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

is deforestation necessary for development

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
parimienosh has forfeited round #3.
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: 10/31/2016 Category: Education
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 2,532 times Debate No: 96558
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




Deforestation is a two-sided gamble, as are your arguments. You claim deforestation would damage the "economical system", but wouldn't deforestation help? The influx of raw materials to be traded would damage the system? How so? If you could please expand upon that, that would be helpful.

And as a follow-up, I will be presenting several arguments of my own as to which deforestation is somewhat necessary for development.

1. It gives lots of people, who would otherwise be jobless, employment, which in turn increases their standard of life etc.

2. It supplies the economy with raw materials, such as pulp for paper, wood for chairs, desks, etc.

3. It gives room for grazing land and land for crops, which can give someone a job, which increases their standard of life (particularly in 3rd world countries)

4. Some forests are full of plants and trees which are not native to the area, which destroy animal habitats and other plant life, such as Ageratina Adenophora.

5. In relation to points 1,2 and 3, deforestation gives many communities the opportunity to make positive changes in their lives, like building a community.

6. Deforestation often occurs to make communications or transportation easier, which improves an areas accessibility, which in turn helps their economy etc.

7. It gives room for things such as offices, hospitals, schools or whatever to be built, which help a community a lot more than a bit of forest.

8. On a very small scale, such as practiced by the native people of the amazon, deforestation leaves the ground more fertile, so crops can be grown. (However this is only done on completely different patches, with years between when they deforest the same patch again.)

9. Often, it helps the transport of a valuable material, such as oil, which is clearly much more beneficial than a few thousand trees.


Deforestation has already been destroying our natural wild life, yes it may provide jobs but it rids animals of their habitat.

Yes it can supply raw materials for paper, but for desks and chairs, they are being made out of plastic and metal now so that part of the argument is void.

Providing room for crops? What about the vast farm land that is in the Western section of the United States? That is plenty of land for crops and farming purposes.

Deforestation more times than not is removing habitats for animals, causing their species to slowly die out. The Tasmanian Tiger, Sea Mink, Caribbean Monk Seal and others have been wiped out due to deforestation. 1

A community would use deforestation to build the community? It would help expand but it would dwindle their natural resources drastically if they would just cut down trees to build houses and soon be left with nothing.

Sure it can give room for things to be built, but theres already a lot of unused space but people still choose to cut down trees to make room when theres already room provided.

A lot of natives have tended to protect the trees and amazon, saving the wild life.

Transportation, thats what highways and airplanes are for, clearing out trees for more roads wouldn't be beneficial with very safe and fast means of transportation are provided.
Debate Round No. 1


While cleared land is used as pasture for livestock, plantations of commondities and for settlements, the removal of trees without sufficient reforestation has resulted in damage to habitat, biodiversity loss and aridity; adverse impacts on biosequestration of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Regions deforested typically incur significant adverse soil erosion and degrade into wasteland.

Socially, there is disregard or ignorance of intrinsic value, lack of ascribed value, lax forest management and deficient environmental law that allow deforestation to occur on a large scale, In many countries, deforestation is causing extinction, changes in climate, desertification and displacement of indigenous people.


Your debate seems like it was against deforestation... Anyways....

If deforestation occurs, the process of reforestation is something that would take time to occur.

"Regions deforested typically incur significant adverse soil erosion and degrade into wasteland" -My oppenent

That is a very against statement, and you are FOR deforestation so this is confusing to me. It seems that you're changing your stance.

Deforestation, as stated before, destroys animal habitats and like you said yourself, degrades into wasteland.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Hybrid_Chaos 1 year ago
Does anyone want this badly? Or may I take it
This debate has 0 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.