The Instigator
Thomas123456789
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Rasmit
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Mount Everest should not exist in the spot it does exist in.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/18/2018 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 552 times Debate No: 111048
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)

 

Thomas123456789

Con

Mount Everest should not exist in it's current position because it blocks transportation from 2 sides, dangerous avalanches can occur on it's slopes, and many people are currently stuck on it.
Rasmit

Pro

Mt. Everest is a great tourism site that boosts the economy of China and Nepal (where I'm from). This consequently is good for creating jobs and relations between countries in the area. This is not a bad thing. When you claim it blocks transportation, that is not true. The one mountain is not a blockade, it is rather the entire Himalayas, but that is not the topic, which, by the way, makes your argument fallacious. The only countries blocked by the mountains and not something else like borders are, well, none. Nepal is the only country on the larger side of the border, but they have the entire west side of the country to reach China. India has many parts that touch China, so they do not have a problem. As for the people stuck on it, I do not know about anyone who gets stuck on there for more than weeks. Helicopter travel there is hard but possible. The people that climbing the mountain are responsible for getting stuck or getting in an avalanche. What you should be arguing is that we should be sending people to the mountain to rescue people.
Debate Round No. 1
Thomas123456789

Con

If mount Everest wan't there people would climb the second largest mountain in the world K2, which is still on the Chinese border. Since it is not as tall, people would likely have a lower risk of dying while climbing it and China would still benefit from the tourism. They could also make new trade routes to and from Nepal and China and communities around the base of the mountain would prosper economically.
Rasmit

Pro

A very good argument, I am glad you know that most of the ten tallest mountains lie in the Himalayas. Makes it easier for me.

This is a very cloudy opinion I am having, which is why I would like you to answer a few questions in your next post before I can do a well-supported argument.
1. If Mt. Everest doesn't exist, what is in its place? a. Is it simply shorter? b. Is there a valley instead, creating a path through the Himalayas? c. Do you want to blow it up or destroy it?
2. Given the first option, how would that create new trade routes? It is not like people will start climbing the mountains to send goods to and from. Given the second option, how is that even possible? Due to the mechanics of tectonic plates, that is scientifically impossible. Given the third option, refer back to the first question, plus consider how expensive and hard that would be. Also, I don't think anyone would let you do that.

I do not have a strong argument, so I will skip it for now.
Debate Round No. 2
Thomas123456789

Con

1. I have no clue how Everest should or could be moved, I am just arguing that it would be better if it were somewhere else.
2. I want the spot where the mountain is to be a flat area so that roads and towns could be constructed.
3. If Mount Everest were somewhere else, for example, in the middle of Africa, people would have no trouble getting around it because there are not any extremely large mountain ranges in Africa to be adjacent to the monolith.
4. Villages and towns around the area where Mount Everest would have existed would likely prosper from easy travel and trade between villages on the other side of the mountain.
5. Just like how countries like Singapore prosper from trade by making a trade funnel, this new pass between the Himalayas would be a huge tourist or trade destination.
Rasmit

Pro

There is no argument to 1 so let's skip that.
To argue with 2, the area would not be safe due to the avalanches that occur.
To argue with 3, this is not really on topic so this part is extra, but I would just like to state, there are the Atlas mountains which are large.
To argue with 4, how would villages near the area prosper from travel and trade? They would get money from it, but it wouldn't cause them to grow larger. What about the avalanches that would hinder trade, or the coldness or rough terrain in the area?
To argue with 5, I would like to know how it would be a tourist site. A trade destination makes sense though.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
Pro argued as Con and Con argued as Pro? Oh well.
Posted by Thomas123456789 3 years ago
Thomas123456789
I'm just arguing it would be better if it didn't exist.
Posted by WOLF.J 3 years ago
WOLF.J
again, u cant move a fvckin mountain
Posted by Thomas123456789 3 years ago
Thomas123456789
That means less people will want to climb it.
Posted by Wizofoz 3 years ago
Wizofoz
K2 is actually much more dangerous with a higher death rate
Posted by Thomas123456789 3 years ago
Thomas123456789
India has nuclear weapons, and they aren't going to waste them on Pakistan any time soon.
Posted by WOLF.J 3 years ago
WOLF.J
its a fvckin mountain, how u gonna destroy it?????????????//
Posted by Thomas123456789 3 years ago
Thomas123456789
It should either be destroyed or methodically moved.
Posted by WOLF.J 3 years ago
WOLF.J
where should it be then?
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.