Debate Info

12

14

Yes

No

Debate Score:	26
Arguments:	22
Total Votes:	26
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph

Yes (9)

No (11)

Debate Creator

HarvardGrad (174)

Non-Environmentalists Are Hypocrites

Those who are concerned of their own, or families (i.e. kids, mothers, siblings, etc.) well-being are hypocritical in the sense that: the environment facilitates such well-being; therefore, to not support the environment, is to not support yourself, or your loved-ones' well-being (thus resulting in hypocrisy).

But of course many claim to do so all the time.

But how is this so given their deliberate contribution to the ruination of the environment?

Therefore one must conclude that there line of reasoning is purely irrational, hypocritical, or just plain psychotic.

Yes Side Score: 12		No Side Score: 14
Add New Argument		Add New Argument

1 point

Yes, but the biggest hypocrites are your run of the mill hypocrites.

9 years ago Side: Yes

Support Dispute Clarify

Add New Argument

Cartman (18192)

2 points

A non-environmentalist would be anyone who is not an environmentalist. Just because you aren't out fighting big corporations who pollute doesn't necessarily mean that you don't support the environment.

9 years ago Side: No

Support Dispute Clarify

↑ Hide Replies

Nature Disputed

3 points

Environmentalist - a person who is concerned with or advocates the protection of the environment.

Given that the environment is necessary for survival, then, for one to not be concerned with the protection of the environment would be one who is no concerned with their own, and/or loved-ones', survival or protection- rendering them hypocritical, psychotic, or irrational (potentially even suicidal).

Which one are you?

9 years ago Side: Yes

Support Dispute Clarify

↑ Hide Replies

Cartman (18192)

1 point

What level of concern are we talking about here?

9 years ago Side: No

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

Nature Clarified

1 point

Concerned in the sense of interest and importance. For instance, you may be concerned with yourself enough to not do drugs so you can lower your risks of dying.

9 years ago Side: Yes

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

Cartman (18192)

1 point

Concerned in the sense of interest and importance.

Thanks for nothing. What level of interest or importance are we talking about? Is thinking to yourself that the environment needs to be protected so you have enough food count as concern? Is telling other people the the environment needs to be protected the minimum amount of concern?

9 years ago Side: No

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

Nature Disputed

2 points

I used an instance to illustrate the 'level of concern' which you apparently didn't get.

Nevertheless, you seem to be going a bit off-topic. The point is that anyone who directly harms the environment (which is most people) is consequently harming themselves and others that they consider loved-ones (such as family members).

The problem with this is that most people claim that they care for their loved-ones and would never (intentionally) harm them. But by harming the environment they are indeed harming [themselves and loved-ones]- as you can see this is hypocritical and irrational (and psychotic if they actually mean it).

9 years ago Side: Yes

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

Cartman (18192) Disputed

1 point

I used an instance to illustrate the 'level of concern' which you apparently didn't get.

As long as you care about the environment to prolong your life that makes you an environmentalist?

Nevertheless, you seem to be going a bit off-topic.

Says the person who brought up drugs. I am trying to establish what we are talking about when we say non environmentalists.

The point is that anyone who directly harms the environment (which is most people) is consequently harming themselves and others that they consider loved-ones (such as family members).

So, now doing any damage whatsoever is consider a full lack of concern. What kind of harm that most people do are you even talking about?

The problem with this is that most people claim that they care for their loved-ones and would never (intentionally) harm them. But by harming the environment they are indeed harming them- as you can see this is hypocritical and irrational (and psychotic if they actually mean it).

The fact that you have lumped most people into the group of people that are harming the environment to an extent that they are hypocrites is overboard.

9 years ago Side: No

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

Nature Disputed

1 point

As long as you care about the environment to prolong your life that makes you an environmentalist?

If you mean 'care' in the sense of 'taking care of' then yes.

Says the person who brought up drugs.

I used an instance to illustrate point, the instance just so happened to contain drugs. But the instance is not going off-topic, it was used so we can in fact stay on topic.

I am trying to establish what we are talking about when we say non environmentalists.

Just negate the definition:

Environmentalist- a person concerned with issues that affect the environment, such as pollution .

Negated: a person not concerned with issues that affect the environment, such as pollution .

So, now doing any damage whatsoever is consider a full lack of concern. What kind of harm that most people do are you even talking about?

Yes, if said damage was intentional. Most people harm the environment, for example, by purchasing meat products, buying houses made out of wood, things of that sort.

