The Instigator
Affanprottoy
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
JohnMaynardKeynes
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

This House Believes Politicians Should Include Environmental Policy inorder toget elected for office

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...
JohnMaynardKeynes
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/5/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 362 times Debate No: 54061
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

Affanprottoy

Con

Environmental Policies disadvantage
JohnMaynardKeynes

Pro

I accept this debate. I will be arguing that politicians should use environmental policy in order to bolster their chances of getting elected.

I'd like to point out that my opponnet has not declared that there is any deception inherent in this resolution. He's not suggesting that politicians ought to lie about environmental legislation, or use it merely as a negotiating tool in order to get elected. Rather, the resolution addresses whether politicians ought to accentuate environmental policy when running for public office.

Now, when politicians run for office, they are expected to offer their positions on a wide-range of issues -- the environment included. So excluding any one issue is a deviation from the status quo. Con is arguing that politicians shouldn't even include environmental policy in their platforms, so therefore he has the burden of proof in this debate to prove that we are better off in all respects for politicians to exclude environmental issues from their platforms. In order to win this debate, I must only provide a single unrefuted contention.
Debate Round No. 1
Affanprottoy

Con

Affanprottoy forfeited this round.
JohnMaynardKeynes

Pro

Well, this is unfortunate. I'll give my opponent another chance, especially because he has the burden of proof.
Debate Round No. 2
Affanprottoy

Con

Affanprottoy forfeited this round.
JohnMaynardKeynes

Pro

My opponent has not made a single argument and has forfeitted every round.

To elucidate my case just for a moment, I do believe that politicians should focus on environmental policy, or at the very least include it in their problems. Climate change is a very pressing thread -- I would argue that it is the most pressing threat for future generatiosn -- and even has implications for food security, and thus has broader economic implications.

I believe that we cannot simply allow the environment to deteriorate, and to this end, politicians should include in their platforms that they desire to properly address the environment. Not including it at all to me appears an incoherent case. Why would politicians ignore such a pertinent issue, especially with carbon emissions at 400 ppm?

Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
AffanprottoyJohnMaynardKeynesTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.
Vote Placed by Romanii 2 years ago
Romanii
AffanprottoyJohnMaynardKeynesTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: No argument from Con.