Instigator / Pro

jonrohith

1500

rating

debates

61.11%

won

Topic

#6177

We don't need forests in100 years

Status

Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

Better arguments

Better sources

Better legibility

Better conduct

After 4 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...

jonrohith

Tags

Society

Environment

earth

Parameters

Publication date: 05.22.2025 01:57AM
Last updated date: 05.31.2025 08:30AM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 2
Time for argument: One day
Max argument characters: 10,000
Voting period: One week
Point system: Multiple criterions
Voting system: Open

Contender / Con

pierree

1500

rating

debates

60.0%

won

Description

No information

Round 1

jonrohith

05.22.2025 01:26PM

Pro

Welcome

Importance of trees:

*Trees are the pillars of earth shaping every land in earth with its roots

*Trees produces about 28% of earths oxygen

*Trees provide microclimate ,shelther ,food, to animals ,birds

BUT AFTER 100 YEARS, WE DONT NEED TREES:

*Though trees give much benefits, we don't need it later parts

*Trees are often prone to forest fire releasing huge quantities of carbon at one time

* A single tree occupies huge space, Trees are often shelter for illegal activities

Technologia:

*Today humans are moving towards sustainable growth, We already using EV vehicles, Also countries such as Britain derives more than 80% of from sustainable methods such solar, tidal etc

* IN future we need more land to live, as forests occupying major areas, we can cut down trees and take it.

*Though tree produces oxygen , it is only little amount just 28 % of total earth

ALGAE TANKS:

* Under good sunlight and nutrient-rich water, algae can produce 10–15 times more oxygen per square meter than a tree.

* As well as we will use totally electrical energies in 100 years, we can destroy forest and can place algae rich lake and artificial trees equipped with solar panels, .

NANO INSECTS:

* We don't need natural pollinators like bees, butterflies anymore, we can use robotic insects and nano robots to pollinate farming land .

Conclusion:

Changes alone does not change, in future the need of trees will decrease, and we might build small artificial forests in every 10 sq kilo metre , this will make climate is same on all places, we will built algal tank on roof tops, robotic birds that not need fruits or nuts.

pierree

05.23.2025 01:26PM

Con

Forfeited

Round 2

jonrohith

05.23.2025 01:31PM

Pro

From above words, kindly vote for me

pierree

05.24.2025 08:30AM

Con

So I tried to answer with a polite answer, and I will start with the first thing: cutting down the forests as a consequence for the over population will be our living end.

As the global population continues to rise, so does the demand for land, food, housing, and infrastructure. One major consequence is the accelerated rate of deforestation, especially in tropical regions. This process brings several severe consequences:

Loss of Biodiversity: Forests are home to more than 80% of terrestrial species. Deforestation destroys habitats, leading to extinction or severe decline of plant and animal populations.
Climate Change Acceleration: Trees absorb carbon dioxide. Their removal increases greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, contributing significantly to global warming.
Soil Degradation and Erosion. Forests protect topsoil from erosion. When trees are removed, rain and wind erode the soil, reducing agricultural productivity and increasing desertification.
Disruption of the Water Cycle. Forests regulate local and global water cycles. Deforestation reduces rainfall, dries up rivers, and can lead to prolonged droughts.
Negative Impact on Indigenous Communities. Many Indigenous and local communities depend on forests for food, shelter, and culture. Deforestation often displaces them and erodes traditional ways of life.
Urban Sprawl and Unsustainable Agriculture. Population pressure often leads to expansion into forested areas for housing or large-scale farming (e.g., cattle ranching, palm oil), which are rarely sustainable long-term.

You mentioned earlier also that the sustainable growth will affect the world in the same way that the forests do, but what's the point between the forests and the sustainable energy?

The fact that ALGAE could potentially be even better compared to forests is totally nonsense.

While Algae tanks can help absorb the carbon dioxide, the effects wouldn't be the same as forests because they don't offer the same benefits as forests.

You mentioned also the presence of Nano Insects could replace the small pollinators insects. As I've done before, I give my point and all the sources.

