Debate Info

Yes, it is No
Debate Score:5
Total Votes:9
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 Yes, it is (4)

Debate Creator

Nebeling(1117) pic

Is the EPA an Orwellian institution?

Despite scientific studies showing that a certain EPA approved pesticide is causing significant damage to the environmental the environmental protection agency hasn't done a thing. The EPA is damaging the environment by allowing a dangerous pesticide to be used in agriculture; that is, the one institution that ought to do no ecological harm is infact doing the exact opposite. So the question is whether there can be made sense of this confusing situation or the EPA infact isn't particularly interested in protecting the environment.

Yes, it is

Side Score: 5


Side Score: 0
2 points

Oh those revolving doors. It should be illegal for CEOs major chemical coorperations to become part of the staff of regulatory agencies.

Side: Yes, it is
-1 points

A major problem is that it's a powerful monopoly on the business of "protecting" the environment. People naturally believe that the environment is safe when the EPA approves of a product or action because they hold little reason to question the public sector.

There's no accountability when the EPA makes a mistake or continues a dangerous method. Instead of people actually wondering what is and isn't safe, they see the EPA as their only reassurance that the environment is in good hands. They wash their own hands of the responsibility of protecting their environment.

The same could be said for the FDA and various public regulation agencies.

Side: Yes, it is
1 point

How would it work out if it wasn't monopoly, like if there were two agencies protecting the environment? What if the agencies disagree?

Side: Yes, it is
No arguments found. Add one!