The Instigator
M4sterDeb8er
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Chaos88
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

The Lorax has had a negative impact on the environment

Do you like this debate?NoYes-4
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...
Chaos88
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/29/2012 Category: Arts
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,344 times Debate No: 25359
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)

 

M4sterDeb8er

Pro

I would like to argue that despite the ecological message of Theodore Geisel's The Lorax, the book has overall had a negative impact on the environment because the paper involved to print all the copies sold of The Lorax have not all come from sustainable forests. In addition, much of the paper has come from China, and supports its economy. Granted China's lax laws on environmental standards, I believe that it is fair to say that purchases from China indirectly contribute to a worse environment because the money will go to build more and more ecologically unfriendly factories that will work under questional ethics, and will dump thousands of pollutants into the air and water of China.

Would anyone like to say otherwise?
Chaos88

Con

This sounds like fun, and since I assume you have the burden of proof, I look forward to you proving that any copy of this book was made in China and/or from a non-sustainable forest. Or your new argument...
Debate Round No. 1
M4sterDeb8er

Pro

M4sterDeb8er forfeited this round.
Chaos88

Con

As my opponent has yet to make a founded argument, I will start.

It is impossible to prove whether or not a single copy of The Lorax was ever produced from either source Pro claims, so until Pro offers a shred of evidence as to how The Lorax had a negative impact, Con will win by default.

However, let's assume for the time being that what Pro said is true. This means nothing.

First, The Lorax was written 1972 [1]. This was at the height of the environmental movement, between the hippies and the creation of the EPA in 1970, the book was likely a byproduct of this movement [2]. It is entirely reasonable to assume that this movement, of which The Lorax was a part, aided in the development of sustainable forests. After all, that is exactly what the book was advocating. Additionally, the book is recyclable.

The other point Pro brings up is China's lax laws. If The Lorax is indeed being published in China, this brings in revenue to the nation. This revenue brings wealth over time. And with that wealth, China can, at some point, rein in its pollution. America did not care too much about the pollution during the Industrial Revolution, but after a while, when we had wealth, we, as a nation, decided we can take steps to improve the environment. However, this cannot occur until there is wealth.

Is the destruction of the rainforest, that which is due to "slash-and-burn" farming, a political issue? No, it is one of survival. Individual families are destroying the environment to simply survive. Once survival is assured through obtaining wealth, then people can look at the big picture, and afford the changes that need to take place. So, if China is profiting from the destructive manufacturing of The Lorax, it is a step towards reversing any damage done.

When Al Gore was flying around the world in a private jet, expanding his already large carbon footprint, he was forgiven by environmentalists because his message was more important than the extra damage he was causing. The same could be said about The Lorax, which tells the story of the consequences for not caring about the environment to both children and adults who read to them, over and over again.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://www.epa.gov...
Debate Round No. 2
M4sterDeb8er

Pro

M4sterDeb8er forfeited this round.
Chaos88

Con

Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
M4sterDeb8er

Pro

M4sterDeb8er forfeited this round.
Chaos88

Con

Extend all arguements.
Debate Round No. 4
M4sterDeb8er

Pro

M4sterDeb8er forfeited this round.
Chaos88

Con

Vote Con, for the obvious reason.

It is a shame the instigator did not participate in a single round of this silly debate. Even more of a shame is that Pro couldn't have simply forfeited quickly, instead of having me wait three days at a time to post my argument.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by yuiru 5 years ago
yuiru
Sounds like the typical slippery slope fallacy.
Posted by RationalMadman 5 years ago
RationalMadman
This is undebatable for con.
Posted by bossyburrito 5 years ago
bossyburrito
Lol I was about to say something, then I realised how stupid I was.
Posted by ObiWan 5 years ago
ObiWan
Really? You learn something new everyday...
Posted by adontimasu 5 years ago
adontimasu
Theodore Geisel is Dr. Seuss' real name. :P
Posted by ObiWan 5 years ago
ObiWan
Not Dr. Seuss' Lorax?
Posted by adontimasu 5 years ago
adontimasu
That's a shame. I thought you were referring to the character causing the environmental problems in the context of the story; that would have been interesting to see proven.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by famer 5 years ago
famer
M4sterDeb8erChaos88Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by phantom 5 years ago
phantom
M4sterDeb8erChaos88Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: ff's