First of all: There will be critical consequences to food security. Around 75% of global crops depend on pollinators. Bees, butterflies, and other insects pollinate plants more efficiently and selectively than any technology we currently have.
Biodiversity Support. Pollinators help maintain healthy ecosystems by aiding reproduction of wild plants, which in turn support birds, mammals, and other wildlife.
Resilience and Balance. Natural pollinators adapt to ecosystems, evolve with plants, and sustain themselves — unlike artificial solutions that need energy, maintenance, and materials.

Now, passing to the other hand, why nano insects are not a sustainable substitute of pollinators.

The first point and it's the critical one is the production, because nano insects, as robots require rare metals and really high energy: That is the exact opposite of sustainable

The second point are the ecological risks.

Releasing in nature thousands or millions of artificial devices into ecosystems could disrupt natural balances, harm organisms, or introduce unknown environmental consequences.

Not as last, what is the real cost and the effects? Also putting all the effort to make that work, it would be really inefficient for the human uses. Artificial pollinators can’t match the speed, precision, and efficiency of bees.

Simulating complex behaviors like flower recognition or weather adaptation is incredibly difficult. But the worst is investing in artificial replacements could distract from the urgent need to protect and restore real pollinator populations through habitat conservation, pesticide regulation, and climate action.

In conclusion forests in 100 years would probably be even the best thing to let stay because in a total destroyed planet, destroying also the only thing that can provide us oxygen and food is not a good thing at all.

The sources:

https://www.pollinator.org/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468265922000166

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/may/20/bees-threats-war-microplastics

https://ecologyisnotadirtyword.com/2017/02/11/artificial-pollinators-are-cool-but-not-the-solution/

https://www.beeculture.com/synthetic-pollination-invasive-species/

https://exchanges.warwick.ac.uk/index.php/exchanges/article/view/966

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/5/857

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest

https://www.newsweek.com/viral-post-liquid-tree-algae-carbon-dioxide-1792214

pierree

05.28.2025 07:28PM

I let it go forfeited because I couldn't use the internet and there was little time. my apologies 🙏

pierree

05.25.2025 09:56AM

Buddy you didn't answer, what is it? You offended?

pierree

05.24.2025 08:34AM

Hope it's satisfying enough

jonrohith

05.23.2025 01:28PM

Thanks

pierree

05.22.2025 06:07PM

dude what I just read is hilarious honestly

TheRizzler

05.28.2025 01:02PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

@whitflame I suppose that is a better way of communicating what I was trying to say in the debate 'Religion is beneficial' between TheGreatSunGod and Autism. Well said.

whiteflame

05.28.2025 04:07AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Given the single round forfeit by Con, they only got to present an argument in the final round of this two-round debate. Con’s arguments may be better in that second round, but since it is the final round, Pro never got a chance to respond to it. Presenting your entire argument as the last post in a debate is inherently unfair to Pro and thus, I don’t consider those arguments. Con had the opportunity to present them earlier and surrendered that opportunity by forfeiting.

So Pro automatically wins arguments so long as he makes any points in support of the resolution. I’ll pick him up on algae tanks, which demonstrate that there could be a replacement for forests.

Conduct to Pro for the forfeit. No points for legibility. No points for sources because, despite their presence in the debate, Con’s sources do not function so long as his arguments are not a factor.

21Pilots

05.28.2025 03:40AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Both provided very good and well structured arguments, however con provided trusted and reliable sources while pro didn’t provide any sources at all.
However, con also forefit one round without a valid reason so for that one point goes to pro.

fauxlaw

05.28.2025 01:21AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

This debate was won entirely on successful arguments and scholastically-rooted sources.
Arguments
Pro R1 argued that Earth’s forests could be cut down because trees contribute only 28% of our oxygen supply.Only?
Con’sR2 was a stellar comeback presenting several good rebuttal points, such as that forests are habitants for many animals and plants which would be endangered by loss of forests, and loss of significant carbon dioxide absorption, and water cycle disruption. Con wins points

Sourcing
Pro did not offer source material
Con supported all arguments above with scholastic references as noted in arguments. Con wins

Legibility tie

Conduct con’s forfeit of R1 loses conduct point,