The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
10 Points

This House Believes that Mining cause more harm than good

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/23/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,830 times Debate No: 59424
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)




We believe that mining causes more harm because it could bring "DEATH" to the miners


I accept this debate and wish my opponent the best of luck. I remind both my opponent and the voters that the onus rests on my opponent as he is making the positive claim. I also believe it is necessary to inform the voters that my opponent must show that there is a 'higher productivity' if we ban mining than if we continue it, this then is the Spirit of the Motion. I eagerly await my opponent's first round.

Faithfully Yours,
Debate Round No. 1


Mining is the source of sinkholes and landslides. Because it removes the support of the ground if there is landslides, the miners will be affected even the "people" nearby will be affected. I have an example This iron and coal mine started under dual Chinese and Japanese control in 1905, but the mine was in territory invaded by the Japanese and became a mine using Japanese forced labor. On April 26, 1942, a coal-dust explosion -- a prevalent hazard in underground mines -- killed a full third of the workers on duty at the time: 1,549 dead. A frenzied effort to cut off the ventilation and seal the mine to kill the fire reportedly left many unevacuated workers who initially survived the blast to suffocate to death. It took 10 days to remove the bodies -- 31 Japanese, the rest Chinese -- and they were buried in a mass grave. Tragedy struck China again when 682 died on May 9, 1960, in the Laobaidong colliery coal dust explosion. We should make a move to prevent these. Because its harmful to people. Even the animals


I thank my opponent for his response. I once more remind the voters that the burden is upon my opponent and that they must show why mining causes more harm than good. I will systematically refute my opponent's case and then go on to provide some positive material of my own.

My opponent's 'argument' can be summarized into two parts for which he gives either little or no supporting analysis:
1. There is a risk associated with it.
For this he provides a series of references to certain accidents, however he presents absolutely no articles to support his view, not doe he show where he got his statistics from.
2. It is harmful to the animals.

Let us start with the first part. On the first tier he states that there are risks associated with mining, I will not deny this. I will however say this: that over the years the risk has decreased considerably. If we use good technology, such as the United States of America the death toll per year is now only 35. This is of course much less than the original amount a few decades ago which was 1500. Also now injuries only occur in 0.0381 of cases. Compare this to the benefits which I will discuss below, all rational people will state that mining is in fact very useful, with very little harm. Reports also show that in the coming year the threat will decrease so that there are only 3 deaths every 5 years.[1] Compare this with smoking which causes fatal, and painful diseases in 212,678 people per year; this aside with other deaths.[2]

Now granted this can be a problem but consider it with the benefits. Since the resolution is a comparative resolution my opponent had the burden to compare it to the benefits to show that the harm has preponderance over the benefits, this he did not do. Now I will name the benefits on two tiers: the economic tier; and the lifestyle tier. This will also include my own positive argument as well. Let us start with the economic benefits, in respect to labor employed. In total there are 379,430 people employed in the United States itself, which makes approximately $2,111,230 for workers. You will be putting all these people out of a job, which in this economic crises means many families will face problems.[3] This is in the United States of America along, there are numerous other countries. Other than this lets understand that a lot of countries depend their entire economies on coal production, Chile for example has increased its GDP per capita on mining alone and seeks to use it in the future as well. It provides 20% of the GDP, and 60% of the export of Chile.[4] Can you imagine what would happen if they stopped their coal production? Their entire economy would fail. Similarly we can take the example of Pakistan a country with an absolutely horrible economy mines 185.176 tonnes of coal every year. Now the average earning of the Pakistani is only $3 a day which allows one to barely survive, the average a coal worker earns is $12, and these workers span around 400,000 people, also 50% of the workers are from Afghanistan. It is commonly understood that if the industry closed these workers may join terrorist organizations to make enough money to survive, so you see it is important that mining continues.[6]

Now lets talk about the lifestyle and how the modern world is built on minerals or metals that we have mined. If we should stop mining then we must let go of medicine, travel, laptops, or any sorts of technology which makes uses of metals. There would be no electricity in homes because the wires are made out of copper which is a metal which is mined.[7] There would be no MRI's for medicinal purposes because metal is used in the machine[8], as metal is used in all surgical tools[9]. We would have no houses as the building uses metals, and the equipment is made mostly of metal. Other than that I mean it is nearly impossible to even count. I mean it is used in cars, travel vehicles, and in so many other ways. I have linked [10][11] other uses of metals and minerals which are mined and extremely important. Mining coal is actually used to generate large amounts of electricity in countries like Pakistan, India and Chile.

