CreateDebate


Debate Info

52
51
YES NO
Debate Score:103
Arguments:53
Total Votes:125
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 YES (35)
 
 NO (30)

Debate Creator

PrayerFails(11165) pic



Should the National Parks Service be abolished?

 

 

YES

Side Score: 52
VS.

NO

Side Score: 51
3 points

If the national Parks Service were to be abolished, then it would be one less reason to tax us- one less government agency to pay for.

Parks could then be privatized where it would not only save us some money, but it would also improve the quality of the park. If a multi billion dollar company ran a park, more money would be set aside for the park and the company would get income, and they could hire more employees.

Side: yes
casper3912(1581) Disputed
1 point

or the multibillion dollar corporation could develop it...

Side: No
2 points

Yes they could.

Side: yes

Apparently, you've never been to a Walt Disney or Six Flags amusement park, the other difference is that preserving wildlife and forests would be non profit and not public.

Side: No

The National Parks Service is irrefutably one of the biggest waste of taxpayer money. Almost three billion dollars of our money is wasted at the hands of government bureaucrats. There is no end to the wasteful spending of Washington.

Side: yes
2 points

I Agree!!!! This Agency Is The Biggest Waster Of Federal Money!!! Want Proof? Go To Northeast Alabama And Go See The Little River National Recreation Area;A Glorified Swimming Hole!!!

Side: YES

You hate nature! You hate squirrels and chipmunks and baby rabbits! You are greedy and just want to keep all your hard-earned money! You just want to put all those rangers out of work!We need park rangers to make sure no one is doing something totally crazy in the woods like smoking pot with bears and turning them into slaves to the devil weed! Next thing you know, the bears are stealing picnic baskets and eating toddlers because they have the munchies. Are you kidding me? All hell would break loose! If anything, the National Parks Service should double their forces.

Side: yes
danny2014(2) Disputed
2 points

First of all bears would have to smoke a lot of pot to get the munchies considering there size, next its not the teddy bear's picnic and the world would remain intact if a bear ended up with a joint.

Side: NO
2 points

All the NPS does is take my money and do stupid stuff with it such as setting up national parks and employing people to write stupid rules to protect nature and abuse their power.

Side: yes
aveskde(1935) Disputed
3 points

All the NPS does is take my money and do stupid stuff with it such as setting up national parks and employing people to write stupid rules to protect nature and abuse their power.

To be blunt, the welfare of endangered species, and the preservation of our forests and natural habitats is more important than you being able to buy that big screen television.

Side: No
owen2014(1) Disputed
1 point

I think you should finger your anus vigorously. lolololololololololololo

Side: YES
0 points

To be blunt, the welfare of endangered species, and the preservation of our forests and natural habitats is more important than you being able to buy that big screen television.

Shut up you Idiot! Buying a T.V. is more important because it helps the economy.

Side: yes

All the NPS does is take my money and do stupid stuff with it such as setting up national parks and employing people to write stupid rules to protect nature and abuse their power.

Yes! I completely agree! Thank you for pointing that out!

Side: yes
2 points

The National Park Service, Like NASA, Is No Longer Needed And Is Just a Drain On The Taxpayers. They Spend Money On Useless Places Like The Little River National Recreation Area In Northeast Alabama, Which Is Just A federal Swimming Hole!!

Side: YES
1 point

In the past 150 years, 12% of the world’s surface has been transferred into protected areas. Of that 12%, many estimates guess that at least 50% was occupied by Indigenous Peoples. Glacier, Badlands, Mesa Verde, the Grand Canyon, and Death Valley are all examples of national Parks where the land was stolen from the Native Americans' clutches. According to Park Historian Lee Whittlesly, the Yellowstone Act passed quickly and without much debate, because the land was so far west, and so unknown, that very few people could argue the specifics. “only a few fur trappers and gold prospectors had begun to explore the area thought of as one of the last bastions of ‘uninhabited wilderness’ to be discovered by white settlers”. However, despite the label of ‘uninhabited wilderness’, up to 26 indigenous tribes are believed to have lived on the land, many of which today still consider sacred land. Whittlesly speaks of superintendents attempting to make the area “safe” by eliminating “primitive savages” from the park, declaring they didn’t live there to begin with. The removal of Native Peoples even went to the extent of causing battles between specific tribes and the United States Government. National Parks may be beautiful, but their birth is spoiled by the atrocities committed to ensure their creation.

Side: YES
2 points

No. The rangers regulate the animal populations and keep track of endangered species. Taking their funds away would not only doom certain species (I.e. the red wolf, whose numbers reached as low as 17), but monuments like Yellowstone, Mount Rushmore, and other historical landmarks could not be preserved for future generations. Are you trying to deny your kids the opportunity to see some of the best things this nation has?

Side: No
Cliff(4) Disputed
2 points

If You Are Concerned About Endangered Species, Put Them In Private Zoos!!! Historical Landmarks Can be Run By Either Private Foundations Or By The States.

Side: YES
1 point

Really, that is your justification for national parks?

