CreateDebate


Debate Info

12
9
Reforestation Deforestation
Debate Score:21
Arguments:15
Total Votes:25
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Reforestation (11)
 
 Deforestation (4)

Debate Creator

Gummybear182(7) pic



Which is better : Deforestation or Reforestation?

It decide which is better. We need to cut down trees, because it provides a job for lots of people. We use it in many different ways (writing down notes on, firewood,furniture,protection,building, and decor). Then again, the amount of trees/forest have gone down to 6% of the Earth is covered in forest. When it used to be 12% not long ago. And trees are the main source of how we get oxygen.

Reforestation

Side Score: 12
VS.

Deforestation

Side Score: 9
1 point

Reforestation is planting after forests had been cut down, so they are not mutually exclusive really.

I think planting more than we cut down would be an excellent idea until we are wherever climatologists deem is ideal for our planet.

Side: Reforestation
1 point

There are so less trees now, we need reforestation to have more trees.

Side: Reforestation
1 point

There are no cons of more trees, but a lot of them with less trees

Side: Reforestation
1 point

Definitely reforestation is better. As you know deforestation is one of the causes of global warming. Reforestation will give you clean air.

Side: Reforestation

Deforestation makes trees get cut down. Then no more oxygen. When all plants are chopped down, I guess that we will die in a few minutes. That is why I support reforestation. Anyway there are still the advantages and disadvantages of every one of them

Side: Reforestation
1 point

I'd hate to go on like the environment is a thought that i have night and day, because it isn't. But i'm in favour of deforestation, but then again it depends on which country you're talking about. In a country like Iceland that hardly has any trees etc. it would be lovely to have some reforestation, but in a place in Africa where trees and plants are not used for anything useful to be honest. Deforestation would be ideal to use the area for land which in effect could be used for things more useful things like cooperations, businesses, houses etc.

Side: Reforestation
1 point

Reforestation all the way, I want to live do you.

Keeping our rainforests means CO2 is realesed from the air but when we cut down tree's CO2 is put back into the air. To state the obivous trees breath in CO2 and breath out Oxegen.

Side: Reforestation

Reforestation would be better since it promotes the well being of nature. As mammals, we need oxygen in which the trees provide. It also gives humanity ample food to survive. Whereas deforestation only provides us with lumber. Thus it would be more practical to have reforestation.

Side: Reforestation
1 point

yes ,reforestation is better than because .you are cutting the tree it makes the area unfit and it can be no rain full and the hope us from air polution that mean the breath in carbon and oxegn out this give god climate and making air warming because all thing we have not to cut them there the basic needs of our life ,,,,,,,,,,,, cause this all we have not cutting down them

Side: Reforestation

Making the world greener is beautiful. Whenever I pass a forest that was destroyed by fire, it almost brings tears to my eyes.

Side: Reforestation
-1 points

I believe reforestation is the best of the two options. I visited Iceland about 10 years ago, and it was almost impossible to find a tree growing anywhere. Iceland used to have trees, but the population practiced deforestation to the point where 100% of the tree population of Iceland was consumed. Now there is areforestation project underway, but the standing joke (no pun intended), is "if you get lost in an Icelandic forest, just stnad up!". This is a very true statement as the growth (the little bit there is) is so young, that they are not much more than mere seedlings.

Side: Reforestation
4 points

It's all relative, both have their benefits and cons. Truly, just let the populace do what they wish with their own property and we will have results that are equal in value to any other results.

But hey, I have "faith" in science.

Side: Deforestation
2 points

There are plenty of forests on the planet, and through evolution humans have been given the ability to create technology to destroy forests. Since we are able, we should take advantage of our technology and utilise the planet's resources in order to benefit us. If a lion is given meat, it is able to, and does talk advantage of it if it benefits it. If a cow finds a patch of grass it is able to, and does talk advantage of it, if it benefits it. If humans are given a forest, and are able to, they should take advantage of it because it benefits us.

Side: Deforestation
2 points

I don't think either thing is "better". There are benefits to both. I don't want to completely deforest the Earth, but deforestation creates products that human beings find useful. At some point, I believe we should be reforesting at a greater rate than we are deforesting, but I don't believe that the situation is pressing enough to do it immediately.

As for the issue of global warming, that situation isn't pressing yet either in my opinion.

Side: Deforestation
1 point

we do not need oxygen as the alternate of it is sulphur which is also used by the body in the same way

Side: Deforestation