Aquarium Hobby
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
JLPicard
| Voting Style: | Open | Point System: | 7 Point | ||
| Started: | 7/7/2014 | Category: | Miscellaneous | ||
| Updated: | 7 years ago | Status: | Post Voting Period | ||
| Viewed: | 1,191 times | Debate No: | 58664 | ||
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)
 Pro Debate over if the Aquarium Hobby is good for the envirmoment. First Round is for acception only I own 10 Aquariums so bring it on!  Con |
 |
|
Pro About most to all of the fish in the hobby from both fresh and saltwater are bred in fishfarms. Fish caught out of the wild go for a high price and could of been bred in the hobby. Many countries thought put a ban to collecting fish out of the wild for the trade including Brazil, Colombia, and Thailand. Today you can find wild varities of fish that have been bred in the trade for years. With draining the wetlands in Southeast Asia and building Dams in the Amazon, Fish are dieing the the thousands each day but those same ecaxt fish are still swimming around the the trade. For example the Zebra Pleco is a rare and exotic fish native to a tributary of the lower Amazon. Brazil put a ban on its collection when the Belo Monte dam was built but the previous collected fish were bred. Bioligist say the Pleco will go extinct by 2030 but they will they live forver in the hobby. Another species in the same condition is called the Redtailed Shark, Not a shark But a minnow that lives in the wetlands of Southeast Asia that is currently Extinct from draingage. Today the Fish is a common fish in the hobby sold a low a $5. Con Until there comes a time that Aquariums have zero environmental impact, they will be bad for the environment. |
 |
|
Pro Us aquarist enjoy it. Like some people like to draw some people breed fish and keep fish. Because of most of our fish being bred the Salinity, Ph and tempurture doesn't need to be monitered as it used to be. Is that a bad thing that people enjoy spending time with fish and enjoying caring for them. An organazation came out Called C.A.R.E.S Preservation to help aquarist and other people learn about fish in the hobby that are endargered or exinct in the wild. Having Cares is giving Enviromental impact to all species. I would accually rather keep a threatned species in my aquarium because people out there don't give a crap about that fishes well being as the hobby might be its last resort. http://www.carespreservation.com... Con What do Aquariums consume? Aquariums consume energy, raw materials and time. and What do Aquariums produce? Pollution, and joy to those who harbor them. This is not a hobby that is good for the environment. |
 |
Post a Comment
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by bettabreeder 7 years ago
Report this Comment
Posted by ChosenWolff 7 years ago
Report this Comment
Posted by Ilona 7 years ago
Report this Comment
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 7 years ago
| bettabreeder | JLPicard | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - |  | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 3 |
Reasons for voting decision: So the resolution pertains to aquarianism as a hobby. I take it that Pro intended to justify this hobby. Pro's unreferenced assertion that some fish are in danger was dropped by Con, yet I am not sure why I need to care about these fish. Why does it matter that these fish are dying out? The other of Con's counter-arguments was that lots of things are wasted on these fish, and since Pro has not given me a reason to care about these fish, and therefore make it a hobby, Con wins arguments. It is clear that this is a pretty bad hobby to have.
Vote Placed by Splenic_Warrior 7 years ago
| bettabreeder | JLPicard | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | | - | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 3 | 0 |
Reasons for voting decision: Con's argument that keeping an aquarium causes pollution and uses energy and resources is pretty much irrelevant since any human activity meets that definition. In contrast, Pro has shown that endangered species can be kept in aquariums. Not a very strong debate from either side; Pro by a hair.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 7 years ago
| bettabreeder | JLPicard | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 3 |
Reasons for voting decision: Joy doesn't decrease pollution.
