The Instigator
Slugterra101
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
tsmit611
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

wind turbines are a godd source of energy

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 1 vote the winner is...
Slugterra101
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/12/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 416 times Debate No: 77600
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

Slugterra101

Pro

Wind turbines are a useful efficient and environmentally friendly source of energy.Did you know that in 70 wind farms we can power 1.3 million homes with increased capacity these giant wind eaters can be our future to power Australia with solar power. Wait till coal gets wind of this
tsmit611

Con

Wind miles are so bad because they are so stupidly large and take a hole lot of space with there massive length!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
and are a waste of money when there is no wind.
Debate Round No. 1
Slugterra101

Pro

Firstly I assume you mean wind turbine and a whole lot of space.
I would like to address three issues made in tsmit611's argument. A wind TURBINE may be tall but the width is about the size of a semi mature tree. As with no wind these giants are strategically placed where the wind always lows. now to my argument. Wind turbines are Eco friendly and can reduce the amount of coal used if wind turbines go more strain would be put on solar and kinetic energy
tsmit611

Con

I really don`t see how you will win as your jokes are corny as well as your argument because all your sources are from other websites there is no way figuring this out your self did you read my argument you also said giant wind eaters what are they eating our air. I guess the wind is turning my way.
Debate Round No. 2
Slugterra101

Pro

corny get real I refer wind eaters as in the human body the wind turbines turn the wind into energy.
Now to sum up my arguments. Firstly they are useful and efficient for the world and secondly they are Eco friendly. Thank for listening and I hope I have convinced you that Wind turbines are a good source of energy. There is the AIR of defeat.
tsmit611

Con

So your saying I shouldn't say corny but your really making this a pun war must every thing be a joke to you if not be seriously but really no how ugly they really are as well a plane could see it from a mile away.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by ZBestDebater 1 year ago
ZBestDebater
Although The contender clearly lacks any convincing arguing skills and terrible grammar/spelling, he is in the right. If everyone used wind turbines for energy, it would not only decrease bird populations dramatically, but it would also increase the number of people that go deaf, enabling us to adapt and develop more resistant, less useful hearing in the long-term, and casting us into a post-technology age, for electricity would be scarce, since wind isn't a efficient way of getting energy.
Posted by mfigurski80 1 year ago
mfigurski80
I . Can't. Read.

Please use at least one period in every post in your future debates, okay?
Posted by cathaystewie 1 year ago
cathaystewie
ironic for pro to correct con's spelling errors when the motion clearly states "godd" source of energy
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Philocat 1 year ago
Philocat
Slugterra101tsmit611Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made the (albeit unsourced) argument that wind farms can provide power for 1.3 million homes, which fulfills his burden of proof that wind turbines are a 'good source of energy'. Con simply states that they take up a lot of space (which Pro refutes and Con then drops), are useless without wind (which Pro also refutes and Con drops) and are ugly (which has no bearing on how good they are as an energy source). Despite Pro not making this latter point, Pro's arguments still outweigh Con's subjective assertion that they're ugly. Overall, this was quite a poor debate. Spelling and grammar were poor, there were absolutely no sources cited, and it quickly descended into bickering over the quality of Pro's puns. I would advise both Pro and Con to read debates by the best debaters on this website in order to observe how a good debate is set out.