The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

Rural areas are more beneficial than urban areas

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/1/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 714 times Debate No: 85878
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




1st Round is for acceptance only...
whosoever accepts the debate will be my opponent..


I accept this debate.

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).
Debate Round No. 1


Foremost reason that states rural areas are beneficial is, it provides fresh air to breathe which is actually a basic need for every creature. Secondly, most of the urban areas are polluted which threat our lives. So, nowadays, people prefer moving to rural areas ( Tourism). Rural areas provide us with all the basic needs of our life. In fact, our whole life, whether directly or indirectly, depends on rural areas.


Yet oxygen constitutes 20% of the Earth;s atmosphere, over 1x10 to the power of 18 ( By the time lack of oxygen becomes any real problem, developments in genetic engineering shall allow urban grown plants to efficiently create oxygen and take in carbon dioxide( Oxygen will never be a real problem.

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 ( 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 (, 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.
Debate Round No. 2


Hmm... When talking about 1 km. of rural area over 1 km. of urban area, I think then also rural areas are more beneficial. There is a lot of pollution in urban areas at every corner I guess.. At contradiction, rural areas serve us with fresh environment. My opponent said that food can be processed in urban areas too but due to unhealthy environment and pollution, the food becomes unhygienic and could cause many diseases in the stomach. Since, there is no pollution in rural areas, the food is fresh and healthy.Therefore, there are fewer diseases in rural areas.
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.


Voters, I suggest you vote for me due to lack of sources and correct grammar offered by my opponent. None of his/her points offers any scientific evidence as all. 1km of of rural areas do not exactly provide us with massive amounts of oxygen while cities create scientists, teachers, leaders and other positions that benefit society while rural areas offer none of this. I never did say that food could be processed in urban areas, I simply said that genetically modified crops that produce more oxygen and clean atmosphere can be grown in urban areas.

You claim that urban areas have more mosquitoes. Research done by the Us National Institute for Health ( 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!
Debate Round No. 3


I think most of the successful people in the world are from rural areas. Despite being poor, they are capable of doing much better than people of urban areas. The people in urban areas are very lazy because they get everything in just a blink of their eye. This makes them unfit and they get attacked by many problems like obesity and diabetes. While the people in rural areas are hard working. Thus, they are always fit and healthy and rarely get attacked by diseases.
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.


You say that most successful people in the world are from rural areas. While this may have been true hundreds or even decades ago, it is not true today. In urban areas there are schools, a large producer of successful people. People in urban areas do not get "everything in just a blink of their eye." In fact, it requires much more money to live in an urban area than in a rural area. People who are smarter, better educated and have succeeded by earning money are able to live in the city while living in rural areas does not require as much intellect or mental ability. Living in rural areas and farming requires physical ability, but society today does not need strong people, it needs clever people, for example the people that live in cities today.

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!
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Actually they're equal. Without urban areas, blacks would live in the suburban and rural areas, and I'd have to mix with them.
Posted by Reformist 1 year ago
I want to debate you

But you keep choosing boring as hell debates

Another time
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Briannj17 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
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.