The Instigator
laasya
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
HeavenlyPanda
Con (against)
Winning
2 Points

industrialisation is better than environmental pollution

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 1 vote the winner is...
HeavenlyPanda
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/25/2016 Category: Technology
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 407 times Debate No: 93064
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

laasya

Pro

Industrialisation is good as it brought good changes in society
HeavenlyPanda

Con

I accept the challenge. Industrialism isn't better than environmental pollution.
Debate Round No. 1
laasya

Pro

laasya forfeited this round.
HeavenlyPanda

Con

Industrialization is important but not as important as environmental pollution. Industries are fuelled by raw materials and where do you think we get those raw materials? From the environment of course. So how is industrialization more important than environmental pollution? That's like saying the crop is more important than the rain. The crop wouldn't exist if there was no rain. But the rain would still exist if there was no crop. So which one is more important? The rain.

I'll keep this simple by referring to the book, The Lorax. I'm pretty sure everyone's read that book so you know what happens. In the book, the trees are the raw material being processed to create products. The products are being made so fast that the raw material can't keep up and soon disappears wholly. All the while, all the wild life has had to move away from the pollution. The manufacturing of products is important but without the raw material, there would be no industries. Exactly like what happened in The Lorax. The source of industries comes from the environment. If we destroy the source then the industries will no longer exist.

As for all the wildlife, if we had no protection over the environment, we could practically run out of good fish to eat, run out of trees, all endangered animals would probably become extinct, our breathing air would become unbreathable, etc. This is already happening and if there was no restrictions we would destroy the world we lived in. Therefore environmental pollution is more important than industrialization.
Debate Round No. 2
laasya

Pro

laasya forfeited this round.
HeavenlyPanda

Con

I stick to my points since there's nothing to rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by ThePunisher1234 8 months ago
ThePunisher1234
Yeah, that definitely needs clarification. As it stands, you are essentially giving one option and one of the outcomes of that action. The topic, as is, makes no sense.
Posted by Hillary4Prez 8 months ago
Hillary4Prez
Do you mean to say that industrialization should take precedence over the environment? That the government should not regulate industry in order to prevent environmental degradation? Just some clarifications because I'm considering accepting.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Codedlogic 8 months ago
Codedlogic
laasyaHeavenlyPandaTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Don't understand this debate at all but as Pro forfeited I'm giving conduct and grammar points to Con.