My opponent never at all enunciated his arguments, I have shown above how no harm can compare to the benefits of mining. My opponent names animals but provides no arguments for it, I should like to tell you that there are not many harmful affects on the environment now, and instead of arguing extensively, since my opponent has not properly argued, I shall only present a source.[12]


Faithfully Yours,
Debate Round No. 2


Before I start I have 5 rebuttals

1st- About the health risk- There are STILL people dying because of mining. Even though there are safety precautions, and technology to help there are still dying because of it
2nd- Technologies and stuff- I know that technology and electricity came from mining. What is the USE of it if the user is already DEAD because of mining. See it's a risk for us.
3rd - The animals- It is already OBVIOUS that animals will be harmed. Their habitat and they will be destroyed by landslide, and the landslide that caused by mining. And the water contamination also will be affected by people and ANIMALS
4th- That Mining accidents decreases every year- I do not agree on that because of the mining incident in Turkey that just happened in the month of May 2014. Turkish police have arrested 25 people following the country's worst-ever mining disaster, remanding three of them in custody.
Those held - who include the general manager of the mine - were questioned in the western town of Soma.
The bodies of the last missing workers were recovered on Saturday. The final death toll stands at 301.
There have been fierce protests against the government and the operators of the coal mine in recent days.
Among those arrested on Sunday were general manager Ramazan Dogru and the mine's operations manager Akin Celik, Turkey's Dogan news agency said.
Plin clothes police detain a protester during a demonstration to blame the ruling AK Party government for the mining disaster in western Turkey, in Istanbul May 17, 2014
Anti-government demonstrations have broken out in several cities since the disaster
Muzaffer Yildirim, a miner whose brother died in Tuesday's incident, told the BBC the managers were responsible for the disaster and "should be punished".
It occurred when an explosion sent carbon monoxide gas into the mine's tunnels while 787 miners were underground.
Soma Holding insists it was not caused by negligence. A representative said on Friday that an unexplained build-up of heat appeared to have led to the collapse.
On Saturday, hundreds of people marched through the western city of Izmir and there were protests in Istanbul and the capital, Ankara.
In Soma local authorities have banned demonstrations. Police have set up checkpoints and detained dozens of people on Saturday.
The ban followed clashes there on Friday, when riot police used rubber bullets, tear gas and water cannon when a protest briefly turned violent.
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been criticised for appearing insensitive in his reaction to the disaster.
Both Mr Erdogan and his aide Yusuf Yerkel have come under pressure after photos appearing to show them assaulting protesters were published in Turkish media.
After the last two bodies were brought to the surface on Saturday, authorities sealed the mine entrance with bricks.
5th - Job opportunities- Would you RISK your LIFE for it just for money?

Now going to my remaining arguments.

1st: Water Pollution (Which is an Enviromental risk also)
The environmental impact of mining includes erosion, formation of sinkholes, loss of biodiversity, and contamination of soil, groundwater, surface water by chemicals from mining processes. In some cases, additional forest logging is done in the vicinity of mines to increase the available room for the storage of the created debris and soil.[1] Besides creating environmental damage, the contamination resulting from leakage of chemicals also affect the health of the local population.[ Some mining methods may have significant environmental and public health effects.

This affects "Animals" who will drink the water and also "Humans" who will also drink it

2. Continuation of health risk
Mining accidents can have a variety of causes, including leaks of poisonous gases such as hydrogen sulfide[1] or explosive natural gases, especially firedamp or methane, dust explosions, collapsing of mine stopes, mining-induced seismicity, flooding, or general mechanical errors from improperly used or malfunctioning mining equipment (such as safety lamps or electrical equipment). Use of improper explosives underground can also cause methane and coal-dust explosions.

Accidents in mining may just happen anytime that will cause them DEATH, we just don't know when.

3. Continuation of Enviromental risk
The environmental impact of mining includes erosion, formation of sinkholes, loss of biodiversity, and contamination of soil, groundwater, surface water by chemicals from mining processes. In some cases, additional forest logging is done in the vicinity of mines to increase the available room for the storage of the created debris and soil.[1] Besides creating environmental damage, the contamination resulting from leakage of chemicals also affect the health of the local population.[2] Mining companies in some countries are required to follow environmental and rehabilitation codes, ensuring the area mined is returned to close to its original state. Some mining methods may have significant environmental and public health effects.
Erosion of exposed hillsides, mine dumps, tailings dams and resultant siltation of drainages, creeks and rivers can significantly impact the surrounding areas, a prime example being the giant Ok Tedi Mine in Papua New Guinea. In areas of wilderness mining may cause destruction and disturbance of ecosystems and habitats, and in areas of farming it may disturb or destroy productive grazing and croplands. In urbanised environments mining may produce noise pollution, dust pollution and visual pollution.