Frankly, nature is not held at the hands of man, nature is at the mercy of nature, and if the red wolf goes extinct, that is nature, the Earth doesn't care if the red wolf goes extinct, in fact, the Earth doesn't care if humans go extinct. A new specie will replace the red wolf. Besides the wolf doesn't need our help in order to survive. It is at the top of the food chain anyway.

Is Yellowstone and Mount Rushmore and other historical landmarks really the best things this nation has to offer?

Side: yes
zombee(1026) Disputed
7 points

Frankly, nature is not held at the hands of man, nature is at the mercy of nature, and if the red wolf goes extinct, that is nature,

Wolves are endangered largely because of the wolf bounty that was instated in the 1600s and lasted until less than 100 years ago. If they go extinct, it will probably be because man continued to kill them indiscriminately until their population became too small to maintain genetic diversity.

the Earth doesn't care if the red wolf goes extinct, in fact, the Earth doesn't care if humans go extinct.

Is this debate about what the earth cares about, or is about what would be in the best interest of America and its citizens?

A new specie will replace the red wolf.

What species would that be, and how would they be immune to the same human-induced dangers and pressures that put wolves in the position they are in today?

Besides the wolf doesn't need our help in order to survive. It is at the top of the food chain anyway.

Humans are at the top of the food chain, not wolves. Their survival is dependent on whether we choose to protect them or exterminate them.

Is Yellowstone and Mount Rushmore and other historical landmarks really the best things this nation has to offer?

This is impossible to really answer because it is so subjective. Personally, I think American national parks are amazing examples of biological diversity, as well as some of the last bastions of survival for many endangered species of plants and animals, not just wolves. I think we should be proud of America's natural features, and seek to preserve them, even just for their own sake.

If something is not the 'best thing' a nation has to offer, does that mean it should be neglected or go without the protection it needs to be maintained?

Side: No
Werewolfie17(29) Disputed
1 point

Pardon me sir, natural wonders of the world that exist in our own back yards. Excuse me...

So you are saying as the dominant, most sentient being on this planet, we have no responsibility to take care of it? To maintain ourselves as the dominant species?

The red wolf was actually a lower class of wolves that other wolves preyed upon. That does not make them at the top of the food chain. I thought we were as primary hunters, or did I miss that fact too?

Did you forget bears that are native to the same region as the red wolf? If your excuse is that for a wolf, what is it for the protected Brown Pelican?

Side: No
1 point

We won't demolish Mt. Rushmore if National Parks Service is abolished. We would sell it to a corporation, which will be able use it beater. It would sell tickets, make more money, and be able to hire more people.

Side: yes
-2 points
Werewolfie17(29) Disputed
1 point

You do realize that:

1. Without the wolves, a species dies. Causing another secondary species to die.

2. Without Mt. Rushmore or other monuments, our culture will die, and so will our society and nation.

3. If the rangers are not paid, who will take care of them? Without trees, you would die. Ever taken biology? Ya know that thing we breathe called oxygen? Trees produce it. If you want to kill a tree, you could commit suicide because you exhale the CO2 they need to survive as well.

Or perhaps you are just an anarchist who doesn't care for anyone but himself.

I also must as you to how many places you have been outside of your home. Have you ever experienced such majesty firsthand? To see the heart and soul of a man, his passion, immortalized in stone? The image of four of the world's greatest leaders emblazoned on a mountainside?

What did wolves do to you?

Watch Wall-E. Because in a few hundred years, that'll be your kids.

Side: No
2 points

3 billion dollars is nothing compared to the 965 billion dollars we spend on our military. We would save about 200 billion dollars if we stopped fighting in Afghanistan. I believe that no one should complain about the funding of the park service (out of all things!) when we're fighting an ridiculous, expensive war. Don't get me wrong, I strongly believe that we should fight to defend our country, but that is for another debate. There are many benefits of having a NPS. In short, think of what would happen if we didn't have one. Would we still have the same amount of protected, open land? Will the currently endangered species still exist? Who would guard these universally-unique, natural treasures? (Yellowstone, Redwood, etc. exist nowhere else.)

Side: No
danny2014(2) Disputed
2 points

Lets be honest, other countries military's pose a bigger threat than tree's you mong.

Side: YES
Liberty4life Disputed
1 point

You are exactly right! As a country, we need to focus on other issues.

Side: YES
1 point

I don't see a strong argument in favour of abolishing this service. The budget is remarkably small for what it achieves (about a billion dollars from what I saw), as compared to our GDP. We spend so much more on our war machine.

With such a program we preserve the beauty of our nation, both physically and biologically, and the arguments against this seem petty and callous. In typical selfish fashion the ones advocating abolishment would rather have lower taxes than preserved woodlands and species. I don't think a true rebuttal to this needs to be made as these people draw criticism to themselves with such blatant short-sightedness.

Side: No
1 point

If it was man that started the scene of being the soul reason for most of the extinct animals. It has to be man who provides the shelter to them.

Side: No

The National Parks Service is needed because tourists need responsible people who know all about the park visited.

Side: NO