The fact that you have lumped most people into the group of people that are harming the environment to an extent that they are hypocrites is overboard.

Maybe your biased contention is derived from the fact that you are one of these people, but this is not overboard, it's purely factual. You people may not see the connection since it is not macroscopically obvious, but nonetheless the evidence is clear. Perhaps you don't fall in the context of hypocrisy, maybe irrational better suits you.

9 years ago Side: Yes

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

Cartman (18192)

1 point

If you mean 'care' in the sense of 'taking care of' then yes.

As long as you take care of the environment enough for you to survive?

I used an instance to illustrate point, the instance just so happened to contain drugs. But the instance is not going off-topic, it was used so we can in fact stay on topic.

I fail to see how determining what an environmentalist is is going off topic.

Just negate the definition:

Environmentalist- a person concerned with issues that affect the environment, such as pollution .

Negated: a person not concerned with issues that affect the environment, such as pollution .

There are no non environmentalist because just not completely destroying the environment counts as concern.

Yes, if said damage was intentional. Most people harm the environment, for example, by purchasing meat products, buying houses made out of wood, things of that sort.

Or breathing. Breathing releases CO2 causing a greenhouse effect. The idea that living in a house or eating food makes you harming the environment is ridiculous.

Maybe your biased contention is derived from the fact that you are one of these people

Yes, I eat meat and am not homeless.

but this is not overboard, it's purely factual.

Fictional does not have an "a" in it, you have a typo.

You people may not see the connection since it is not macroscopically obvious, but nonetheless the evidence is clear.

What are you talking about with "you people"? You are one of us with your extremely broad definition.

Perhaps you don't fall in the context of hypocrisy, maybe irrational better suits you.

Irrational suits you perfectly. You think concern about the environment means not doing any harm at all to the environment in any way.

9 years ago Side: Yes

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

Nature Disputed

1 point

As long as you take care of the environment enough for you to survive?

And your family. If actions contribute to environmental destruction then you are consequently destroying your families lives also. Remember: the environment is necessary for survival.

I fail to see how determining what an environmentalist is is going off topic.

You started to delve into details about levels of concern, and the point I am illustrating is how having no concern about the environment is consequently having no concern of yourself and/or your families well-being.

There are no non environmentalist because just not completely destroying the environment counts as concern.

Actually it doesn't, you destroy the environment when needed and up to your possibilities. There is no need for you to evilly laugh and cut down trees and pour oil into the river, but if there was a need to, it would be done.

Or breathing. Breathing releases CO2 causing a greenhouse effect. The idea that living in a house or eating food makes you harming the environment is ridiculous.

This is a ridiculous straw man: you compare an act of necessity (breathing) to an act of non-necessity (tearing down life sources (aka trees) and contributing to companies that pollute the air and water).

Meat factories are the #1 cause of air pollution and the #2 cause of water pollution. In order for these factories to persist and grow, they need companies like McDonalds, Food Lion, Chick-fil-a, etc., to purchase large quantities of meat from them. And said companies need large purchase orders in order to fill the demand that you, as well as most people, cause.

You don't need to eat meat so your absurdity about 'eating food harms the environment' is unintelligible and idiotic at best.

Yes, I eat meat and am not homeless.

Your family will be in the future, but given your line of reasoning, there will be no future.

What are you talking about with "you people"? You are one of us with your extremely broad definition.

The second part of this sentence doesn't make any sense, perhaps it is because you've misunderstood my point: You people seem to not be able to see the effects that you all are causing.

Irrational suits you perfectly. You think concern about the environment means not doing any harm at all to the environment in any way.

I've explicitly stated countless times "intentional" harm. You do not need to purchase meat, you do so anyway, purchasing meat contributes to the destruction of your environment, thus you are intentionally destroying the environment. Clear and simple.

9 years ago Side: No

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

Cartman (18192) Disputed

1 point

And your family. If actions contribute to environmental destruction then you are consequently destroying your families lives also. Remember: the environment is necessary for survival.

Right, but we are only talking about enough concern to not directly pump chemicals into the environment that might cause it to die eventually(like drugs).

You started to delve into details about levels of concern, and the point I am illustrating is how having no concern about the environment is consequently having no concern of yourself and/or your families well-being.

Nobody has no concern, that's the point.

Actually it doesn't, you destroy the environment when needed and up to your possibilities. There is no need for you to evilly laugh and cut down trees and pour oil into the river, but if there was a need to, it would be done.

Except, I haven't done the actual destroying of the environment. Needed or not.