The majority of the world"s coal is obtained through underground mines. While underground mining, which allows coal companies to extract deeper deposits of coal, is viewed as less destructive than strip mining, it still causes widespread damage to the environment. In room-and-pillar mines, columns of coal are left to support the ground above during the initial mining process, then they are often taken out and the mine is left to collapse, which is known as subsidence. In longwall mines, mechanical shearers strip the coal from the mines. Support structures that enable the shearers" access to the mine are eventually removed, and the mine collapses.

a) Animals

-It means it is a loss of habitats. Birds, insects squirrels and other wildlife which habitated there now no longer have homes.

With that I am gladly oppose


Ajabi forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


"Please Reply"
If you started it please finish it

Now going to my last arguments

5th- Land and River Dredging

So what is dredging?
-Dredging is an excavation activity or operation usually carried out at least partly underwater, in shallow seas or fresh water areas with the purpose of gathering up bottom sediments and disposing of them at a different location.

So how does dredging connects this?
Land dredging occurs when large holes are dug out and filled with contaminated water from mine tailings. They become a breeding nest for mosquitoes and other disease-carrying insects, which could then lead to the spread of diseases like dengue fever. With river dredging, suction hoses are used to suck out minerals but the process also sucks " and later on throws " out gravel and soil. Improper disposal of these elements lead to water pollution as well.

We should stop mining before this fever gets worse

6th- Radionuclides

Radionuclides-A radionuclide or radioactive nuclide, also referred to as a radioisotope or radioactive isotope, is an atom with an unstable nucleus, characterized by excess energy available to be imparted either to a newly created radiation particle within the nucleus or via internal conversion. During this process, the radionuclide is said to undergo radioactive decay, resulting in the emission of gamma ray(s) and/or subatomic particles such as alpha or beta particles.[1] These emissions constitute ionizing radiation. Radionuclides occur naturally, or can be produced artificially.

How is it affects?
All REE-bearing minerals contain low levels of the radioactive isotopes that can become concentrated in mine tailings. Radionuclides are released as dust during mining or from exposed waste rock stockpiles where they are least containable (and mostly airborne). Radiation can also leak into the ground, and nearby water sources after they have been separated into tailings, if the tailings are not stored safely. Once radionuclides are in an ecosystem, they accumulate in plants, where the higher concentrations are ingested and ascend the levels of the food chain (Paul & Campbell, 2011).Radioactive contamination has become such a problem that monazite mining has been banned by China and the United States has imposed strict regulations effectively accomplishing the same (Schuler, Buchert , Liu , Stefanie & Merz, 2011).

7th- Dust & Metal harm
When companies break up materials during mining, the dust can release a variety of heavy metals commonly associated with health problems. As dust, these minerals (such as the asbestos-like mineral riebeckite) can be absorbed into lung tissue, causing problems like pneumoconiosis and silicosis, commonly known as "Black Lung" (Paul & Campbell, 2011). Another example of harmful dust generated is flue dust, a byproduct of mining fluorine. According to the Chinese Society of Rare Earths, every ton of REE produced generates 8.5 kilograms of fluorine and 13 kilograms of flue dust, waste materials which contain the heavy metals discussed above (Schuler et al, 2011).

With that, I end my speech for this round
Please reply


All right I would like to start by apologizing for the forfeiture. I looked at the 'time remaining' and read 8 hours where there were only 8 minutes left. Please believe me when I say I was extremely baffled when my notifications read that I had forfeited one of my debates. Once more I do apologize. I do still however believe that it did not cost me this debate. The reason of this belief is that my opponent has the burden of proof and he never justified this burden. I constantly remind the voters that the resolution is not to debate whether mining causes harm; I need not show that mining causes no harm. The resolution is a comparative one where one is to debate whether mining has a greater harm than good. My opponent never, not once makes this analysis as I did in my speech.

Now allow me to start by presenting my counter-refutations (I should note that my opponent's style is most irritating):

1. As I mentioned that the life threat is decreasing by the day. My opponent provides no counter analysis to my analysis of how this risk is necessary and humans take it everywhere. Should people no longer donate organs? Should we no longer go outside for the risk of catching infection? Now my opponent says life is precious, I could not but agree. So tell me to save (only possibly) the lives of a few people (less than 15 (see above argument for sources)) should we sentence all those who are ill to death? In one year, according to the United Nations World Health Organisation, there are three hundred million (3, 00, 000, 000) surgeries that occur in one year[1]. This is the recorded number. If mining was to stop, or if humans would not mine metals then we would not have metal to make surgical equipment.

