The Instigator
jvava
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
Adam2
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Should environmental concerns be of more importance than economic concerns?

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 2 votes the winner is...
jvava
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/5/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,271 times Debate No: 38537
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

jvava

Con

To me, the economy should always be of the utmost importance; we can concern ourselves with the environment later. I realize, however, that not everyone agrees with my position; the question is, why?
The economy affects so much of our daily lives: our jobs, our salaries, etc. It also affects tax rates and other such things. To me, the economy determines a lot in our day-to-day lives: where we eat, what we do in our free time, what we dress ourselves in, the car we drive, etc. It just seems that the economy has such an impact on our rituals of daily life that we can't simply ignore it; and neither can the government.
The environment seems much less important to me. Sure, we should maintain healthy living conditions, but we should not focus ourselves completely on the environment. If the economy is going well, we can afford programs that will be able to clean up our environment. If we have money in our treasuries, we can afford to do research on the environment.
But that all depends on the state of the economy.
I'm a conservative, so I am pro-continental drift oil drilling. We pay too much on gas from other countries - that is something else that affects the economy, gas prices. If we took the time to drill in America, oil prices would be lower; and then, people could afford to drive places without worrying about running out of money on fuel. The people's concerns should come first - and gas prices seem more important, to me, than our environment.
What I'm simply trying to get at is that the environment seems significantly less important than the economy. Without a good economy, we can't afford to fix our environment.
It doesn't work the other way, though - with a good environment, our economy improves. This makes no sense.
Debate with me! I'm excited - this is my first debate and I am excited to read the opinions and arguments of others.
Adam2

Pro

I say this. I really think there should be a balance between the two issues. We can't give one more importance than the other. These are clearly two issues affecting everyone now. We need to worry about economic concerns because it affects everyone, but so does the environment. But I would say economic issues are more important because we as individual human beings can stop doing damage to our environment by doing simple things such as walking or riding a bike to our destinations instead of driving. Economy is something that needs to be addressed by government and cannot be done by people alone.
Debate Round No. 1
jvava

Con

I do agree with you to some extent - however, the economy affects the USA more than the environment. I don't think we should ignore environmental concerns - but I do think that we should take restrictions off of the environment and allow oil drilling to take place. This will boost our economy greatly. Once we have profited from this ingenious policy, we could then afford to pay for environmental programs. We could then afford to pay for bills that aim to improve the environment.
Here's the deal, though - I don't agree with the Republican stance on tax breaks for renewable energy. I believe that the government should offer incentives for those that utilize renewable energy - and this will help BOTH the environment and our economy.
But I don't believe that the government should hold car manufacturers as required to be innovative and have a lot of MPG. This is something that individual companies will have to decide - do they want to have bad MPG but offer cheap vehicles, or do they offer high MPG cars and offer them at expensive prices? Both have pros and cons associated with them. I know that if I was poor, I would prefer the car with bad MPG; but if I were rich, I would want the good MPG car. The middle class can decide what they want.
So, I want less government interference with the environment but I want tax breaks for those that use renewable energy. Maybe waffled a bit - but, you know, that's just me.
In a good economy, the environment and the economy should be at the same level. But in an economy like this - not bad, but certainly not good, economical concerns should outweigh environmental concerns. Why? Because the economy affects the daily life of everyone - the environment just affects those that are unfortunate enough to live in an area with bad pollution, air, etc.
Adam2

Pro

You know I don't think I need to argue with you. You are correct. I didn't even know you post as a "con." But I will say we can't downplay environmental concerns either.
Debate Round No. 2
jvava

Con

Haha, this is sort of dumb. Thanks for debating with me; well, it wasn't much of a debate, but...you know. Thank you!
Adam2

Pro

It's alright, bud. I didn't even know you posted as a "con." I thought you were "pro."
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Adam2 3 years ago
Adam2
sorry for the repeat
Posted by Adam2 3 years ago
Adam2
Whops I didn't even realize that you posted as a con.
Posted by Adam2 3 years ago
Adam2
Whops I didn't even realize that you posted as a con.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by yay842 3 years ago
yay842
jvavaAdam2Tied
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: Pro and Con both agreed that Con won.
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 3 years ago
Chrysippus
jvavaAdam2Tied
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: As the two debaters agreed, Con carries this debate. Both debaters were good sports about it, and I commend them for it.