Economic development is more important than protecting the environment.

Counterargument:

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 and so on. )

Refutation: The other debater just mentioned that there is no money-that 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? This just shows 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 to enter the forest zone and release Yamakaji!

Q: When a person can't solve the problems of food, clothing, housing and transportation, how can he protect the environment?

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, it just represents 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, not flying from outer space and falling from space. I believe that none of you here grew up eating Pluto's rice 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, and we have no materials to eat and wear, 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 aggravate their crimes with such extreme examples? If another debater wants to ask 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 economy on a comet without environmental foundation?

Q: The desertification in Africa is very serious now, but you told them that I was starving, but I had to plant grass first. Is this reasonable?

Refutation: Do you think Africans would really face such a dilemma today if Americans and Europeans didn't go there for economic exploitation?

Q: Another 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 state may use it 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 give priority to environmental protection, how do you know that the earth can still be saved?

Due to the economic development, the United States (or some other countries) can spend 2.47 billion yuan to improve the environment every year. If the economy does not develop, can the United States afford so much money?

Refutation: The reason why the United States (or 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 65.438 billion yuan to go to the hospital every year, does this mean that he is rich? Or is he sick? (Pause for more than 1 sec) It is better not to get sick than to give her more money to treat the disease.