Instigator / Pro
6
1486
rating
17
debates
52.94%
won
Topic
#6272
Fashion is not sustainable it creates more pollution.
Status
Voting
The participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.
Voting will end in:
00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- 1,500
Contender / Con
13
1578
rating
201
debates
54.98%
won
Description
Fashion- That is buying dresses which are in current trend, buying dress for showcase, using synthetic fibres,. more complex dresses.
Round 1
Fashion:
Fashion is a term used interchangeably to describe the creation of clothing, footwear, accessories, cosmetics, and jewellery of different cultural aesthetics and their mix and match into outfits that depict distinctive ways of dressing (styles and trends) as signifiers of social status, self-expression, and group belonging- Wikipedia.
Who creates fashion?
Fashion trends are not created by a single individual or entity, but rather are a result of various factors and influencers working together. While designers play a significant role, trends also emerge from street style, social media, celebrity endorsements, and broader cultural shifts
In this modern world , trends in fashion are mainly created by social media influencers, Actor and actress. But in these days new trends are created very quickly and they spread rapidly. But in nowadays fashion majority dresses are created by synthetic fibres or mixed with synthetic fibres.
Polluting fashion:
As of recent data, approximately 60% of clothing materials worldwide are synthetic fibers such as polyester, nylon, and acrylic, which are derived from fossil fuels and are non-biodegradable
These synthetic fibers can take hundreds of years to decompose in landfills, contributing significantly to environmental pollution. Additionally, the fashion industry is responsible for about 10% of global carbon emissions and 20% of global wastewater, highlighting its substantial environmental impact.
Efforts are being made to shift towards more sustainable practices, such as using recycled materials and developing biodegradable alternatives. However, the widespread use of non-biodegradable fibers remains a significant challenge in the quest for sustainable fashion.
These synthetic fibers can take hundreds of years to decompose in landfills, contributing significantly to environmental pollution. Additionally, the fashion industry is responsible for about 10% of global carbon emissions and 20% of global wastewater, highlighting its substantial environmental impact.
Efforts are being made to shift towards more sustainable practices, such as using recycled materials and developing biodegradable alternatives. However, the widespread use of non-biodegradable fibers remains a significant challenge in the quest for sustainable fashion.
Please I request con and voters to read this website to know more- The Environmental Cost Of Fast Fashion A Closer Look At Textile Waste?utm_source=chatgpt.com | Recovo .
As I given above data, we can understand people are buying more more dresses but using it less less time. Our purchasing increased but we using that in wrong means, In previous gen we bought only one shoe or slipper, but now we getting each shoe for formal use, sports use, casual use, special occasion use, and more more, same even apply for dresses and inners. We buying new dresses even we have good old dresses.
One of the main reason for buying more dresses is now they available cheap, and come to door of our house. We are now wearing plastics instead of dresses.
Pro made two separate statements, "Fashion is not sustainable. It creates pollution." This phrasing leaves a vagueness that could offer another interpretation that separates sustainability and pollution.
I believe Pro meant, "Fashion is not sustainable because it creates pollution."
The most important word here is Sustainability - able to continue over a period of time. (Cambridge Dictionary)
Pro's resolution makes several assumptions.:
- The end of the world is near because of The Climate Crisis.
- Getting rid of fashion is the solution for The Climate Crisis.
Fashion has endured for a millennia, since the Neolithic Period which is the beginning of human civilization. While fashion is certainly a significant contributor that perpetuates pollution. Changing fashion to an environmentally-suitable version would theoretically extend fashion's lifespan indefinitely, but that isn't the case.
Multiple factors are the cause of pollution, and even if fashion was not one of them, and pollution was to eventually make earth inhabitable. Fashion wouldn't be sustainable, even if it didn't contribute to pollution.
Multiple factors are the cause of pollution, and even if fashion was not one of them, and pollution was to eventually make earth inhabitable. Fashion wouldn't be sustainable, even if it didn't contribute to pollution.
My counter-argument is that Fashion shall remain, so long as the human species does.
Round 2
Mr,Con failed to argue against me , he accepts most I meant
" While fashion is certainly a significant contributor that perpetuates pollution"- by Con
He is failed to give any ideas or alternative to make fashion pollution free, As I said fashion directly related to pollution. At this time we need to reduce buying , and extend using these are the only way to reduce pollution by few. We need to use some natural fibres or less pollution causing synthetic fibres.
To Con:
Con should provide enough arguments and ideas to how make fashion pollution free, Though multiple factors are cause of pollution , We cannot completely control any one factor, but we can reduce all factors , so it finally results in reduced pollution. I need more detailed argument from con, take your time and read my sources and give some details and idea's in this round.
Fashion is not prime cause of pollution, Changing fashion and low use is prime cause of pollution:
As we know anything we use within limit it does not cause any danger. Nowadays fashions are changing rapidly ,so we use a dress very less time and throw it. Fashion industry is a biggest industry in world , we asking governments, companies to reduce pollution, but we can limit pollution by a small step from us.
Pro is backpedaling.
First he says, fashion is not sustainable because it creates pollution. And now he says that the answer is to use less fashion.
However, this is a contradiction because the title of this debate only offers one solution which is to eliminate fashion entirely.
His whole case is therefore self-refuting.
Extend arguments.
Round 3
I never backpedalled.
The topic is "Fashion is not sustainable, It creates more pollution" , In this I told that Fashion is not sustainable , but I never mentioned to completely stop fashion or ban.
Con must be argued towards Fashion does not creates pollution or towards steps or ideas for making pollution less polluting . but he failed in arguing.
". Fashion wouldn't be sustainable, even if it didn't contribute to pollution. "- this is told by con in round one
This reflects that con failed counter argue me , he accepts my title. moreover con failed to argue detailed against me.
Pro has not yet given a compelling reason for why the lifespan of fashion is short, and that it should be abandoned. Nor has he even attempted to provide an estimate for how many years fashion will endure, or the total percentage of pollution it produces.
I maintain the claim that fashion shall persist until the end of the human race. Extend arguments and sources.
Re; your #4 post;
Yes, and all those sources are basically reading each other, none of them have credible sourcing of their own such as to a pure researched and peer-reviewed article with back-up scientific data to sustain the claims made, such as the claim that 10% of all carbon emission is from the fashion industry. You made the claim that discarded fashion takes hundreds of years to decompose [after claiming it is not biodegradable at all!] but a large tree can take that long as well, and that is an entirely organic thing. Same with dinosaurs, only they could take much, much longer to decompose. So, decomposition is no argument in your favor.
Voting notes:
Pro claimed in R1 [not sourced] "the fashion industry is responsible for about 10% of global carbon emissions.' I entered this string as a search string and found about a half-dozen [there were more, but I stopped looking] sites making the same exact claim, but none were credible, science-based articles with attributable studied coming to that conclusion. They are all using much the same verbiage without sourcing their information, either. This is a prevalent problem with the internet. Everyone claims data without sourcing their data, and saying it in much the same language, leaving the suspicion that they're reading the same source articles, and none of them have credible proof of the claim, just borrowing from one another, which essentially counts as rumor, not fact.
quick buddy
I collected information from several sites, including wikipedia , google, chat gpt, recovo.
What is cute'
What if it is cute?