resolved: environmentalists are stupid.

i affirm the resolution: resolved: environmentalists are stupid.

this is true because who really cares about the earth and global warming? i mean yes we should take of the earth that God created for us, but He is coming soon and i would like to just relax and help out some kids in africa that are starving. i mean theres not much you can do about the hole ALREADY in the ozone layer.

Definitions:

Environmentalist- One concerned about environmental quality especially of the human environment with respect to the control of pollution.

Stupid- Acting in an unintelligent or careless manner.

Both come from Merriam-Webster.

Turn your attention to my opponent's first comment: "this is true because who really cares about the earth and global warming?" I'd like to point you to what my opponent says immediately afterward: "i mean yes we should take of the earth". So, he essentially answers his own question, thereby refuting his own position by pointing out that he himself cares about the earth (and, implicitly, global warming). And, truly, since this is a question (meaning there is no evidence or argumentation), that he hasn't affirmed that "Environmentalists are stupid". However, since we've proven that he cares about the environment, he is essentially calling himself stupid; so, by turning his logic against him here, we clearly require a CON vote today.

Also, he next says "i would like to just relax and help out some kids in africa that are starving." Let's go ahead and dissect this into two parts.

First of all, the part about relaxation; this implies that my opponent is simply lazy or apathetic, yet once again this fails to prove how environmentalists are indeed 'stupid', so my opponent is not affirming with this argument.

As far as the "kids in africa" are concerned, let me go ahead and respond to this in three ways.

1. If my opponent wanted to 'relax' as much as he claimed, he would not be interested in helping children in Africa; therefore, he is either a liar by giving us conflicting claims, or he finds helping people on one continent (Africa) more important than helping the global population (via environmentalism). So, either way you choose to take this comment by my opponent, you're still going to vote CON.

2. There are people starving right here in our own country, and a starving nation, coupled with the World Economic Crisis, is a very incapable aid-provider, especially to places like Africa, where money goes to local warlords and dictators as opposed to being distributed to the people.

3. If the environment is not protected, then it is likely that all aid to Africa will be nothing more than a money pit, not only sucking up resources during an economic crisis, but will only add to our troubles when we also hit a World Environmental Crisis.

Finally, he says, "theres not much you can do about the hole ALREADY in the ozone layer." I'll respond in two ways.

1. Just because the ozone can't necessarily be fully repaired does not mean that environmentalists are stupid; the PRO provides you with no causal link.

2. The hole in the ozone layer is much like a cavity; while the cavity is a definite weakness in a tooth, extra care must be taken to ensure that the cavity does not widen or deepen, which would end up destroying the tooth; in the same way, care is needed for the ozone to ensure that both it and the Earth are not destroyed.

So, because my opponent's attacks are completely unwarranted by logic, have no link to the topic that he himself provides, and hurt his position more than they hurt my own, a CON vote is the right decision.

i stated that i wanted to relax AND help out some kids in africa, not meaning that i was relaxing and helpin' kids in africa at the same time,i would do both. so ha, you are wrong about THAT. and yes, you should vote con because i am not a debater, and debate sucks.

There is little left to say at this point, I suppose.

First is that my opponent agrees a CON vote is needed.

Second, that although my opponent claims 'debate sucks', she has joined this site, so that conflicts with the validity of her claim.

Third and finally is the fact that she herself started this topic, and if she did not want to debate, she should not have instigated a discussion of environmentalism.

I suggest not only that my opponent forfeit for her final post, but that, and believe me, I'm implying only facts, free of potential 'offense' (though I do despise political correctness), if she has a lack of intelligence or motivation preventing her from carrying on a successful and stimulating debate, that she not attempt to waste the time of serious debaters, because this site was intended for an exchange of ideas and views on different subjects by debate enthusiasts; definitely, not a place for those who have a strong dislike of this activity.

With that all said, I agree with my opponent insofar that a CON ballot is the best choice today.

i have very right as you do to be on this website.

I'd like very much not to turn this into a personal debate.

First of all, vote CON because of the fact that my opponent has abandoned all argumentation of the topic.

With that said, anyone has a right to be on the website, but if one chooses to debate here, then he or she should at least take the activity seriously and help the site to be productive as opposed to merely chanting 'debate sucks' on a website dedicated to the art of debate. While I would not deny ANYONE the right to debate here, I just think that anyone who joins ought to want to debate, otherwise he or she wouldn't get the full experience out of it; if one doesn't like debate, then there's little point to joining a site called debate.org.

So, to conclude this debate round, the CON vote is needed mainly due to the fact that my opponent has dropped my last post, in which I dissected my opponent's position, proving all the logical flaws therein. Thank you.