The Instigator
brianjustin3709
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Yassine
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

THBT protecting the enviorment is more important than developing the economy

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 2 votes the winner is...
Yassine
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/16/2015 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,884 times Debate No: 73321
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

brianjustin3709

Pro

Hi! there are 4 rounds of this debate.

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Arguments
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Closure
Yassine

Con

- I thank Pro for instigating the debate, & I accept the challenge.


Resolution:


- Protect: keep safe from harm or injury, aim to preserve [*].

- Environment: the natural world, as a whole or in a particular geographical area, especially as affected by human activity [*].

- Important: marked by or indicative of significant worth or consequence [1].

- Develop: to make active or promote the growth of [2].

- Economy: the wealth and resources of a country or region, especially in terms of the production and consumption of goods and services [*].


BOP


- The burden of proof is on Pro (for he is making the affirmative claim) to prove that, indeed, protecting the environment is more important than developing the economy.



[*] Google Definitions.

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...



Best of luck.

Debate Round No. 1
brianjustin3709

Pro

Hello! Thank you for accepting the debate.

As the government"s side, I would first like to give the definitions and parameters.

Environment: the surroundings or conditions in which a person, animal, or plant lives or operates.

Economy: the wealth and resources of a country or region, especially in terms of the production and consumption of goods and services. By improving economy, it doesn"t mean only using fossil fuels. Countries can use environmental-friendly ways, such as using renewable energy sources.

The points that I will explain in this debate:
1.Health for People all over the world
2.The need to save resources for the future

First, I will talk about the health of people.
A health environment will have clean water, fresh air, and no harmful chemicals. However, today, most cities are filled with smog and polluted water.

You can refer to the site below for more information
https://www.healthypeople.gov......

I would like to analyze and point out some of the main topics from this article.

The article states that poor air quality is a major factor in many diseases such as cancer or respiratory failure.

Also, shale gas has also placed many harmful effects in neighborhoods near extracting locations. Shale gas is natural gas occurring within or extracted from shale. Shale gas was a great discovery because it improved the economy of many countries and dropped the oil price worldwide.

But, human health must come before material gain. In 2008, a hydrologist found benzene in water wells in Wyoming above where fracking of shale gas was occurring.
Fracking also uses a tremendous amount of water that contains chemicals and other environmentally damaging materials. The runoff from fracking operations also causes tremendous environmental harm.

But along with this, there is one of the most common examples in some countries. For example, yellow dust or micro particles in many east-Asian countries.

Microparticles were named as the most toxic carcinogen according to the World health organization.
According to a research paper and studies held in Korea about yellow dust, they said "There has been yellow dust coming from these regions to Korea for many generations. However, due to the deforestation that has occurred in Mongolia and China, along with the increased industrialization and resulting pollution in China, the yellow dust storms have been occurring with increasing frequency and with greater and greater negative effects. For the past few years, the dust storms often carry oxides (aluminum, calcium, iron, magnesium, potassium and silicon) and toxic waste thus increasing the risks of respiratory and skin reactions.
In sufficient concentration, the fine particles can obscure visibility, irritate soft tissues in the eyes, nose, mouth and throat. Because of the high concentration of minerals and other pollutants, it can cause or exacerbate respiratory and cardiovascular problems. Pinkeye is a common side effect in both adults and children. The dust can also damage sensitive equipment, such as computers, etc. ".

My second argument will be the need to save resources.

Below is a speech from a leader of the EU and his opinion on the need to save the environment. This will clear up all questions about environment issues in the EU.
http://europa.eu...;
Furthermore, it will explain why the EU is in an environmental crisis, and if few"s benefits and wealth is more important the the world.

For all these reasons above, I think that environment is much more important than economy.

A point that opposition must explain is "Why is the high unemployment rates or the amount of jobs available in the country is more important than the health of all citizens around the world?"

Also, I believe that opp must point out the fact that environment protection allows no room for economic development, because country"s can use renewable forms of energy to improve the economy.

Thank you.
Yassine

Con

Preface:


- Pro has provided definitions of Environment & Economy which are consistent with mine, thus we are on the same grounds concerning terminology.


- I should remind the voters that the BOP is on Pro to establish how protecting the environment is indeed more important than developing the economy.



Case:


- My position will not exactly be the contrary of Pro’s position. I will be taking a more subtle approach:

I. Matters are to be judged in light of their objective. Thus the preservation of the Environment & the development of the Economy are each to be judged in light of their objectives: moral & substantial.

II. The development of the Economy & the preservation of the Environment are both important, though, not necessarily one is more important than the other.

III. The preservation of Humanity is from the preservation of the Environment, for humans are an essential part of the Environment.



Rebuttals:


- Pro’s entire case seems to be about the fact that developing of Economy at the expense of preserving the Environment is detrimental to the human condition, not about how protecting the Environment is actually more important than developing the Economy ; there certainly are a lot of ways to do both.



Due to limitation in available time, I’ll delay the full demonstration of my case to the next Round.



Back to Pro, & good luck.

Debate Round No. 2
brianjustin3709

Pro

brianjustin3709 forfeited this round.
Yassine

Con

- Pro has forfeited his 3rd Round. I’ll wait for him to conclude before I submit my case.