2. The same situation applies to technology. we would not (as I mentioned in my original argument) have any MRI's to detect cancerous fats, or to detect cysts. We would not have lighting, or electricity, or medicine, or anything really. To save a potential fifteen people you would doom the entire world to a miserable life. More than 600 Pakistani's die because they do not have access to fans and air conditioners in the blistering 125 F heat. In 3 days alone 74 people died[2] because of the heat. So to save a minority you would kill the majority?

3. My arguments about country economy, and how mining is the sole means of survival for certain countries was never tackled by Proposition. I had mentioned Chile a country which is struggling to become better by using mining. Another country we can use is Greenland, it does not have independence, and bases its economy on its mining production. It is believed that mining will allow them to generate enough money to become a free country.[3][4]

4. My analysis about jobs and how many people in Pakistan, Chile, even American and Afghanistan survive because of their mining jobs was never tackled. My opponent seems to assume whoever become a miner will automatically die. That is not the case one bit, however those who become minors do earn a great much more and can survive and sustain their families (see original argument for sources)

So you see I deserve to win here and now because my counter arguments stand, also since certain arguments were not tackled they must now be assumed true regardless. My opponent needs to substantiate his claims.

Now onto some of the counter-refutations (my opponent may write a very long speech but he in fact has copy/pasted from different sites, while he mentions these sites, his argument then is only one: it causes environmental harm. He provides no solid analysis but just different types of environment harms. I will therefore only write a short peace where I answer how firstly this does not out way the good, and secondly companies now remake the land they used for mining.):

1. The process that I am taking about is called land rehabilitation[5]. Now here is the interesting part, mine rehabilitation actually 'establishes land use values equal or better to the ones before'[6]. The land is actually better than it was before after mining, the animals that lived there are reintroduced, and trees are made up, and even artificial lakes. Some mining spots have even after rehabilitation become popular picnic spots. Please read the sources [7][8][9] as they are the most important. Source 7 actually shows the trees and pictures after 14 years of work. I don't see the need to delineate the entire process here but it can be found in Source 8. The argument provided was that land is misused, I have shown sufficiently that this is not the case.


Faithfully Yours,
Debate Round No. 4


"Please read my arguments carefully"
Let me do my last round

But first let me expand your 15 deaths that you are saying
If they do mining, there will be water contamination. First if there is water contamination, the poor people who have no money to buy purified water, there will have 2 effects. 1st they will be poisoned or 2nd they will be die because of thirst or dehydration. millions of people will suffer because of it.

Second it can affect fishes. Once acid drainage is created, metals are released into the surrounding environment, and
become readily available to biological organisms. In water, for example, when fish are exposed directly to metals and H+
ions through their gills, impaired respiration may result from chronic and acute toxicity. Fish are also exposed indirectly to metals through ingestion of contaminated sediments and food items. A common weathering product of sulfide oxidation is the formation of iron hydroxide (Fe(OH)3), a red/orange colored precipitate found in thousands of miles of streams affected by AMD. Iron hydroxides and oxyhydroxides may physically coat the surface of stream sediments and streambeds destroying habitat, diminishing availability of clean gravels used for spawning, and reducing fish food items such as benthic macroinvertebrates. Acid mine drainage, characterized by acidic metalliferous conditions in water, is responsible for physical, chemical, and biological degradation of stream habitat.
And if the fish will be affected. There will be fish kills. If there is fish kill, if most of the poor people will die of hunger, or they will eat this because of hunger. They will die of food poison. And most of the fishermen will be loss. And they will have no money to buy their food, they will die of hunger.
Another million people will die.

With my enemy's arguments. I can say that he is focusing in
-Modernization (Technology)

What are the purpose of these technology if people died because of mining.

Now going to my speech

I do not say that we should ban mining, that we should stop mining. What I am proving that mining is harmful to humans, to the environment, to the animals. Is saying the negative, harmful effects of mining

I believe that i have won this debate because I proved that mining in terms of health, environmental, and economical.

Health- It is a domino effect. If there will be mining there will have many effects. If there is mining there will have the collusion of the ground. And it will affect the people live nearby. And the people who drink, use, or eat the waste it produce which can cause poison. And even the animals. And the fishes will be affected because of water contamination, and the toxic waste that have been thrown in the river, streams, or ocean.

