- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
I support your argument of protecting the place in which us humans live, and without our home where else would we have to go? I agree that the environment in which humans live is basically and essential need for our survival as much as water is in itself. If we do not keep the environment equal, if not more so, in our considerations then there is no hope for survival of the human race to put it bluntly because eventually it will have great consequences if we do not consider the environment in which we live and thrive.
I think their should be equal emphasis versus humans having more emphasis because the environment is what we humans have to survive in, and if we allow more considerations from humans point of view then there is potential concerns for the surrounding environment. I think their should be equal emphasis because what good is human survival if the environment they live in is collapsing beneath their feet. People may not want to admit it, but humans tend to be greedy and if they have the chance to control their water supply they will do it for their own benefits versus everyone's benefits including the wildlife in the surrounding environment because humans are not educated enough on the suffering of the environment, nor will they consider it equal to their personal needs.
I agree that there should be some limitations to the usage of non-essential water demands throughout all of California in order to prevent the stuggles that SoCal is facing. On the other hand, NorCal and SoCal are not two separate states, they both make up one whole state and if the population of SoCal is greater than NorCal, than NorCal cannot leave it's companion hanging. I agree that NorCal should pay attention to their locals and take care of their people, but those people are SoCal people as well.
I support the argument that NorCal does have an obligation to provide for SoCal mainly due to the fact that California is one state as a whole and there was never a clear divide between the two to counter that fact. I also believe that since SoCal is struggling significantly more than NorCal that NorCal does not really have the need to be stubborn with their better water sources. NorCal has less people thus less demand for the amount of water that they have easy access to, meanwhile SoCal has so much demand that it depends on it's northern ally.
I agree with you when you say that we are unaware of the amount of pollution, and that we should take small steps in improving solution instead of going in full force because that could be worse than taking the time and effort into one thing at a time. If we were to focus on the subject of all pollution together we could miss key factors of the underlying causes of how pollution is effecting earth specifically. In other words, we can't carelessly deal with a problem as significant as pollution.
I support the pro side of whether NPS should be regulated because, as mentioned in the video, there are severe health benefits for the soil, and water sources that not only have health benefits for wildlife, but people as well. "Nonpoint source pollution is the leading primary cause of the water quality problems" that people and the environment have been struggling with for years, so to put it in perspective, a need to regulate nonpoint source pollution would significantly improve our water quality. Although, the regulation of nonpoint source pollution would not be easy simply due to the fact that there are so many different "sources" causing the pollution in the first place, so we would have to start by stopping the use of toxins in almost everything we use in today's society.
I agree with your argument of saying that irrigation and domestic come hand in hand. Without irrigation we would not have domestic, and the use of domestic in a sense is a little more important because even though we need irrigation for crops there are other ways in which we can get food. Also, without domestic use of water we won't have access to water as individuals, and humans cannot survive without water for more than 3 days.
I agree with your argument that irrigation is important for life in the way that if we didn't have water in order to grow our crops for substances then there would not be survival for domestic to even occure. On the other hand, I also see it from domestic point of view in the way that people need water domestically in order to survive as well. Although, I would have to agree more on irrigation solely on the fact that people normally abuse their rights to water domestically by wasting water in many ways, while all water for irrigation is significant in some way or another.
I agree with your argument that having the right to water and having the right to be alive come hand in hand with each other. I agree that people do have the right to water, on the other hand I believe that people should have a better understanding of how to have the right to water in a responsible manner. Humans will only be able to enjoy their right of water if they can use water correctly.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!