My topic is Ban on Convenience Plastics. I am on the Con side unfortunately. This is not my position on my topic, I believe that convinced plastics should be banned. My first thought when I saw what topic I got was “s***.”. My opponents aren’t ideal either.
Prior to research I already know that the Pro side is backed up with facts and stats about the harm that plastic is doing to our environment. The Con side can most likely only argue about jobs being lost and the convenience of just grabbing a water bottle being lost. Also the plastics would need to be replaced with another material that works almost the same as plastic.
With a basic google search I learned that banning plastics would help the environment but not as much as we think it would. The change would mean a lot but maybe not enough. I also got more facts on countries that reused plastics in roads and other items. The roads was a big one in many countries. India has several hundred miles of plastic roads leading from village to village.
In a logical approach I will most likely start off with how much we over exaggerate the effect that banning plastics would have. Also the many jobs that will be lost in plastic industry would be devastating. My opponent will most likely say that those without a job will go to the other companies that produce materials that will replace plastic but he/she won’t know that the company will most likely just increase production with the same employees.
An ethical issue is obviously that the Earth is going to die, that our environment is going to slowly decay. The emotions is a big one because it can turn into a “do you want your kids to live in a polluted world” debate real quick. The con side doesn’t really have much to attack back with that evolves ethical or emotional factors. The main emotion in this is guilt. The opponent could bring out a guilt trip and start with questions that mostly start with “do you really want…”.