The Instigator
raygun
Pro (for)
Losing
42 Points
The Contender
Cody_Franklin
Con (against)
Winning
59 Points

resolved: environmentalists are stupid.

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 15 votes the winner is...
Cody_Franklin
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/11/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,755 times Debate No: 8228
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (15)

 

raygun

Pro

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.
Cody_Franklin

Con

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.
Debate Round No. 1
raygun

Pro

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.
Cody_Franklin

Con

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.
Debate Round No. 2
raygun

Pro

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

Con

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.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by MTGandP 8 years ago
MTGandP
RFD
Conduct: CON. The resolution is inherently mean.
S&G: CON. Pro had numerous errors.
Arguments: CON. Pro conceded.
Sources: TIE.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 8 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Well, perhaps he either A) is the receiver of vote bombing, in attempt to win, or
B) People are voting for him to make sure that my win record doesn't increase.
Posted by Flare_Corran 8 years ago
Flare_Corran
How did Pro get 21 votes.
Seven could be his I suppose, but who else voted for him?
Openly conceding the debate should mean a loss....
Posted by MTGandP 8 years ago
MTGandP
It's people like raygun that skew everyone's percentile by causing them to win all their debates.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 8 years ago
Cody_Franklin
It's alright. I don't like to insult if I can avoid it, but there are definitely some improvements that the PRO could make.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
PRO needs to get off this website. He obviously doesn't understand what debate is or how it works. He sounds unintelligent, illogical, and incompetant.
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by mongeese 8 years ago
mongeese
raygunCody_FranklinTied
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 
Vote Placed by MTGandP 8 years ago
MTGandP
raygunCody_FranklinTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by patsox834 8 years ago
patsox834
raygunCody_FranklinTied
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 
Vote Placed by Agnostic 8 years ago
Agnostic
raygunCody_FranklinTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Youngblood 8 years ago
Youngblood
raygunCody_FranklinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:70 
Vote Placed by tribefan011 8 years ago
tribefan011
raygunCody_FranklinTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Flare_Corran 8 years ago
Flare_Corran
raygunCody_FranklinTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 
Vote Placed by Gabby042 8 years ago
Gabby042
raygunCody_FranklinTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:70 
Vote Placed by ninjaraygun 8 years ago
ninjaraygun
raygunCody_FranklinTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:70 
Vote Placed by charles15 8 years ago
charles15
raygunCody_FranklinTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:70