The Instigator
Debater11
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
imsmarterthanyou98
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

The state of Utah should establish a policy significantly deceasing plastic waste

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...
imsmarterthanyou98
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/30/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 432 times Debate No: 53768
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

Debater11

Pro

I would just like to say to the person debating this, thank you for debating a actual issue. I am very excited to debate this.
I will now prove why we should decrease plastic waste

Plastic waste is filling up in landfills. Landfills take up spaces for houses, are toxic, and ruin the environment overall. I have two evidence card to prove this and extend a bit more about it
Landfills Are Getting Too Full
http://plasticpollutioncoalition.org...
Plastic Pollution Coalition Organization
In the US, 93% of plastics are NOT recovered (put in plastic "recycling" bins). These go straight to landfills. Artist Chris Jordan offers the following visualizations. Imagine 8 football fields covered thickly with plastic bottles: this is the equivalent to the number of plastic bottles discarded in the US every five minutes.

Our Landfills Can"t Hold All the Plastic We Demand
Plasticwastesolutions.com
Dr. Ross Headifin Promoter of plastic waste issues.
Over recent decades we have moved to a society of disposable plastic products. The rate at which we are demanding these items is growing rapidly and is unsustainable. the total world plastic production in the first decade of this century has roughly equaled the total plastic production of the entire 20th century. However that has gone unnoticed by almost all of us is the disposal problem this has made and continues to make. We now have millions of tons of plastic to dispose of every year. 30 million tons in the USA, 5 million tons in the UK and 1.5 million tons in Australia, let alone the rest of the world. Much of this plastic was manufactured for very short time use such as disposable products. They are used once for a few minutes then discarded, where it goes to landfills. There it will persist for many 100"s to 1000"s of years

So in the landfill they do not biodegrade and take up space for 1,000 years.

Second they poison us. I also have a card backing this up.

Russell McLendon
Wed, Dec 09, 2009
Plastic has made a lot of things possible in the past century, proving so durable and versatile that people were soon taking it everywhere with them. In fact, there's a good chance you have some plastic in you right now.

That's because a chemical called bisphenol-A, or BPA, seeps out of countless plastic products and ends up in us " more than 90 percent of Americans have the manmade compound in their urine, according to one CDC study. And due to BPA's knack for wreaking havoc with hormones, many health experts are now worried plastic might be making too many things possible.

BPA belongs to a broad group of substances known as "endocrine disruptors," which can cause early puberty in mice, sex changes in fish and a wide range of other animal ailments. That's raised red flags about human health risks

A policy can stop this. Policies could make it so we decrease plastic waste and plastic consumption.
Overall I have proven all of my points with evidence and thats why I strongly urge you to please vote pro/for.
imsmarterthanyou98

Con

The state of Utah should significantly increase plastic waste !

Why?
1.Becuse it would result in a massive economic boom for the state.
2.Create countless new jobs.
3.Benefit the enviroment.
4.Get rid of plastic waste.

"Utah company turns plastic waste into oil"[1]

Australian Priyanka Bakaya, a woman of Kashmiri descent, who has developed a way to turn unwanted plastic waste into oil and diesel fuel.[1]
So we should if anything increase plastic wase production.

Bakya whos PK Clean company is based in Utah currently has the capacity to turn 20,000 pounds of non-recycled plastic in 60 barrels of oil per-day for only 25$-30$.

The potential for the company seems great.[1]

"In the U.S. alone, if we converted all non-recycled plastic waste into fuel, this would represent over 10 billion gallons of oil each year," she said. "Imagine if 25 percent of all automobile fuel in the U.S. could be fueled by plastic waste?"[1]



Given more plastic waste for this company to consume it would undoubtly grow and it would surely provide Utah with a massive economic boom creating thousands of jobs and would flourish unfathomably since as PRO correctly pointed out

" Imagine 8 football fields covered thickly with plastic bottles: this is the equivalent to the number of plastic bottles discarded in the US every five minutes."
IMAGINE ALL THE FUEL!. NOT ONLY THAT THIS FUEL WOULD BE CHEAPER! TO MAKE SO CHEAPER TO BUY!!!!!!!!!!!

3.Benefit the enviroment. Having more plastic waste in UTAH for this company to consume and convert into fuel would benefit the enviroment in numerous ways. There would be less plastic going to landfiils,there would be less of a demand for fossil fuels, and CHEAPER FUEL.

4.Get rid of plastic waste... I think this is self-evidently true.

PLASTIC WASTE > FUEL


Sources.
http://www.sltrib.com...


