this house supports eco- terrorism
Debate Rounds (3)
this means that supporting eco terrorism would bring about awareness to the environmental issues that big companies that are constantly releasing CO2 into the atmosphere would be bringing to the future such as extreme global warming and more damage to the ozone layer and in the worst case scenario bioaccumulation from the chemicals leaked into the rivers by companies which is very dangerous to us and a disaster to habitats.
A2: There are far more efficient and less intrusive ways to raise awareness of environmental issues, such as fund-raisers and public presentations. Eco-terrorism is actually counter-productive because it causes the public to associate environmental protection with the unethical actions of eco-terrorists. Cost/benefit analysis reveals that eco-terrorism is detrimental to its own cause.
I'm not sure what exactly the resolution is, but I've shown that eco-terrorism is an all-around stupid idea, so I presume that it has been negated.
Also, if we compare with the authorities that often use brutal means to put down peaceful protest such as fire hoses and pepper spray, the treatment of Eco terrorists is often worse. unlike terrorism, the crime committed does not aim to create a climate of fear amongst the people it only seeks to influence the people revealing and educating the public as to the many atrocities committed against the earth.
It doesn't *matter* if it is a effective way of spreading environmental messages; it is still illegal and immoral. For such crimes to be permitted, there would have to be an *enormous* benefit coming off of them, and that simply does not exist with eco-terrorism. Pro has not been able to show a single instance in which eco-terrorism successfully led to reforms with significant positive impacts. It is far more plausible that eco-terrorism would just give a bad reputation to the environmental protection movement; just look at how negatively the EPA is viewed among the public-- it's actions are relatively moderate compared to those of eco-terrorists! Eco-terrorism would elicit an even *more* negative response. It is clear that eco-terrorism should be rejected-- most vehemently so by those who care most about encouraging the public to "go green".
The resolution is negated.
Venessa forfeited this round.
WillYouMarryMe forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.