Environmental- Just what i said, it can cause sinkholes or landslides that can destroy the beauty of a place.
It can destroy the animals habitats. If their habitat is gone. They might be endangered or badly extinct.
Mining can cause pollution also especially the water pollution.
If these resources are gone there, they will just leaving it ugly and they could not bring it back to its beautiful state.

Economical- If there is mining the mineral itself will be gone. These resources are limited and they take time to grow. If these resources will be gone, we will be in danger.
If there is mining, water contamination will occur. If water contamination occur, there will be fish kill. If there is fish kill most of the fishermen will be loss.

With that I say
I have won this debate


I feel ashamed to say that I am partly glad this is coming to an end. In any case I believe that before I give my final case there are some things I should remind the voters of once more.

The first is that the burden of proof was on Proposition to show that mining is essentially more harmful that it is beneficial. This means that it was necessary that he provide fundamental comparative analysis, and this he did not do. He should have also addressed my concerns more directly, and this once more he did not do. I have plentiful analysis, none of which he answered with statistics or evidence. I should win this debate because my opponent never engaged me, and his arguments were besides the point because he never connected it to the resolution. A resolution which is 'comparative'.

Now let me first start by addressing the counter refutations. In the case of deaths decreasing I do not see any argument, just that it causes wildlife to die. My analysis above was clear that while there is a potential for people to die, there would be many more deaths if we do not have metals for surgical instruments, or for cooking or et cetera.

My other points were never mentioned about how it increases job opportunity, and how it is necessary for the survival of many countries like Greenland, and Chile. I extend all these contentions, for they were never counter analysed.

Now my opponent brings up one major new point. How it is bad for the marine life, for this he provides an excellent source from a well respected journal. I only wonder if he, himself, read that source, as I have, for if he had, he would know that on the sixteenth (16) pagination a system is clearly outlined where processes can be done to ensure that marine life is not damaged. Also this does not happen in all cases, marine life is only harmed in some cases. This harm can be minimized to the point where it is null. My opponent then does not have a problem with mining, he has a problem with careless mining. The fact is, even if a certain percentage of marine life dies, if we stop mining, as I have shown above, millions of humans will die ever year. There will no longer be advanced medicine, no surgical procedures, no cars, no travel, no electricity. When we consider this as a comparative resolution, my opponent can just not win.

With that I believe, that the motion collapses.

Pace stackerz21,
Faithfully Yours,
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
*scratches his head* There were more than a few problems in this debate, and almost all of them were the result of Pro's posts.

So I'll go through each point allocation, starting with conduct and ending with arguments.

Conduct - This should have been a slam dunk for Pro, given the forfeit. There are several reasons why it was not, partially because of the often snarky comments made by Pro, though chiefly due to the method of citation. Copy-pasting arguments is fine if you put them in quotes and then cite them. All that you did here was cite without quoting.

S&G - Pro's arguments were often hard to read. The syntax was strange at times, and the tenses used confused me often. The structure of his arguments was just bizarre.

Sources - Again, this goes back to the method of citation. Con cited correctly with in-text citations, Pro cited incorrectly. Also, be careful with copy-pasting from Wikipedia - it includes its own in-text citations, which you didn't remove.

Arguments - Pro makes a lot of unwarranted, unsourced assertions, especially when he argues that the impact is so important. He says lives matter most, which is fine, but repeating that statement over and over isn't a weighing mechanism when every single argument made by Con is linking strongly to lives as well. I never see any direct refutation from Pro at all, and as such, all of Con's arguments stand, something that's not good for him as it means to deaths of hundreds of millions of people. His only real response is to say that he's not implementing a ban but just "stop mining," which is effectively the same - the only difference is that you don't have to support an actual legislative action. Pro never compares the level of harm from his impacts to those of Con, while Con spends a great deal of time on that exact thing. As such, I can only vote for the debater who gives me the most well-examined argument, and thus I vote Con.
Posted by Ajabi 2 years ago
I apologize for the forfeit, I looked at the debate and I thought it said 8 hours, when it said 8 minutes. Due to that when I casually came back three hours later I had forfeited.
Posted by near 2 years ago
Interesting, I believe pro is using wooden spoons as he or she is pretty much opposed to mining although might be totally not against it.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
stackerz doesn't know what he has coming.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
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: Given in comments.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Ajab forfeited, but pro focused far too much on building his own argument rather than trying to refute con's.