The Instigator
rohitmutneja
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
16kadams
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

environmental protection

Do you like this debate?NoYes-6
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...
16kadams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/27/2012 Category: Health
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,852 times Debate No: 24879
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

rohitmutneja

Pro

Nowadays protection of the environment is very important as the world is moving into a new era without considering any of the major problems of pollution with rapid industrialization. The best way to protect the environment is conservation. Conservation is the philosophy and policy of managing the environment to assure adequate supplies of natural resources for future as well as present generations.
Tropical forests are being destroyed at an ever-increasing rate. Estimates of the extent and rate of loss vary, but it appears that nearly half of the world?s tropical forests already have been lost, and the remainder will all but disappear in the next two to three decades. The loss is incalculable. These forests provide habitat for an estimated half of the world?s plant and animal species, provide water and fuel for much of the world?s population, and influence regional and global climate.
16kadams

Con


Definitions



In all reality, the current understanding of definitions is abusive and is just a asking for a free win. So to make the resolution actually arguable, we will be arguing for coerced (or forced) conservation.



Rebuttals



My opponent’s main contention is we need conservation. For my opponent to even have a point, he must prove it is effective in helping the environment. Which it isn’t. New studies have come to conclusions that conservation or environmental protection just wont cut it. Its expensive, hurts the economy, and worst of all will have no impact on the environment. It is not going to stop damage, and therefore is wasted money [1]. Further, decreasing consumption of leather and other items that might potentially hurt endangered animals has not been successful. For many reasons. Firstly, in places where it has been tried, tourist merchandise becomes less plentiful and hurts the economy, and there is no evidence it actually does anything useful [2].



Why mandate things that don’t work?



The case against coercion



1. Property rights



One of the main objections to forced protection is loss of rights – specifically property rights – as it forces property owners to do things they don’t want to do. This is an infringement on the rights of people. In peoples own property, coercive government agencies such as the EPA prevent people from building their own homes, taking peoples homes, forcing people to change their homes, prevented farmers from farming, etc. All on their own property. This is all an infringement upon property rights and is darn near, aw what the hell, it is unconstitutional [3].



Don’t hurt the owl! Its right to life is more then your legal rights, and your right to a home… and farming food to feed the world… and build a fence… and no glass windows, they might hit them.



My rights > other things



2. Other options



Most environmental problems needn’t be solved via governmental agencies that really like to take away your rights. Many smaller private companies in small towns have been successful in cleanups and preventing pollution. They have also been effective in conservation efforts, without coercion. They have also been shown to be more efficient, and their reforms seem to be more effective then current EPA policies and possible future proposals [4][5].



The CATO institute notes, “Given that market economies are, on average, 2.75 times more energy efficient per $1,000 of GNP than are centrally planned economies (a margin of difference that has grown steadily over time), it should be abundantly clear to all that consumers are better able to provide for efficient energy use than are central planners.”[5]



As we can see, increases efficiency is a large benefit to a free-market option. CATO and the independent institute find a private option would be more effective and less freedom robbing then the current coercive system. The biggest upside: more freedom.



3. Hurts the economy



“Ow that hurt, you cut my oil” – Economy after regulation



The U.S. Senate environmental committee concludes similar things as me, they note:


As you know, proponents of your EPA’s aggressive agenda claim that regulations that kill jobs and cause electricity prices to skyrocket will somehow be good for the American people. We come to this issue as medical doctors and would like to offer our “second opinion”: EPA’s regulatory regime will devastate communities that rely on affordable energy, children whose parents will lose their jobs, and the poor and elderly on fixed incomes that do not have the funds to pay for higher energy costs. The result for public health will be disastrous in ways not seen since the Great Depression. … [Later, doctors concluded] “These are just a few examples of the numerous reports warning of a looming public health crisis due to unemployment.”[6]



I cut out a lot of that mumbo jumbo, though if you want to read it I encourage a look. It basically said the laws are inefficient, provide no benefits, and increase health risk as children of unemployed parents are unhealthier etc etc. And sicker people is bad. Bad bad bad, no es bueno.



Ok I have had my fun. Basically it raises unemployment and hurts public health which means more ER visits which I hope you taxpayers don’t mind paying.



Conclusion:



:):)




[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk...


[2] http://www.int-res.com...


[3] http://cei.org...


[4] http://www.independent.org...


[5] http://www.cato.org...


[6] http://epw.senate.gov...


Debate Round No. 1
rohitmutneja

Pro

rohitmutneja forfeited this round.
16kadams

Con

Nice argument, but forfeit means YOU LOSE
Debate Round No. 2
rohitmutneja

Pro

rohitmutneja forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
Rfd:

. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-‘". . . . . . . . . .``~.,
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ."-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ":,
. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:". . . ./
. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . ."~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . "~,_. . . .."~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . ."=,_. . . ."-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~"; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . ."=-._. . .";,,./`. . /" . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .\`~,. . .."~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-"
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--==``
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _\. . . . . ._,-%. . . ..`
Posted by Ore_Ele 4 years ago
Ore_Ele
This topic is far too broad. You should try to focus on a particular environmental protection policy. Like for logging, require that the logging company replant the forest after harvesting. Or something like that.
Posted by jaketaz 4 years ago
jaketaz
This is a paragraph about environmental conservation, not an argument. Your position is not clear.
Posted by Axiom 4 years ago
Axiom
So is the debate, "We should protect the enviornment?" Or is it, "We should be forced to protect the enviornment?" Or is it, "The enviornment is being damaged by humans. Agree or disagree?" I'm not clear on what the topic of debate is.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
rohitmutneja16kadamsTied
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: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by YYW 4 years ago
YYW
rohitmutneja16kadamsTied
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: Forfeit. Done and done. Arguments to CON because he actually made them. Grammar to CON because PRO used a "?" for an apostrophe. Conduct to CON because PRO forfeited without a good reason. Sources to CON because he actually used them.