The Instigator
Cookiedough
Con (against)
The Contender
anc2006
Pro (for)

Protecting the environment is more important than making a profit

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Cookiedough has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/20/2019 Category: News
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 370 times Debate No: 123705
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

Cookiedough

Con

I am doing a debate on Protecting the environment is more important than making a profit. I am saying it is not because profit is the sole purpose of an urban lifestyle now and sometimes you have to make sacrifices to the environment in order to make more money and make a living for yourself and others close to you.
anc2006

Pro

First, I am really confused that you chose to protect the nature but you posed con on this debate. Anyways I disagree.

First, You didn't state the exact time period. Now, Saying it is pretty useless consider the title already exists. Now? Yes. In general? No. After efforts made by influential figures like Elon Musk, Our earth can pretty much restore nature. At then, If nature is restorable, Then it will be property. At a few dozens of scores of time our earth doesn't need to restore nature consider:
1) Nature will be restorable
2) Human colonize mars

These will 100% happen in the future. It is how society progress towards achievements towards the greater good of humanity. So, Protecting the environment will eventually lose to business consider it will be purchasable, Like "Louisiana Purchase", Only with more wood and less wasteland.

As then if nature is possible to be restored, There are plenty of things to be done on mars. At then, Nature will be as plenty as possible and since nature is possible to be restored, It won't be that much of a problem until MUCH MUCH later, Where solutions will eventually emerge (or if human dies, Both profit and environment will be nonexistent, Which makes neither one more important to each other).

Now if human would either die or find a solution in which "protecting" the environment can be fully replaced. And then nature can be profit, Thus in general(except the period from 1850s to about 2500s) protecting the environment is always not a concern. Before, Nature is plenty; after, Nature is restorable.

Argument Done.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
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
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Leaning 2 years ago
Leaning
I think most people would agree with the thought of not making a mess where you live.
The problem with your debate, I think.
Is businesses don't mind making a mess where they don't live. Certainly they don't mind making a mess in the future, They won't be there either, As they'll have died of old age.

I do agree with your debate, If one was concerned about the long term well being of humans, Profit wouldn't be their first interest.

Not everyone is altruistic though.
This debate has 6 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.