Scribd
Upload
6 views2 pages

DEBATE

The Opposition argues against a blanket ban on single-use plastics proposed by the Proposition, citing significant economic costs and practical challenges. They emphasize that such a ban would disproportionately affect small businesses and low-income consumers, while also neglecting the critical utility of single-use plastics in sectors like healthcare. The Opposition concludes that without viable alternatives, the ban could lead to new environmental issues and public health risks.

Uploaded by

anhthu13th5
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
6 views2 pages

DEBATE

The Opposition argues against a blanket ban on single-use plastics proposed by the Proposition, citing significant economic costs and practical challenges. They emphasize that such a ban would disproportionately affect small businesses and low-income consumers, while also neglecting the critical utility of single-use plastics in sectors like healthcare. The Opposition concludes that without viable alternatives, the ban could lead to new environmental issues and public health risks.

Uploaded by

anhthu13th5
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

1.

Opening Statement: A Harmful and Simplistic Solution

Speaker 1

"Good morning, esteemed Judges, members of the Proposition, and everyone


present.

We, the Opposition, thank the Proposition for their passionate plea regarding the
environment. We unreservedly agree that plastic pollution is a global crisis
demanding urgent action. However, we disagree with their proposed solution: that
a blanket ban on single-use plastics is the effective and optimal way forward.

This solution is far too simplistic, poorly targeted, and will cause severe economic
and practical consequences. Our core stance is: A broad ban is economically
damaging, poorly targeted, and creates new environmental problems."

2. Core Argument: Economic Cost and Environmental Trade-offs

Speaker 2

"Our primary concern centers on the massive economic cost this ban would
generate.

High Transition Costs and Burden on Consumers

First, a ban is an economically harmful solution because it imposes


disproportionately high transition costs.

It places an unfair burden on small businesses and the food service industry. These
enterprises often lack the capital to immediately switch to eco-friendly or
biodegradable packaging, which is usually significantly more expensive than
plastic. According to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP, 2022),
the production cost of alternative materials (like paper, bamboo, or bioplastics) is
typically 2 to 5 times higher than that of single-use plastics.

This transition naturally increases production, transportation, and consumption


costs. Ultimately, these higher expenses are passed on to consumers, translating
into higher retail prices and directly affecting the purchasing power of the public,
especially low-income families.

Shifting the Environmental Burden

3. Rebuttal and Conclusion: Critical Utility and Scalability

Speaker 3 (The Rebuttal and Conclusion Presenter for Opposition):

"The Proposition overlooks two critical flaws in their reasoning: the essential
utility of single-use plastics and the current lack of truly scalable alternatives.

Firstly, a ban on single-use items ignores their critical utility, particularly in sectors
where sterility is paramount.

In the healthcare sector, the World Health Organization (WHO) affirms that single-
use medical plastics are indispensable to ensure sterility and patient safety.
Banning these items without a cost-effective, equally sterile substitute ready would
create dangerous public health risks.

Secondly, the proposed alternatives are often not scalable or practical for a global
supply chain.

If we ban the item without a viable, cost-effective substitute, we risk creating


logistical nightmares and potentially increasing food waste, which carries its own
severe environmental consequences.

Our Conclusion

In summary, while we share the goal of environmental protection, a complete ban


on single-use plastics is not the optimal solution. It imposes high transition costs,
ignores critical safety applications, and lacks viable alternatives.

THANKS FOR LISTENING

You might also like