Fashion is not sustainable it creates more pollution.
The participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.
Voting will end in:
- 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
Fashion- That is buying dresses which are in current trend, buying dress for showcase, using synthetic fibres,. more complex dresses.
The whole entire debate kind of got sidetracked, but there was one thing that helped con win and that was source,
Since he added a source during his argument, he is right to receive one point.
One point added to pro since he put in statistics and some chracteristics of debating, otherwise he gets no other points since he kept refusing
Argument:
The instigator, Pro, offers a problematic Resolution: "Fashion is not sustainable it creates more pollution," because it makes assumptions argued and not argued, and reaches conclusions assumed to be fact, but still exist in the realm of theory, i.e., unknown. Quite simply, pro's Resolution begins with a truism: fashion definitively is not sustainable in single example. Fasion is a consumable, like food. It is consumed and must be re-acquired. The following quote from pro's R1 demonstrates the theory/fact conflict: "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..." First, Pro claims synthetic fibers are non-biodegradable, then immediately follows with them taking hundreds of years to decompose. These are contradictory claims. His sources admit the same conflict. But the claim of non-biodegration does not support the Resolution's concern of either non-sustainability nor pollution. Further, pro argued "the fashion industry is responsible for about 10% of global carbon emissions," but did not cite a source for this claim. See notes posted in comments. Pro's citation of "Environmental Cost of fast Fashion..." itself, makes this critical mistake, merely passions on rumor. Will someone cite a credible source, pls?
Con's R1 argument repeats the problematic Resolution, pointing to its assumptions, then argues successfully that the notion of sustainable fashion is basically a circular argument t because fashion, even if environmentally friendly, would not be sustainable. It's an irrefutable argument: like other consumables, like food, fashion must be replenished.
Pro's R2 ignores the truism factor of his Resolution and argues unsuccessfully that Con has not refuted his argument, whereas Con's R1 is nothing but refutation. pro appears married to his truism, and digs a deeper hole of it: "He is failed to give any ideas or alternative to make fashion pollution free." But that argument is not Con's BoP, because, Con will rebut [R2] "First he says, fashion is not sustainable because it creates pollution. And now he says that the answer is to use less fashion." Very good rebuttal.
Pro [R2] "Con should provide enough arguments and ideas to how make fashion pollution free." Pro needed to worry less about Con's BoP and see to his own, but this will continue to be Pro's downfall. Agaon, it is not Con's BoP to address pollution-free fashion, because of the truism of Pro's Resolution; Fashion is not sustainable. Con's R2 set's the proper tone of this debate with a seven-word answer for his BoP, and Pro's as well: What Are the Solutions to Climate Change? - a sourced rebuttal which, effectively, wins the argument.
Pro's R3 just perpetuates the problems with his argument.
Con wins arguments.
Sources; con's sources exemplified in Argument section are sufficient t to win sourcing points.
Legibility: Though pro's arguments are legible, the confusion therein is also apparent by self-contradiction. Con's legibility wins the day
Conduct is tied
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?