The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

the benefits of being a throw-away society outweighs the costs to society and the environment

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/13/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 121,155 times Debate No: 61660
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




As you know, the resolution is as follows: the benefits of being a throw-away society outweighs the costs to society and the environment. We model this resolution as follows: the scope would be for the people using the devices and the companies. Our goal is to have further development in society and make sure there"s less pollution, and no chaos. We have three constructive arguments to show why this resolution is true and should pass.
Mr. Speaker, our first point is that new devices and uses of technology are still growing.
Why does this matter? On the textbook, it said that new mobile phones appear on the market every few months. If people don"t throw away their old technologies and buy the new ones, we would have to throw the new ones out, making them obsolete. Then, more pollution would be formed because more and more devices are being thrown, leading to landfills and that would give other resources needed to be thrown away, no space. This would also be bad for society because maki


Since my opponent has neglected to provide the definition of a throwaway society, I will do so. A throwaway society is characterized by single-use products, which are immediately thrown away as waste. It is the "take, make, dispose" model. Obviously consumption is necessary for the economy, but overconsumption is not. I will be arguing that overconsumption is ultimately harmful for our society.

First of all, I would like to establish that a throwaway society is not sustainable. A multitude of studies have shown that in New York City, between 1905 and 2005, there was a tenfold rise in packaging and old products.

A world which bases its economy on a throwaway society will have consequences of a far greater magnitude than the aftereffects of the industrial revolution. Agriculture will suffer. There will be food shortages. Diseases such as asthma will be rampant. Potential drugs that could have been derived will be lost. The list goes on.

One of the most important arguments Pro will probably bring up is that a throwaway society will be good for the economy. While this may be true, there are more sustainable methods to boost production while maintaining the balance between humans and nature. Consider the circular economy, which maximizes the sustainable use and value of resources. According to a report by the British government, there are potentially billions of pounds of benefits for businesses across the economy to be more resource efficient.

Some will argue that a throwaway economy is needed to pull the economy out of a tailspin. But as Joseph Stieglitz pointed out in his book Freefall, long term "green" investments could help, as well as having a greater money multiplier effect than pure consumption. Constructing high speed railways is such a method.
Debate Round No. 1


First of all, wouldn't this lead to less pollution? Won't there be always more and more companies starting, trying to improve their technology to make life even better and more convenient for its citizens? Drugs would not be lessened? How's that even possible? Analysis please. Wouldn't this, on the contrary, be better for new drugs being invented? This would not lead to more diseases. Like I said, closing a door may mean opening a new one, with many possibilities. We have to admit tat we got this far in life because we took risks, as I said before. We have to always think ahead, of doing more, leaving a state of mind in which nothing's impossible quoted by Henry Ford. The lightbulb, the invention of cars, well they used a lot of fuel and weren't always successful. If we said no to that, our society wouldn't be as sophisticated and advanced as it is now. As you said, this is good for the economy. I think that because of everything we've gone through, is it a very smart choice to just maybe stop the throw-away society? After our society has gone this far? Do you think it's worthwhile to stop and leave everything behind.
You keep on talking about the topic of green, green, and green.
This would benefit the garbage in all those landfills. Would you not agree that if the new products are not used, they'd become obsolete? Wouldn't that just lead to more garbage? We shouldn't stop our progress right now. Look how many companies there are: Rogers, Fido, Bell. They are trying to please us. As customers, it's our responsibility to know what the next step is. We have the right to make our own decisions.
In addition, I think of the model as you buy something and throw it away maybe two to three months later. As humans, I think we're smart enough not to be so prodigal and throw away something as soon as we buy it.
Everything has to go through a process to actually be in market. Respect that. Everything is detrimental, including us.
For these reasons, this has to pass.


A throw away society would not lead to less pollution or make life convenient for citizens. In a throw away society, most companies focus on creating single use products. For instance, China creates about 57 billion pairs of single-use chopsticks every year. Taiwan produces 105 000 tons of waste plastic bags. Companies, instead of improving products, create cheap products that would soon need to be replaced, leading to consumption and profits for the company. This is characteristic of a throw away society. A throw away society does not lead to innovation.

Medicinal progress would be impeded because most of our drugs are derived from plants, and plant life would suffer from the backlash of a throw away society. Most scientists agree that asthma and a variety of other diseases (such as lung cancer) are caused by environmental factors.

"If the new products are not used, they"d become obsolete? Wouldn"t that lead to more garbage?"

This is a ridiculous claim. Consider, for instance, the "tax" that the Canadian government put on plastic bags. People now buy less plastic bags. Did this lead to more garbage? Of course not. Companies just started producing less garbage bags.

"As customers, it's our responsibility to know what the next step is. We have the right to make our own decisions."

This isn"t relevant to our debate, but in a throw away society, companies manipulate consumers into buying more. Below is a list of how companies do this:

The circular economy and green investments are alternatives to the throw away economy. These systems and methods have more benefits and less drawbacks of a throw away society. Thus the "economic cost" of a throw away society is negative.

Most of my opponents analysis is unsupported or simply pathos. And as Pro has not proven that the benefits outweigh the costs (BoP is on my opponent), I urge a Con vote.
Debate Round No. 2
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by yee123 1 year ago
Posted by wxyz2000 3 years ago

Wait, are you Pro or Con? Your arguments seem to be on the side of Con, but your resolution seems to be Pro.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by IronCurx 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: As Con stated Bop was on the side of pro, and since Pro failed to provide a good argument on how the benefits of being away... and the environment. Plus Con used good sources. And pro did not finish his/her first argument. Also pro had bad grammar a heavily one-sided debate.