The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
5 Points


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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/19/2017 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 681 times Debate No: 102683
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




no because homework kills tree and trees are needed to make oxygen and to take in carbon dioxide


As my opponent did not state that round one is for acceptance, I am going to make my case now.

1. My opponent states that we should have NO homework because "homework kills trees and trees are needed to make oxygen and take in carbon dioxide." However, my opponent has overlooked the logical discrepancy in his statement which is that he fails to recognize that trees are not cut down to make specifically homework. They are cut down to make paper which is then by random chance, made into homework. Furthermore, my opponents argument can be further invalidated due to the fact that in an increasing number of schools across the world more and more assignments and examinations are completed on the computer rather than on conventional paper.

Now for my points. I believe that homework is a necessity for effective education and as a result, effective members of society. if homework were to be outlawed in any given country or group of countries, that (those) countries would fall behind academically losing their graduation rate and college acceptance rates as well as losing progress in STEM fields.
Debate Round No. 1


but that is false because we need trees for oxygen to breath and if we had homework more trees would be cut down then we have no air and imagine a child with homework in his bag dead because of no air


Most of my arguments went unaddressed in my opponents case so I shall refute my opponents singular argument. in stating that my argument in false because trees make oxygen and we need oxygen to breath, he has ignored my point that paper is not pre-ordained to be homework when it's produced as well as my point that an increasing number of classrooms are becoming more and more digital. a large quantity of homework is now done on the computer and in the status quo that number is expected to rise. My opponent also ignores my point on a reduction in academic achievement.

I would also like to point out my opponent's emotional appeal that he concludes with. "imagine a child with homework in his bag dead because of no air." this emotional appeal is built off of an illogical and impossible concept that could never occur. He fails to realize that due to the information I have provided and he has ignored, this is a completely implausible situation.
Debate Round No. 2
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by passwordstipulationssuck 3 years ago
also, How does that nullify my argument?
Posted by passwordstipulationssuck 3 years ago
also, How does that nullify my argument?
Posted by sboss18 3 years ago
@PowerPikachu21 Your estimate is off by a factor of about 1.5 million. There are an estimated 3 trillion trees on Earth.
Posted by PowerPikachu21 3 years ago
We'd only die from a lack of trees providing oxygen if there are only 500 trees on Earth. I estimate more than 2 million trees exist on Earth, therefore Pro's argument is null.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by gocubsgo25 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not provide any evidence (or any reasonable evidence) and his responses were short with no information. Pro refuted Con's arguments as well as provided his own.

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