Debate Tournament 2 Debater Human beings need to protect the environment and ask for materials

What is an environment?

What does it mean to destroy the environment? What does it mean to protect the environment?

Aren't people part of the environment?

In the natural environment, the more capable the animals and plants, the more capable they are of the environment.

Is it damaging the environment that an elephant can kick an ant nest out with one kick and leave countless ants homeless? I don't think so, it's neither destroying the environment nor protecting the environment, it's essentially part of the environment.

The "war" between two elephant herds will also destroy a large area of forest and grassland, so are elephants also environmental destroyers?

If locusts cross the border and no grass grows, are locusts also environmental destroyers?

If so, then all the animals in the world can be said to be environmental destroyers, not just humans.

If not, then why is the destruction of other creatures not counting, but the war of humans is counting?

So, in the final analysis, whether it is human activities, animal or plant activities, they are all part of the environment, not destruction, nor protection, but new construction, and humans and animals are building a new environment all the time, covering the original environment.

It should be a protector, because we only have one earth to live on, but now human beings are for their own development. is indeed doing the things of the destroyer of the earth.

Of course, it is a destroyer, because all the behaviors of human beings to protect nature are not as good as the nature that humans do not come to this world, these behaviors only relatively prevent the destruction of nature, but compared to the behavior of human beings to destroy nature, it is simply insignificant, so as long as human beings need science and technology, they will definitely destroy nature, unless human beings return to the Stone Age.

The extinction of 98% of humanity is a priority.

Before the seventies, humanity experienced the Industrial Revolution, which led to the occurrence of various paranormal phenomena around the world. In the early 70s, human beings began to realize the impact of industrial pollution, and began to govern the world, and even today human beings are still making unremitting efforts for environmental governance. Have the efforts of the past 50 years been hastily handled by a few words from you?

First of all, make sure that your argument doesn't have the word "main"? If so, then I'll review your arguments for the time being. Answer.

Protecting the environment mainly depends on **.

1: As a representative of public power, you can coordinate the relationship between environmental protection and environmental development from a macro perspective.

2: As an institution that serves the people, it has the appeal and publicity to promote the people to protect the environment.

3: ** can implement the law, develop environmental protection measures, and punish polluting behavior.

That's pretty much it, but as a debater or debater, I suggest you start with the first and third points and ask questions.

For example: 1) If you don't rely on the people, but rely on the people to protect the environment, then how to punish the polluting behavior? Where do the people exercise their power from?

2) If they rely on the people, how can the people reconcile their own lives with environmental protection? (This problem can be infinite, for example, people want to build a house, they need a lot of steel, and the production of steel will produce a lot of pollution, small steel mills are more polluting, but **cheaper.) What can the people do to abandon the cheap small steel mills and support the large steel mills with anti-pollution equipment?

It's the same for other cars, coal mines. ）

3) Directly ask the other party, in terms of banning small-scale polluting enterprises, is it more powerful or the people are more powerful? In terms of developing new energy-saving and environmental protection technologies, is it more advantageous or the people are more advantageous? To encourage the development of low-energy enterprises, can the first policy or the masses produce a policy?

In my opinion, the environment has no impact on human beings.

First, in the 5,000-year history of China, from the original primitive society to the current thriving era, the environment has undergone tremendous changes, but we still live in harmony in this environment.

Second, global warming is a prominent topic in environmental change, but even so, we humans still have a lot of measures to deal with such a situation.

Third, the environment is thoughtless, and its change is due to the natural laws of the earth and the influence of various life forms living on the earth, so it seems that the environment has no impact on human beings, but the strength of human society will affect the environment.

I'm tired of typing, I hope it will be useful to you, Mo Mo Da,