Economic development is more important than protecting the environment.

Refutation:

Q: When a person has no money, should he solve the problem of food and clothing first, or plant trees on an empty stomach? (or other money issues, such as issuing funds. )

Refutation: the other debater just mentioned that there is no money-it is money. I want to remind another debater that economic development is not the same as the amount of money, and the word economy is not just the same as money. If the other debater must emphasize that money is also a part of the economy, then I might as well use money as an example. When we go up the mountain to play, we often see a sign that says: Everyone is responsible for forest protection and fire prevention, and smokers will be fined 50 yuan. What does this mean? It just means that whoever doesn't protect the environment will pay the economic price! Who is more important, environment or economy? If economic development is really important, why doesn't the state stipulate in reverse: whoever steals 50 yuan will be punished for entering the forest belt and releasing Yamakaji!

Q: How can a person protect the environment if he can't solve the problem of food, clothing, housing and transportation?

Refutation: The other debater said that food, clothing, housing and transportation are so important at this time. Does it mean that food, clothing, housing and transportation represent the economy? Wrong, just on behalf of the environment. I want to tell my opponent that food, clothing, housing and transportation, rice, oil, salt, sauce, vinegar and tea all come from the environment of our earth. Their materials belong to the earth's environment, rather than flying from outer space and falling from space. I believe none of you here grew up eating Pluto's food and wearing Polaris clothes. Now, regarding the question raised by another debater just now, I would like to ask: when the consumption of environmental resources on the earth is gone, we have no materials for food, clothing, housing and transportation, and we can't solve the problem of food, clothing, housing and transportation, how can we develop the economy?

Q: If a country's economic development is extremely weak and its people are living in miserable conditions, how can we force others to plant trees and protect the environment? Isn't this cruel?

Refutation: Our topic today is who is more important, economic development and environmental protection, not who is important and who is not important at all. Why do other debaters like to embellish their crimes with such extreme examples? If the other debater insists on asking whether it is feasible to protect the environment in a place without economic foundation. Then, can we also ask whether it is feasible to develop the economy on a comet with no environmental foundation?

Q: Now the desertification in Africa is very serious, but you tell them that I am starving, but I have to plant grass first. Is this reasonable?

Refutation: If there were no Americans and no Europeans to go there for economic exploitation, do you think Africans would really face such a dilemma today?

Q: The other debater has been talking about environmental protection, but what is environmental protection? Is it holding a sign that says environmental protection? Doesn't environmental protection need practical action? Don't practical actions need material support? Don't you need to invest human, financial and material resources in the process of protecting the environment? Without economic development, how can we protect the environment?

Refutation: But the other side thinks that with the development of economy, people may not necessarily save the earth. The country may be used for comprehensive construction, enterprises will expand production, and people may go to the movies and go back to buy luxury goods. Another debater, if you don't put environmental protection first, how do you know that the earth can still be saved?

Because of economic development, the United States (or some other country) can spend 2.47 billion yuan to improve the environment every year. Can the United States afford so much money without economic development?

Refutation: The reason why the United States (or some other countries) spend so much money to solve environmental problems is because they have created too many problems in the process of economic development! And the logic of the opposing debater is also very interesting. You might as well think about it. If a person spends more than 654.38+10,000 yuan to go to the hospital every year, does it mean that he is rich? Or is he ill? (Pause for more than 1 sec) It's better to give her more money to treat her if she doesn't get sick.