The Instigator
Con (against)
The Contender
Pro (for)

Should planned Obsolence be an Illegal buiness model?

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
L0NGD0NGSILVER has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/4/2017 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 497 times Debate No: 104294
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




My argument is that planned obsolesce create's too much trash that can't be recycled or reused and that it harms the environment. Every day i see the consequences of this Business model in my forests and lakes.


First, planned obsolesce does not cause litter in forests and lakes, people who are inconsiderate of their environment cause litter in the forests and lakes.

Second, planned obsolesce of products is a necessity for companies who want to keep up an image with their products. When I first heard of windows phones, it was from a friend who complained about his phone always being slow and unresponsive. Hearing his gripes, I drifted away from the idea of looking into windows phones. Having everyone generally be on the same page prevents people from getting such bad impressions of your products.

Third, from an environmental standpoint, planned obsolesce is a good thing. As technology becomes more efficient and less harmful to nature and the Earth as a whole, getting rid of our older technology is important. However, I would concede that currently there are more than a few companies who make properly getting rid of electronics and other appliances harder than it should be.
Debate Round No. 1


However Planned Obsolesce waste's resources and everyone's time. Even though planned Obsolesce can replace inferior technology, The innovations newer Tech has isn't a huge difference. Look at the I phone 4 to I phone 5, Nothing was changed other than the name and a few Chips that didn't hardy improve performance in some areas that are vital.

And worse of all, a lot technology in the Medical field is also victim to planned obsolesce. Some parts of wheelchairs are flimsy with that intention, Some medical augments break and Pacemaker batteries still use Uranium instead of a safer and longer lasting battery like thorium. It isn't about replacing technology because the first versions were so bad, Its about making sure there is a reason to replace and capitalize on people who are in great need of these products.

You simply can't justify milking cash out of the disabled and the dull minded. If it hurts people, it hurts people and there needs to be a better alternative to planned Obsolesce.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

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