If you value evidence and logic
Vote CON
Debate Round No. 1
Debater11

Pro

The con side said we should significantly increase plastic waste in Utah, but then they said that we could turn plastic waste into fuel which would DECREASE plastic waste, which is contradicting themselves. They are actually doing what the Pro is doing and solving the resolution. They are decreasing plastic waste by turning it into fuel so they are solving the resolution! Therefore they are not arguing for the con in the least bit, because they said we should increase plastic waste, but they would be DECREASING plastic waste and INCREASING plastic consumption, not plastic waste.
The con side also dropped the point that plastic poisons people, so therefore they agree with it.
Overall I have proved that the con side is not even arguing the con side, and showed that they dropped a point and that's why i strongly urge you to please vote pro.
imsmarterthanyou98

Con

Pro has nearly conceeded.


"The state of Utah should establish a policy significantly deceasing plastic waste"

In my opening case I effectively demonstrated that the issue is NOT the plastic waste but rather what we are DOING WITH the waste.

1.If the state of Utah would establish a policy to decrease plastic waste this company would absolutely perish since it would have no or less plastic to convert into fuel.

2.This debate is
if Utah
SHOULD establish a policy to decrease plastic.

The resolution is negated since i provided a far better alternative rather than
decreasing plastic

Utah should keep producing plastic or increase the production so there is more plastic to convert into fuel , inturn this would be better for the economy , and the enviroment.

As PRO pointed out. "BPA belongs to a broad group of substances known as "endocrine disruptors," which can cause early puberty in mice, sex changes in fish and a wide range of other animal ailments. That's raised red flags about human health risks

A policy can stop this. Policies could make it so we decrease plastic waste and plastic consumption."

I presented a far more viable alternative rather than implementing a policy. I therfore win.

Vote CON if you value evidence and logic.
Debate Round No. 2
Debater11

Pro

The con side stated that if we made a policy it would make this company that turns plastic into fuel would absolutely "perish", but that company is a POLICY! A policy is defined as: a course or principle of action adopted or proposed by a government (Webster Dictionary) and every company has to be registered by the Utah state government and they can take away that company at any time so therefore it is adopted by the government. Also the con is making a way to DECREASE PLASTIC WASTE which is NOT what the con is supposed to do. They said "The resolution is negated since I provided a far better alternative rather thandecreasing plastic" (yes with the error) but the alternative IS DECREASING PLASTIC WASTE so therefore there are not negating it, in fact they're just giving us a reason HOW to decrease plastic waste. So they are not negating the resolution at all, they are HELPING the resolution. Then at the very end they said "I presented a far more viable alternative rather than implementing a policy. I therfore win" (again I am getting this directly from their round), but there alternative IS A POLICY AND IS DECREASING PLASTIC WASTE! They also again dropped my point on plastic poisons people and therefore they agree with it.
They can attack this however they like but no matter what they say they ARE SOLVING THE RESOLUTION and decreasing plastic waste by turning it into fuel. Therefore I win this debate and that's why I strongly urge you to please vote for Pro.
imsmarterthanyou98

Con

I almost don't feel the need to post anything , however I will.

The resolution that Pro himself established and has yet to actually defend is clear.

"The state of Utah should establish a policy significantly deceasing plastic waste"

If pro is confused or failing to comprehend the terms I shall define it from Meriam-Webster.

"Policy a high-level overall plan embracing the general goals and acceptable procedures especially of a governmental body"


In my opening case I effectively demonstrated that the issue is NOT the plastic waste but rather what Utah Is DOING WITH the waste.

Therefore implementing a policy to suppress and decrease the plastic waste being produce would not solve the actual problem , however what i proposed would.

1.If the state of Utah would establish a policy to decrease plastic waste this company would certaintly suffer since it would have no or less plastic to convert into fuel.

2.This debate is
if Utah
SHOULD establish a policy to decrease and limit the plastic waste .

The resolution is negated since i provided a far better alternative rather than limiting the
plastic produced.

Utah should keep producing plastic or increase the production so there is more plastic to convert into fuel , inturn this would be better for the economy , and the enviroment.

As PRO pointed out. "BPA belongs to a broad group of substances known as "endocrine disruptors," which can cause early puberty in mice, sex changes in fish and a wide range of other animal ailments. That's raised red flags about human health risks

A policy can stop this. Policies could make it so we decrease plastic waste and plastic consumption."

I presented a far more viable alternative rather than implementing a policy. I therfore win.

Vote CON if you value evidence and logic.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TF2PRO 3 years ago
TF2PRO
Debater11imsmarterthanyou98Tied
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 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: Con win's this hands down. Conduct to Con since PRO tried to play semantics instead of actually debating, Spelling to CON PRO's case and title had had errors , Arguments to CON, sources to CON.