Good luck.

Debate Round No. 3
brianjustin3709

Pro

brianjustin3709 forfeited this round.
Yassine

Con

Case & Rebuttals:


1.Health for People all over the world

2.The need to save resources for the future

- Both Pro’s contentions have to do with the fact that developing the Economy at the expense of preserving the Environment leads to bad consequences, which I don’t particularly disagree with. However, this has little to nothing to do with the resolution at hand, for we are arguing about whether or not the preservation of the Environment is more important than developing the Economy. Clearly, both are important, for both have significant worth & impact on the betterment of our lives. However, is one more important than the other? Not necessarily. For instance, preserving the Environment should lead us to stop manufacturing paper, which is a huge detriment to world’s Economy [1], even to the Human Civilisation at large ; in this particular instance, developing the Economy, & thus preserving the Human Civilisation, is far more important than preserving the Environment. Nevertheless, that does not prevent us from doing whatever necessary to minimise the environmental impact of the paper industry (such as through bleaching & recycling [2]).


- Also, both Pro’s contentions can be refuted by arguing that environmental friendly solutions exist in the form of renewable energy:

1. It will improve air & water quality [3], significantly lessen water withdrawals & consumption [4], almost completely reduce carbon dioxide emissions [5], & it may also reduce healthcare cost [6].



2. It is essentially an unlimited source of energy. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimated in a 2012 report (U.S. Renewable Energy Technical Potentials [7]) that the Electricity Generation Potential from renewable resources, while accounting for the technological & environmental constraints, amounts to ~482 Tw/h, 118 times the current Electricity Use.




- Furthermore, these environmental friendly solutions contribute also as much to the development of Economy:

1. It will general immense capital for local communities in all regions, not just those with fuel or coal reserves [8].
2. It will create three times more jobs thats what fossil fuel can achieve [9].
(. . .etc).


A point that opposition must explain is "Why is the high unemployment rates or the amount of jobs available in the country is more important than the health of all citizens around the world?”


- As I just established above, both are important, & there is a practical solution to satisfy both requirements. Thus Con’s contention here is refuted.



Also, I believe that opp must point out the fact that environment protection allows no room for economic development, because country"s can use renewable forms of energy to improve the economy.


- Pro here seems to contradict himself, at one point he claims that environment protection & economic development are mutually exclusive, & next he admits that there is a solution that fulfils both environment protection & economic development, which makes them not mutually exclusive!




Conclusion:



- Pro’s contentions about Health & the Future are not sufficient either, for both can be maintained while improving the Economy as well, namely by using renewable resources.


- Pro has failed thus to establish the affirmation of his resolution, as he did not give any reason to believe why the protection of Environment is more important than the development of the Economy. Pro only argued that some forms of developing the Economy at the expanse of protecting the Environment can be detriment to human society, which is not sufficient reason to believe the former is more important than the latter, for, as I showed, there are other instances where the opposite is true.


- Pro has also forfeited two rounds of the debate, while not carrying his BOP, thus he loses the debate, & I win.



=> Vote Con.




Sources:



[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.ucsusa.org...
[4] http://www.nrel.gov...
[5] http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de... (pages 169 -170)
[6] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[7] http://www.nrel.gov...
[8] http://www.ucsusa.org...
[9] http://www.ucsusa.org...
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Yassine 2 years ago
Yassine
- Thx lanan13 for the vote :)
Posted by Diqiucun_Cunmin 2 years ago
Diqiucun_Cunmin
You'll have to define economic development. Nominal GDP growth? Real GDP? Real GDP per capita? Long-run aggregate supply increase? Shift from primary-based to secondary-based and secondary-based to tertiary-based economies? GNP increase?

Maybe it doesn't have to be precise as these definitions, but you'll probably run into semantics debators if you don't make this clear...

I for one would argue that taxing polluting firms is a form of economic growth since it eliminates the deadweight loss brought about by market failure, and thereby increases total social surplus. If we're looking at Green GDP, it's likely such a policy brings growth.
Posted by tejretics 2 years ago
tejretics
I agree.
Posted by David12N 2 years ago
David12N
There is a lot of environmental damage that happens because of things like poverty, a lot of deforestation for example. So I do think developing a good economy is more important in the sense of needing that to ensure the environment is protected. Developing green jobs and green industry would also be important for the environment and would help reduce the environmental damage from environmentally destructive industry. So again there would be a need to focus on developing the economy. If Mr Logger can't get a job and is starving to death it is going to be tough to get them and their family to care about the environment.
Posted by justinp23 2 years ago
justinp23
I made the same topic and it is a pro debate

The winner will be the pro I am sure
Posted by brianjustin3709 2 years ago
brianjustin3709
The pro debate of all time
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
brianjustin3709YassineTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by orangutan 2 years ago
orangutan
brianjustin3709YassineTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con because Pro forfeited. Con rebutted all of Pro's arguments. For example, he showed that paper, while detrimental to the environment, is nevertheless worth producing. Also, Pro had the burden of proof here, rather than Con. Pro's second source took the form of "here, look at this guy's speech and see his argument!" Con used a much wider variety of sources, and the variety of sources that he used were much better developed than, "hey, look at this speech!"