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

Why Earth!?

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/20/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 576 times Debate No: 91581
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)




Why Earth!? Who cares about the Earth? It seems a lot of people are making a great hubabaloo about the Earth. Personally, I don't see why the Earth matters. Last time I tossed a burnt cigarette out the window, I didn't hear the Earth complaining (that was actually me. Jail sucks).

So ...

Y Earth?

U tell me.


First, we should begin with some definitions. I think these are fair.

Earth: The only planet in our solar system with the capability to hold life without human interference. (Note: for this debate, we will not argue for or against extra-terrestrials.)
Pollution: Something, especially human-produced chemicals, that can harm the environment.
Environment: Analogous to "Earth."
Care: To put effort into.
Ecosystem: A group of living organisms and non-organic materials that is self-sustaining.

With that in mind, I'll rebut your point of the earth not responding to you throwing your cigarette out the window.

When you throw something out, you inadvertently create an imbalance in an ecosystem. Be it a square inch of grass or a forest, that cigarette is not meant to be there. Of course, it could stay there and not create a large difference (it raining while you throw it out), but given the right circumstances (dry grass, no rain for months, dead trees), it can start a full scaled forest fire. This alone should be enough to make you think twice before simply tossing away a burning cigarette out your window. And when you put at least some effort into maybe driving to a gas station to dispose of your trash, you are caring for the earth.

I'm not going to argue for global warming, ice caps melting, or the holes in the ozone layer, but I will take a stand when it comes to people who simply choose the road of apathy, not caring about anything other than what is convenient and easiest for them. Because this really is our only earth. It's not like your baby tooth, once you outgrow it we'll just go to Mars or Pluto. You should at least put some effort into keeping the earth clean and healthy. It's like your house: You could throw your cigarette on the floor without a large repercussion to yourself, but you don't. Why? Because that's your home. You live there. You don't want to unnecessarily make a mess if you can easily avoid it.

I look forward to hearing your rebuttal.

Debate Round No. 1


I am overjoyed that someone took me on so soon!

Mr. David says that I "inadvertently" create an imbalance in the ecosystem when I tossed out that cigarette. There are two logical fallacies contained with that statement:

1. I did not actually throw out any cigarette. It was a hypothetical construct in order to make a point. FALLACY: Assuming something that isn't true.

2. The cigarette is not supposed to be there "be it a square inch of grass or a forest." The cigarette did not land in either grass or forest. It landed on the road, then bounced off into a ditch. Of course, all this happened in my head so no matter how you respond, I can switch up the scenario to where I can dodge all your refutations.

My opponent says that this is "our only Earth." So there's only one big Earth? Where do we go when it's not there anymore? I don't understand. I am not apathetic about this matter, else I would not have made a debate about it. So please don't "take a stand" against me, I'm sensitive to animosity.

Thank you.


Wonderful! I have run into some trolls on this website. I am very glad you are not one of them! I'll make my point clear.

I am not debating against you. I'm sorry if you were offended by anything I said, but know I am debating against a hypothetical construct that you presented (someone tossing a cigarette out a window). In this hypothetical construct, a unnamed man threw his cigarette out the window of a moving vehicle. This implies
1) The man wasn't focused on aiming his cigarette at a ditch, road, etc. He was focused on driving.
2) The man was then pulled over by a police officer. Note when it states "This was actually me. Jail sucks." It's quite apparent that this man did something to alert the attention of a police officer and was punished for his action.
Of course, you can change this hypothetical construct at your will, but I don't think I said anything explicitly challenging your hypothetical. Or maybe I have. I'll leave that up to the judges to decide.

You also brought up an interesting point: that if the cigarette is thrown into a ditch, nothing happens. No real consequence occurs. However, is that really the case? Where does that cigarette butt go? Most likely, rain will wash it into a storm drain, to a lake, pond, stream, ocean, etc. A recent study in 2011 states, " SDSU public health researcher and CBAG Member Richard Gersberg evaluated the effects left-over cigarette butts have on marine life and found that the chemicals from just one filtered cigarette butt had the ability to kill half the fish living in a 1-liter container of water. Cigarette filters are made of cellulose-acetate, which is not biodegradable ( - Look under Toxicity studies)."

Another possibility of where that cigarette could end up is in the hands of the city cleaners. The same site covers this topic as well. "More than 360 billion cigarettes were consumed in the U.S. in 2007. Cigarette consumption results in the littering of cigarette butts and other tobacco-related packaging. Tobacco product litter, particularly cigarette butts, has been shown to be toxic, slow to decompose, costly to manage, and growing in volume--a trend that appears to be exacerbated by the increased prevalence of indoor smoking bans. Growing concern over cigarette butt litter has prompted states and municipalities to undertake a variety of policy initiatives. In this report we estimate the costs of tobacco product litter (TPL) to the City of San Francisco. We focus mainly on direct costs, but the indirect costs associated with environmental impact and tourism while not the basis for the fee discussed herein are also discussed. The overall objective is to calculate a cost-per-pack (of cigarettes) that offsets the costs of TPL incurred by the City. TPL is estimated to cost the City $7,487,916 after applying data from the City's 2009 Streets Litter Audit. Based on a per annum pack consumption of 30.6 million, the City would need to charge a "maximum permissible fee" of $0.22 per pack to recover the costs of TPL ( - Look underneath Economic studies)."

Thus, not only is throwing a cigarette out a window potentially harmful to the environment, it's also expensive to clean up. Both of these possible scenarios could have been avoided had our unnamed driver disposed of his cigarette in a car ashtray, or stopped to take a smoke break at a gas station, parking lot, etc.

In conclusion, it is both environmentally friendly and economically advantageous to care for the environment, and therefore, the earth.

Wonderful debate and debater! You are one of the best I've seen on this site. Good luck to you.

Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Richardsonalj 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: I think it's fairly safe to assume I don't actually have to explain where I put the points. As long as you read the entire debate, it's obvious who wins. But to be on the safe side, David was the only one to have used any resources in his debate, he actually argued for his side with legitimate reasons and evidence, his conduct was well mannered and acted maturely, and not only that, his grammar, even with its err was much better than JustAnotherDebator's.
Vote Placed by Ockham 2 years ago
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments were more convincing because in the first round he pointed out that any litter creates an imbalance in the ecosystem. Con responded with the nitpick that some cigarettes land in the ditch, but Pro managed to counter even this with facts. Sources goes to Pro because he was the only one who used sources.