The Instigator
Dufore
Con (against)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
leet4A1
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points

styrofoam

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 4 votes the winner is...
leet4A1
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/20/2009 Category: Health
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,892 times Debate No: 7913
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (7)
Votes (4)

 

Dufore

Con

Styrofoam is continually hurting the inviorment.

I willl wait untill the second round to give my main arguement.

good luck to my future debater
leet4A1

Pro

Thanks to my opponent for starting this debate.

The resolution title makes it clear that we are debating the merits of 'styrofoam'. As PRO, it will be my job to endorse styrofoam, and as CON, it will be my opponent's task to denounce it.

With no further clarification, we can presume my opponent has used the word 'styrofoam' as a generic term for polystyrene foam, which is the common usage. [1]

My opponent has provided only one argument thus far, which is that styrofoam is hurting the environment. We will apparently have to wait until next round to get any further clarification on this, so I will await my opponent's next round argument before I rebut.

I will pose a few of my own arguments in favor of styrofoam:

1. It is versatile. Styrofoam can be used for heat insulation, industrial templates, household items such as disposable cutlery, packing protection for fragile objects.

2. It is cheap to make compared to the alternative materials necessary to make the aforementioned objects. I don't need to remind my opponent or the voters of the economic situation we are entering at present and its potential consequences. It is in these times where styrofoam and other cheap, versatile products will be essential.

3. It is light and compactible, and therefore cheap to transport. Once again, we are entering an economic recession where every cent will count.

[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] - http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Dufore

Con

well.......first I would like to point out that the links my opponent provided could be FALSE because on wikipedia(sorry if I spelled this wrong) you can edit any page you want and also create a page on whatever you want.

second, I do realize that styrofoam is cheaper, is also very versatile but may I ask is all this worth this compared to what it will do to our planet home planet earth. styrofoam is not biodegradable. sorry if im a little vague on this next part but I do not have very much time there is no current way the get rid of styrofoam,the organisms the eat up the other trash that we put in landfills cannot eat styrofoam. if you are thinking that we can burn this styrofoam wrong burning it just makes it worse by releasing toxic gases. this takes me back to my question,Is the versatility of styrofoam worth destroying our planet?????

By the way I am not a green freak i just had good reasons on this topic.
leet4A1

Pro

"well.......first I would like to point out that the links my opponent provided could be FALSE because on wikipedia(sorry if I spelled this wrong) you can edit any page you want and also create a page on whatever you want."

All those links were really for was to show that the common usage of the word 'styrofoam' is actually to mean 'polystyrene foam'. It's kinda like saying "pass me a Kleenex" when you really want a tissue. Also, we are encouraged to provide links when we make assertions, and I'd suggest you do the same in future. Wikipedia was adequate for the information I was conveying.

"second, I do realize that styrofoam is cheaper, is also very versatile but may I ask is all this worth this compared to what it will do to our planet home planet earth. styrofoam is not biodegradable. sorry if im a little vague on this next part but I do not have very much time there is no current way the get rid of styrofoam,the organisms the eat up the other trash that we put in landfills cannot eat styrofoam. if you are thinking that we can burn this styrofoam wrong burning it just makes it worse by releasing toxic gases. this takes me back to my question,Is the versatility of styrofoam worth destroying our planet?????"

My opponent's entire argument seems to be that because styrofoam is not biodegradable, that we should cease using it because doing so is damaging the planet. I have several counter-arguments:

1. In the grand scheme of the environment, landfills are our smallest problem. If we are going to spend time and money eliminating a source of environmental damage, it should be in eliminating greenhouse gas emissions, which are pretty much set to destroy the planet some time soon. Eliminating styrofoam would not only be costly (perhaps impossible at this stage), it would also be futile. Kinda like there being a building about to collapse and us working on fixing up the garden instead of the building supports.
2. Automobiles, coal-fired powerplants, cling wrap, used tyres, used solvents and their containers. These things all pose an equal or greater risk to the environment than styrofoam. Unfortunately, at this stage in time and our civilization, we can not afford to do without any of these things. The best we can do is minimize their use where possible, but with the global economic recession, the cheapest and unfortunately nastiest products are our best option.
3. Even if landfill was a major enough problem for researchers to spend time and money on, there are more intelligent ways to go about it than throwing it in a hole. With scrubbers and carbon-capture technology, we could indeed burn the styrofoam, with no adverse effects for the environment. As it is light-weight and compactible, perhaps we could compress tonnes of the stuff into a smaller volume, which would ease landfill issues.

While I agree with my opponent's overall assertion that styrofoam is bad for the environment, to eliminate it as a product at this stage would be costly and impractical. At best, we can take measures to alleviate its impact on the environment, which I'm all for.

Thanks to my opponent. Vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 2
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by leet4A1 7 years ago
leet4A1
Yeah, can't wait until that thing gets going. I think that'll mean me and the rest of the phoneless wonders will be able to vote.
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
No problem, leet. Explanations are especially necessary since the vote identification thing doesn't work.
Posted by leet4A1 7 years ago
leet4A1
Thanks for giving reasons Maikuru! It's always good to know why people voted the way they did.
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
Unusual debate. Con's arguments clearly lack finesse, but Pro concedes that styrofoam is harmful to the environment. Claiming that other products are more harmful than styrofoam doesn't negate the resolution, nor does explaining the usefulness of the product. Arguments on the minimal environmental impact of styrofoam or elaborating on the negatives of replacement efforts (e.g. introduction of new products combined with styrofoam-eliminating initiatives would have a significantly more adverse impact than the current environmental issues) could have constituted a winning position.
Posted by ournamestoolong 7 years ago
ournamestoolong
All points to pro
Posted by leet4A1 7 years ago
leet4A1
Dufore, as I cannot vote for myself, can I please ask that you do the same?
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
By waiting until the second round to post your arguments, you are essentially making this a one round debate. I'd recommend using additional rounds in the future so that you and your opponent might have a more in-depth discussion.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by conoscenza 7 years ago
conoscenza
Duforeleet4A1Tied
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 Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
Duforeleet4A1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:51 
Vote Placed by porkbunlover 7 years ago
porkbunlover
Duforeleet4A1Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Vote Placed by ournamestoolong 7 years ago
ournamestoolong
Duforeleet4A1Tied
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