Recycling paper is a good way to fight climate change.

zarul: "I. The affirmative is wrong in that recycling decreases demand for paper. 1. The demand for paper is constantly rising as the population rises." me: Notice I said all other things being equal. But I said nothing about whether or not aggregate demand has increased, just that recycling paper lowers it. So even if demand for tree farms was rising, it would have been rising faster if there was no recycled paper. zarul: "2. At worst, reycling would cause no more commercial forests to be planted (and these forests are not that good, as proven later)." me; And if you want more trees you would at least want more commercial forests planted. But the downward push on demand for tree farms that recycling causes also has a downward effect on profit margins, and thus leads to less trees. zarul: "3. Because it will end up balancing, recycling is not harming the environment, and this point of the affirmative's is null." Reply: What exactly is being balanced? The point I am making is that government interference is unintentionally causing harm. zarul: "A. They are made quickly, as to maximize profit, require massive amounts of fertilizer, and will soon be cut down. They also do not manage carbon dioxide as well as other trees since their only purpose is to be made into paper." Reply: And what does what the tree turn into have to do with carbon dioxide? If I planted a tree to cut it down and then changed my mind and thought I just wanted to look at it, that would change how it regulated carbon dioxide in the air? Plus, younger trees would be growing, thus using more energy and carbon dioxide. Older trees quit growing, so would need less carbon dioxide. zarul: B. Because of this, they are only temporarily beneficial to the environment, whereas "virgin trees", or natural forests (or any forest that has been established for awhile) are far more beneficial. Reply: No, because the trees are grown again and again. Trees are a renewable resource. zarul: C. Because these forests will not be cut down, they continuously manage carbon dioxide levels. Reply: And as said earlier, the trees are continuously grown, so they continuously manage carbon dioxide levels. zarul: D. These trees also have spread their roots, and in doing so, can provide more managing of carbon dioxide. As well, this root system helps prevent erosion, and these forests generally have more biodiversity. reply: Trees grown for commercial purposes also have roots. As for soil erosion and tree forests, the topic was climate change. zarul; 2. The earth's population is in a state of rapid expansion. This means the consumption of paper will continually rise, and, the amount of land needed for farming rise as well. reply: Yes, and recycling ensures that less of that land will be used for trees. And if less trees means more global warming, then recycling paper is bad for climate change. Plus, there is plenty of land available. zarul: A. This necessary increase in farming land will mean that more and more land efficiency will be required. Reply: again, this is about climate change. But if you want more land efficiency, then you would want to develop genetically engineered super-crops, not recycle. zarul: B. Because much of this growth is less developed countries, there will not be companies planting trees (which obviously are not that useful to the environment anyway). Reply: You have no reason for believing that commercials trees do nothing for the environment. The whole point of not recycling paper is that more trees will be planted. zarul: C. Many native forests will be cut down, and this will increase climate change. Reply: Native forests get cut down because they are usually in the way of building something or planting something else. By not recycling paper, you are encouraging that at least some of that forest that is cut down is grown back. zarul: "3. This can be prevented by encouraging recycling. A. The affirmative might object by saying that corporations for planting trees should be made, however... B. Recycling paper is cheaper than making new paper." Reply: A: ? Um, what? The whole point of my argument is that by not recycling paper, more corporations would be made for planting trees. B: No, it's not because recycling paper is subsidized by the government, which hides the true cost. If it were cheaper then paper manufactures would quit buying trees and collect the paper from your house itself. The only way recycling a newspaper would be cheaper is if you read the same newspaper everyday. Recycling is a manufacturing process: Trucks have to come by, pick up the paper, treat it with chemicals, and repackage it. This is no more better for the environment then just cutting down trees grown for commercial purposes. The difference is that recycling causes less trees to be planted, which is bad for the climate change. zarul: C. These poorer countries would therefore it would be in that countries interests to recycle rather than to engage in a new commercial industry (which again, is not that beneficial in regulating carbon dioxide). Reply: Again, this is about climate change, not third world development, and if it were, ofcourse poorer countries would want to engage in new commercial industry. That's what makes them poor is lack of commercial industry. And you have no reason for believing that tree farm trees do nothing for the environment. Since they are constantly growing, they are using more energy and hence more carbon dioxide. zarul: D. Recycling will reduce the amount of native forests cut down (especially in developing countries), and in doing so will help fight climate change. Reply: No, recycling just ensures that less of what is cut down will be grown back. Since profit margins are lower for growing trees, that land will be used to grow something else. zarul: "III. Finally, it should be recognized that in reality, much of the current climate change is occurring in developing countries, not developed ones. The affirmative totally ignores the non-developed world which does not have these industries. So vote for me. My arguments make more sense, and do not ignore half the world (or even more) as the affirmative does." Reply: Climate change is global; it doesn't occur in select countries. That's why Al Gore's book was called EARTH in the Balance, not Vanuatu in the Balance. The environmental movement is what hurts poor countries because it seeks to take away cheap, abundant energy. Why care about respiratory problems that develop in your old age if you live on the brink of starvation and don't live to be that old? I didn't realize we had to give a reason for people to vote for us (other than our arguments), but mine would have to be: Vote for me, since I don't base my arguments off of pious superstition and ignore the fundamental functioning mechanisms of reality.