We are the opposite, and the argument is that human beings are the protectors of the environment

The master's feelings to the master.

Not to mention the "three wastes" emitted by human beings, it can be said that human beings' demand for the earth's resources is unrestrained.

Indiscriminate deforestation of plants – deforestation and the fall of trees one by one, resulting in a sharp decline in forests, soil erosion, and accelerated land desertification; Animals are also indiscriminately hunted and killed - humans love to eat shark fin, and sharks, the overlord of the ocean, are facing an existential crisis; Human beings love to eat poisonous snakes, and cobras, five-step snakes, and sea snakes have all become soaking materials; Human beings love to eat wild beasts, and bear's paws, monkey brains, and pangolins are all on the table; Humans love to eat birds, and those birds that soar in the sky cannot escape the clutches of humans. Not to mention tiger bones, bear bile, deer antler velvet, ivory, rhinoceros horn, crocodile skin, etc., all of which have become the objects of human raiding.

Human beings are also endlessly plundering minerals - in order to obtain gold, silver, copper, iron, coal, oil, diamonds, jade and other minerals, human beings dig wildly, blow up mountains and quarry, and over time, the earth becomes "osteoporosis".

In short, human beings are parasites on the earth, so how can we talk about "protectors"?

Humans should be the biggest destroyers of the environment.

At the same time, it is also a destroyer of the environment.

Is humanity the protector of the environment doing its duty? No, the destruction of vegetation, the pollution of rivers, which one is not done by people? The protector has become a destroyer, which is heartbreaking, this is eating the food of the ancestors to create the sins of the descendants.

When human beings exist and develop for themselves, the transformation of the environment is inevitable, and its purpose is not to destroy.

Nature itself is a battlefield, survival of the fittest, natural disasters are continuous, human beings for their own existence development and transformation of the environment belongs to the competition of nature, understandable.

The development of industry is the development of human beings, which is inevitable, although there is pollution, but human beings are trying to make up for it, rather than letting it go;

You don't know what the newspapers are talking about there every day and where trees are being planted, and the state has also designated Arbor Day for this!

It's the same with animals, illegal capture is a rule!

All this shows that human beings play a protective role in the environment, and who else will protect the environment except humans, a higher animal?

Don't deny the existence of traffic construction and its necessity and enthusiasm because of a car accident.

I believe that the opponent's defense friend doesn't want to get a cold or get sick. But sometimes you just catch a cold. The environmental problem is like a cold, no one wants it to happen, but it has already appeared, and we should try to protect it as much as possible. Take care of it.

Destruction is one-sided, protection is common, in order to survive, understand the environment, distinguish concepts, admit it, you are the protector of the environment.

We have also seen patches of dense forests and verdant meadows appear in the desert of the great northwest of our country. The environmental problems have been alleviated to a certain extent. Environmental problems cannot be solved overnight, they are global, and they need to be highly valued and protected by people around the world. ？

I would like to ask the opponent to understand what the factory does to produce clothes. It's to keep human beings warm, but what is the factory doing to produce food? It's to keep humans from starving.

What do humans do when they cut down trees, to build houses and furniture for them? If humans do all these so-called destruction of the environment, then do you still have clothes to wear? And food to satisfy hunger?

Can you still sit here and debate?

So is it too unjust for the other party to say that human beings are the destroyers of the environment?

It is undeniable that the example of human damage to the environment cited by the opposing side is an objective fact, but we, as human beings, cannot erase the leading role and protection of the environment by human beings.

The first article of the Rio Declaration of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992: Human beings are at the center of sustainable development, and they are known as healthy and rich creatures who live in harmony with nature.

As early as the Ice Age, when the glaciers were back and forth, the major climate changes that occurred during the re-fluctuation of the glaciers lasted for thousands of years, upsetting the balance of ecosystems and endangering many living beings (such as dinosaurs). Of course not, because humans didn't exist at that time. In other words, if human beings do not exist, the natural world will still be destroyed.

On the contrary, if there is no creation and maintenance of human beings, the earth is still a barbaric era, how can there be such a convenient social environment to live in, how can we have such a developed food, clothing, housing and transportation today, how can we have so much leisure to develop hobbies?

So human beings are the protectors of the environment.

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,

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?