In contention one sub point b, the speaker claims that the effects of littering create an unclean environment but is this really true? We all know that in the contemporary world, littering has become one of the most serious issues that leads to environmental pollution. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, some forms of littering are actually beneficial to the environment. For instance, disposed organic litter such as fruit peelings and vegetables decompose and provide nutrients to plants. The speaker is therefore wrong when he says that all forms of littering are harmful to the environment.
In contention two, the opponent says that low penalties allow littering to keep happening but to some extent, these claims are false. Increasing the penalty will not help to reduce the problem of littering. The speaker’s claims in this case are wrong because he fails to acknowledge the fact that this is a behavioral habit. The Bureau of Crime Statistics and research stated that the rate of recidivism on driving offences did not reduce between 1998 and 2000 even after higher fines were imposed. This means that a change in attitude is needed if the issue is to be addressed. The opponent calls for state governments to impose higher fines but it is evident that this is the wrong approach to the problem. A change in cognitive reasoning is required and as such, the only way of dealing with this problem is for people take responsibility and challenge anyone who litters the environment.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In contention three sub point b, the opponent says that in cities where fines have been increased, the amount of trash has gone down. The opponent has failed to back up his information with the appropriate source and as such, this can only be presumed to be an assumption. An increase in the penalties charged does not necessarily mean that the rate of littering will go down. In addition to this, the opponent uses Los Angeles as a reference to illustrate this point, yet he does not provide the situation in other cities. Generalizing the statement provides a false basis for supporting this argument.
