Due to Climate Change, reclamation should be prohibited.

Ralph Romeo Bascones

AFFIRMATIVE
(Tasked to coagulate the proposition)
1. It is a must that we need to stop
reclamation projects and halt
future attempts to reclaim the
sea because it affects climate
change.
2. Climate change threatens low
lying areas such as Metro
Manila cities of Manila, Quezon,
Pasig, etc. and endangers soul
of man.
3. By reclaiming land, we bomb
mountains to have soil. In
effect, forests situated in
mountains will be destroyed.
The biodiversity will be
annihilated. Without forests, the
world will be warmer, thus
melting the ice in the poles and
climate change will be tighten.
4. Reclaimed land is susceptible to
floods.

Tendency of the Negative Side

(possible fallacies and weak points):
-

Appeal to history
Appeal to Science (refutable
because it is just a theory and
therefore not yet established)
Change the topic and argue that
climate change is not man
made. (petitio principi I think,
they beg the question.. open for
another argumentjust argue
that it is a different topic and
the proposition is clear that
climate change is caused by
man be careful in defining
climate change because if there
is a loophole, patay.)
They will appealto
development. (Please argue
that reclamation does not mean
development)

NEGATIVE
(Destroyer of affirmatives arguments)
1. How can reclamation affect
climate change?
2. What is climate change?
3. Is climate change man-made or
made by nature?
4. Is it not that climate change is a
natural phenomenon and
science proves that it is always
occurring, a manifestation of
the dynamic and changing
feature of our Earth?
5. If climate change is indeed
caused by man, and through
which we need to stop for our
survival, we must stop climate
change. However, there is no
direct link that connects
reclamation as the cause of
climate change. Reclamation in
cities, especially in Manila,
provides avenue for more
space. Space in highly
congested areas means
commerce. Commerce means
progress and development.
6. Bombing mountains is not a
valid argument. Reclamation
does not mean bombing
mountains. Substantial
materials used in reclaiming
(sand and soil) the sea may
come from desserts and sea
sand.
7. (as response to #4 of
affirmative) Reclaimed land
such as that in Denmark and
the Netherlands actually
protects their country from
flood, etc.
Tendency of the Affirmative (possible
fallacies and weak points):
-

They will appeal to emotion

value of life, etc.
They will fail to establish
connection in the topic. (I am
sure of this because they are
susceptible in committing red
herring fallacy

Due to Climate Change, reclamation should be prohibited.

Ralph Romeo Bascones
-

They will try to avoid answering

questions.

Interpellation
1. Do you think your contention is
valid?
Why?
2. You mentioned, Art 2 Sec 16 of
the constitution..do you think
reclamation promotes an
unhealthy ecology? Do you

believe reclamation violates the

constitution? If it does not
violate the constitution, then is
it not unlawful to reclaim land.
Is it not?
3. It has been a practice
4. Are you aware that reclaimed
lands are actually beneficial?
That it can create usable? Do
you know that taxes derived
from establishments in
reclaimed lands are
______________. And do you know
that reclaiming is beneficial
because it creates jobs? Why
stop what has been beneficial?
5. Aside from the fact that
6.