Welcome to CreateDebate!

CreateDebate is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.

Be Yourself

Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.

Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.

Facebook addict? Check out our page and become a fan because you love us!

Identify Ally
Declare Enemy
Challenge to a Debate
Report This User

View All

View All

View All

RSS Rebagget

Reward Points:13
Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
Efficiency Monitor

10 most recent arguments.
1 point

As I do understand where you come from when you say we could remove it at a slower rate, I do not think removing the dam is a great idea. I think removing the dam would cause issue for the bay area having any access to a clean water source, especially with the large population in that area. If we were to remove the dam, even slowly, it would be difficult to sustain it, or preserve it because there would be potential for contamination of an already clean water source.

1 point

As I understand the other side of the Hetch Hetchy dam taking up a lot of space, I have to agree with the side that we should not remove the dam. Accessibility to good water quality is one of the biggest water problems we have in California so taking away a source of clean water that this dam provides would be a huge disservice to people who depend on that clean water source. Ultimately, the Hetch Hetchy dam is significant for the bay area, and if we got rid of that source we would need to find other sources for the bay area, and with the limits on clean water sources as it is, we would only be struggling more.

1 point

I do see your point and agree that the quality of water is not important when it comes to agricultural demands, but how is the demand of agriculture going to thrive if there are no people left to require demand. In this sense, I mean that this poor quality water is threatening to the health of human life, and if improving water quality is not the main focus and water quality is then the polluted water will eventually find it's way to urban use as it already has many times before and could kill people impacting the population of humans. Finally, I see your point in the over filtration of water impacting the sources of nutrients in water, but there are other sources of nutrients that humans have access to mainly in food sources, and with poor quality water that will diminish in the access to more nutrient sources.

1 point

I agree with the argument that water quality is more important than water quantity because, as stated in the video, we have plenty of water in order to survive, although if we do not keep the water we currently have access to clean then the amount of water ultimately won't matter. Also, the quantity of water will not matter if we cannot even drink the water in which we have access to. Finally, again as stated in the video, poor quality water is also harmful the our environment which is not efficient when it comes to the demand of food as the pollution within the poor quality of water will damage our environment to the point of not being able to save our environment.

1 point

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.

1 point

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.

1 point

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.

1 point

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.

1 point

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.

1 point

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.

Rebagget has not yet created any debates.

About Me

I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!

Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here