The Instigator
Jacket123
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
1dustpelt
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Trash Costs

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 3 votes the winner is...
1dustpelt
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/26/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 983 times Debate No: 23219
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

Jacket123

Pro

I saw in other places/countries where trash cost money. People had to pay for throwing away trash. I support this because:

1. Trash takes up land and should be removed.

2. By making people pay for trash, they would be discouraged to create it.
1dustpelt

Con

I accept. Pro has the BOP.

Rebuttals

1. And will making people pay for throwing away trash solve the problem? People do not choose how much trash they make. People do not choose that they have a leftover box that needs to be thrown away.

2. Again, they do not choose to create trash. That will have no effect because the same amount of trash will be produced anyways because trash is unpreventable. After you eat chicken, there will be bones left. Trash will be created with or without people paying.

Contentions

1. Taxing(Basicaly) trash will make people dispose of it illegally. Because they do not want to pay, they can just dump it into a river or something.

Vote CON! :D



Debate Round No. 1
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by seraine 5 years ago
seraine
Pro could have possibly argued that the financial incentive would lead to more recycling.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Ixaax 5 years ago
Ixaax
Jacket1231dustpeltTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: People can easily limit how much food they waste and how much extra stuff they buy, so I agree with pro, but pro had no justification behind this so the debate easily goes to Con.
Vote Placed by seraine 5 years ago
seraine
Jacket1231dustpeltTied
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: Because you can't change how much trash you produce, it would just make people use money unnecessarily.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
Jacket1231dustpeltTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: CON substantiates his claims