much more potential for growth. A large concentration of people means that there is a large concentration of ideas, and new technology that can benefit everyone can be spread extremely easily. A large concentration of people means that there must be some form of government, (there are no Senates or Parliaments in rural areas) leading to better organisation of infrastructure and taxes.
Next I shall outline my other arguments and debunk my opponent's arguments.
Secondly, In urban areas sanitation is a big problem. In case of rainfall, the water gets collected on the road and becomes a home for mosquitoes. On the other hand, rural areas have no problem of sanitation because the area is spacious and provides easy way to pass the water.
You claim that urban areas have more mosquitoes. Research done by the Us National Institute for Health (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2536341/) shows that in Ghana malaria parasite rates are much higher in rural areas then in urban areas. Urban areas allow for much more treatment of diseases because the authorities have access to a lot of people. However, in Rural areas there are much higher infection rates because of lack of treatment. It is much more expensive to provide treatment and medicine to people who live in rural areas.
I suggest you vote for Con!
By this, I want to say that a country can progress only when it's people are healthy with healthy mind.
Because well said, A sound mind works only with a sound body.
Yes, it is healthy to live in a rural area. However, that fact is becoming more insignificant as people living in urban areas can have their illnesses treated quickly while in rural areas diseases have nothing stopping them. See the source in my last argument for malaria statistics in urban and rural areas. Also, the increasing number of machinery that is used in rural areas is making it easier to work in rural areas and rural people are thus working much less.
Cities possess much more potential for advancement than farms. Why are urbanised countries such as the United States doing so much better than farming countries such as Africa and South East Asia? Simply because machinery, genetically modified crops, the internet, computers, and almost every single technological advancement that we use today (this website included) has come from an urbanised area or created by someone who has been educated in a city. Voters, I call upon you to vote for Con!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Briannj17 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||5|
Reasons for voting decision: First point on conduct. Conduct goes to pro for not asking for our vote halfway in the debate. I found con very rude in doing so since the debate wasn't over. I therefore call this a breach of conduct. However con did make better Argents backed up by research and sources. Therefore arguments and sources go to pro.
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.