DoomYoshi wrote:Hey there, I am doing a debate and can't think of a single reason that will stand up to science. I need to defend the position:
In order to protect the environment and human health, only natural chemicals should be permitted for use as pesticides, and synthetic pesticides should be banned;
Since this is my main source of dissenting information, I assume you could tell why this position has merits.
So far, these are the 3 pinnacle points:
a) co-evolution argument (breaks down if you study human history of the twentieth century; almost nothing we eat now more than a few generations have eaten - however there are ridiculous health problems like 67% obesity in Canada and 80% predicted diabetes, which may be due to MORE food instead of synthetic pesticides; refined grains feature almost no toxins of any kind)
b) MTD argument, natural chemicals often have higher MTDs
c) skeptic argument, more information is needed, ad infinitum
Don't let them argue about how people make trade-offs between health and all other goods. (E.g. people drink alcohol--when they could have Greater Health! The nerve of them!) Health isn't the end-all, be-all of existence, so people are willing to pay various prices for various foods. If you preclude one form of production, then you narrow that opportunity set (e.g. 'organic only!' to be extreme).
For example, if banning the synthetics requires food producers to use more costly means, then the price of food rises, thus real income for consumers is reduced. And, this is bad because it forces consumers to reduce either their consumption of food and/or consumption of all other goods.
The Counter-AttackYou'd have to argue that higher food prices is better for people, and (a) you know this because you have gained tremendous insight into the subjective utilities of all human beings (phenomenal!). (b) People are so fat, that forcing them to pay higher prices would reduce their consumption! (assuming the demand for food is elastic, which I doubt--find a study which shows otherwise!)
The higher food prices assumption depends on whether or not the price changes if synthetic pesticides are banned, so get some empirical paper which supports 'lower prices!' and ignore any paper which says 'higher prices!'
This is a debate! Use 'science' to your advantage! Confirmation bias, FTW!
And if anyone mentions the epistemological problems of your position (e.g. how do you know that this is best for everyone?), then argue:
(c) People are stupid! They don't understand that their lower-priced food relies on methods which hurt the environment. Why how dare they! Production should be rearranged, so that only non-synthetic pesticide producers could exist. Presumably, their carbon footprint compared to the synthetic pesticide producers is lower! (is this true? who cares! Keep rattling on! People love to hear that people--other than them, of course-- are stupid whenever the environment is on the line).
(d) The cost-savings of natural pesticides would offset the long-term
environmental costs of synthetic pesticides. (citation? let confirmation bias be your guide). If 'no citation', then say "..... would
most likely offset ...".
Even better--do not add any comparison to your claim (this is unscientific/stupid, but with debates and with most audiences, it generally works). Instead say, "synthetic pesticides are harmful for the environment in the long-term!" (see? And that claim isn't weighed down by a pesky--albeit useful--comparison!)
Then, double-up the non-comparison claim with an appeal to emotion: (e) "those businesses/those big, bad corporations cannot estimate the future environmental costs! We're environmental scientists; we know better!" (hurrah, hurrah!)
