The Instigator
Venessa
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
WillYouMarryMe
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

this house supports eco- terrorism

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/17/2015 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,481 times Debate No: 71878
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

Venessa

Pro

I think the idea behind eco-terrorism is good. This is because the main aim of eco terrorism is to use direct action tactics such as arson and sabotage to promote environmental aims, including the prevention of deforestation, pollution and damage to eco systems... these tactics are non violent meaning they aim to disrupt organisations and damage property and do not aim to harm people.
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.
WillYouMarryMe

Con

A1: Arson and sabotage are illegal, regardless of how noble the cause is. What the eco-terrorists are doing is a blatant violation of their targets' property rights, as well as an interference to their right to pursue happiness. Eco-terrorism is both immoral and illegal; it isn't justifiable on any level.

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.
Debate Round No. 1
Venessa

Pro

well said.. however I still stand my ground in support of Eco terrorism as although there are other ways going about my argument, but the process of informing the citizens and people in different places or ranks in politics will occur faster with Eco terrorism than without it. If we have regular sit ins or conference that can get a few people into interest, taking radical actions guarantees the front page of every newspaper, magazine, the opening story to every news channel this will promote environmentalism and therefore get people more involved about our environment and how such decisions as to making a new company which produces way too much co2 should be cautioned and if possible not be allowed to have a property because it damages the earth, we didn't create the earth so why damage it with our own ignorance?
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.
WillYouMarryMe

Con

Pro hasn't really rebutted either of my arguments.

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.
Debate Round No. 2
Venessa

Pro

Venessa forfeited this round.
WillYouMarryMe

Con

WillYouMarryMe forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Very interesting.
No votes have been placed for this debate.