This is a ridiculous straw man: you compare an act of necessity (breathing) to an act of non-necessity (tearing down life sources (aka trees) and contributing to companies that pollute the air and water).

Finding shelter is a necessity. Eating is a necessity. It isn't a strawman.

Meat factories are the #1 cause of air pollution and the #2 cause of water pollution. In order for these factories to persist and grow, they need companies like McDonalds, Food Lion, Chick-fil-a, etc., to purchase large quantities of meat from them. And said companies need large purchase orders in order to fill the demand that you, as well as most people, cause.

Oh, so now the level of concern goes from putting drugs into your body to making sure the drugs are never shipped out of Columbia. See why we needed to discuss the level of concern now?

You don't need to eat meat so your absurdity about 'eating food harms the environment' is unintelligible and idiotic at best.

Converting everyone to vegetarians is absurd.

Your family will be in the future, but given your line of reasoning, there will be no future.

No, that is your line of reasoning.

The second part of this sentence doesn't make any sense, perhaps it is because you've misunderstood my point: You people seem to not be able to see the effects that you all are causing.

Oh, so now environmentalism is just knowing that the stuff you do affects the environment? How can you possibly claim that you do absolutely no damage to the environment?

I've explicitly stated countless times "intentional" harm. You do not need to purchase meat, you do so anyway, purchasing meat contributes to the destruction of your environment, thus you are intentionally destroying the environment. Clear and simple.

You don't have to be on your computer. Your computer requires electricity. Generating electricity damages the environment. Welcome to the club.

9 years ago Side: Yes

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

Nature Disputed

1 point

Right, but we are only talking about enough concern to not directly pump chemicals into the environment that might cause it to die eventually(like drugs).

Not exactly. But, let's say this was entirely true, you are directly contributing to the phenomena of pumping chemicals into the environment by donating to meat factories to keep their institutions running.

Nobody has no concern, that's the point.

Is this the negated version of everyone has a concern?

Except, I haven't done the actual destroying of the environment. Needed or not.

You contribute immensely to the destruction of the environment.

Finding shelter is a necessity. Eating is a necessity. It isn't a strawman.

The comparison implicated a StrawMan.

Oh, so now the level of concern goes from putting drugs into your body to making sure the drugs are never shipped out of Columbia. See why we needed to discuss the level of concern now?

The factories emitting hazardous fumes into the air will lead to destruction of your environment, and consequently you. You donate to the factories, therefore rendering your donation self-destructive.

Converting everyone to vegetarians is absurd.

Any respectable scientist would disagree. Furthermore, what is absurd about veganism? It is the most healthiest diet...

Oh, so now environmentalism is just knowing that the stuff you do affects the environment?

No

How can you possibly claim that you do absolutely no damage to the environment?

I don't do intentional harm to the environment.

You don't have to be on your computer. Your computer requires electricity. Generating electricity damages the environment. Welcome to the club.

My electricity is being generated via solar enrgy (which is eco-friendly)... Nice try though.

9 years ago Side: No

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

2 points

The scientific community as a whole does not even understand enough about the environment to follow any one set of initial conditions to a probable conclusion; how do you expect some individual to do this?

9 years ago Side: No

Support Dispute Clarify

2 points

A lot of people are careful what they buy, they re-cycle what they can, they put solar panels on the roof and a solar water heater, and collect rainwater from the guttering, they grow veggies in the back yard and maybe plant a tree to two if they have the space and they would never label themselves as environmentalists.

So by your reckoning if they are not environmentalists they must be non-environmentlaists and it is your argument that is the hypocrite.

9 years ago Side: No

Support Dispute Clarify

1 point

Are you referring to people who are climate deniers? Just asking, so I know whether to laugh at you, or not. Oh hell. I'll laugh anyway. BWAHAHAHA!

9 years ago Side: No

Support Dispute Clarify

↑ Hide Replies

Atrag (5666) Clarified

1 point

Trololololololololol .

9 years ago Side: Yes

Support Dispute Clarify

1 point

I am going to die in a few decades. There is no action that I could possibly take to benefit the environment that would have any worthwhile positive impact on my life.

9 years ago Side: No

Support Dispute Clarify

↑ Hide Replies

Nature Disputed

1 point

Which is why I included families. And this wouldn't apply to you if you could care less about certain kids, yourself or family members.

9 years ago Side: Yes

Support Dispute Clarify

↑ Hide Replies

Atrag (5666) Disputed

1 point

Even my children probably won't be affected.

9 years ago Side: No

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

Add New Argument

Browse More Debates