The Instigator
Pro (for)
5 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

UK Green Party can do 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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/28/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 374 times Debate No: 70840
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




A outline of what Green party stands for is a non violent approach which i do not have a problem with, what i do have a problem with, as i imagine a large majority do as well is a reduction in military presence when at a time we arguably need it the most in the last ten years. In addition they would have the UK Trident missile removed. These are just some of the seriously harmful policies they would have introduced.


The UK Green party seeks to help the environment primarily. They strongly disapprove of using taxpayer pounds to fund wild conservative military campaigns, all of which leading to further environmental degradation. I do not see the so called urgency in defense you are referring to. ISIS will be presumably controlled by Americans, Kurds, Saudis etc while UK remains somewhat isolated from the region so no military action is necessary. The percentage we spend on military should be cut and given back to the community through education and entitlement programs. What UK needs to focus on is traditional socialist values such as giving everyone the fair chance that is desperately needed right now. Our economy is tanking and can only be resolved through redistribution to get money flowing back into the economy from the 1% to the masses who will actually pump it back into the economy. This Idea is something Conservatives have been strongly apposed to, and Green Party members highly supportive of. Not to mention, they are the only ones looking out sincerely for the environment and without them nonsensical legislation may be passed and there will be a lack of innovation towards renewable energy. Overall, I see no harm in the Green Party and you have only listed things military related, which I have already shown are not necessary.
Debate Round No. 1


I think you are under playing the threat of foreign powers, ISIS as we know is now lauching various attacks on european soil who are we to know when the next attack may be or when or how big it will be.

ISIS aside The Week Magazine published on the 28th February an article called Russia's War games, it basically said that the military chiefs of the UK stated the England had entered a cold war with Russia. Why at a time of conflict would green party even dream of scrapping trident and all military forces possibly putting the 64 million inhabitans of this island in danger. The argument is of course the expense of war and granted in costs a lot but so will the plan to build 500,000 homes from scratch in fact it's so expensive the leader (Natalie Bennett) couldn't even mention how they where to obtain this funding.

Here is the interview:;

Natalie Bennett failed to deliver the method of how they would fund a idea of building 500,000 homes. Not only does she do female politicians a disservice and females in general but she did not even reading up on the subject in the interview yet again proving the Green parties minority effect and just how chaotic it would be for them to gain any additional power.

Green party lacks clear vision and knowledge of future policies As i will adress in my next round Brighton and Hove is a classic exapmle of the disorganised chaos created by the green party. As we know the econmy is already on the rise and as part of a Conservative goverment it would be a priotry.



Moses_xTx_Secrets forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


To conclude I would like to thank my opponent and I would also like to adress a case study of Green parties faliure in the only council where they can directly excert authorit.

Brighton and Hove is a classic example of what can happen if more power is shared with the green party not only that, but how devastating they can be even for the environment they seek to almost solely to protect.

This article is written by Notes from Broken Society" First and foremost, there has been a failure of vision. What does the Green Party in Brighton and Hove stand for? Ask that question and you will get a range of answers – 20mph zones, higher parking charges, meat-free Mondays. Those are policy positions; probe further and ask for the strategic vision, and you will for the most part be met by silence. Or, more likely, ridicule and anger. Like Liberal Democrat community politicians – whom in method and approach they often resemble – they have discovered the hard way that Government is hard and testing, and requires something more than pure oppositionism."

From this we can gather Green parties lack of ambitious meaningful vision on future projects or projects in general that are actually beneficial to the public effect there control.

Another major disruption of which the green party are the main instigators is their approach to local planning issues. The planning department within the City's council often recommend a planning application for approval only for it to go before the Green led council and be refused. They regularly go against the recommendation of these planning experts yet these green councillors are simply layman with no specialist housing or planning knowledge. They are following some delusional agenda that goes completely against Government directives to create housing. These refusals are in the majority of cases appealed and are considered by an independent body which regularly overturns the council decision and approves the planning on appeal. The cost of these appeals has to be paid for by the losing side ie. the Brighton and Hove City Council. This is unnecessarily costing the rate payers of the City hundreds of thousands of pounds every year. As a result they have become despised and a laughing stock and there is no way they will be voted in again. Locals have learnt their lesson and it has been a hard and bitter pill to swallow.


(The Article)



I apologize for missing the second round!

The Greens will for sure be the only ones looking to push much needed environmental agenda. The country is going to waste and hopefully they will be able to save the rapid degradation. I am a firm believer that must we must act now and push this agenda first because it will be too late very soon.

In addition, I still believe the Green Party's policy of redistribution is greatly attributable to the UKs success in the future generations to come. Conservative policies have shown to not work since early european philosophers, to Hitler, and to Reagan.All failed at the expense of their people while socialist/communist countries have prospered such as ussr and china.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by bsh1 1 year ago
I hope my comments are useful in helping you to improve. By "direct clash" I mean rebutting specific arguments made by your opponent, rather than just putting forth your own separate reasons why your side is better. You're arguments were very separate, and you didn't engage much with what the other one said. In a debate, engagement is essential, because I don't just need to know why I should believe your side, I also need to know why the other side is incorrect.
Posted by LouisMuston123 1 year ago
I think the sources and the arguments i put forward where more relevant than anything else. I also used more examples and used sources where needed. My opponent also did not really answered any points or issues raised by me. To conclude the fact that he had to forfeit the second round also is telling of his incapacity to answer the questions raised by me.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bsh1 1 year ago
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: You must discuss the impacts of their claims. I buy that the Green party will do more to help the environment, but how much can they actually do, and why does helping the environment outweigh the lack of planning that Pro suggests they suffer from? Similarly, I buy that the Greens are disorganized and disregard professional advice, but can that harm be quantified, and why does it outweigh the potential benefits to the environment that they might bring if elected? Ultimately, this topic is comparative; yet, I don't see much comparison--Pro tells me why they're bad and Con tells me why they're good, but neither assess those alleged harms in contrast to those alleged benefits, which makes it really hard for me to pick a winner. There wasn't much direct clash. So, it's really just a matter of personal preference, i.e., do I believe disorganization outweighs environmental protection. I vote Pro b/c his arguments are sourced and seem more credible. Con just barely assert stuff w/o warrants.