Instigator / Pro
7
1465
rating
31
debates
59.68%
won
Topic
#5729
We should Ban Fast Fashion
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 1 vote and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
Owen_T
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 8,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Con
5
1264
rating
363
debates
39.81%
won
Description
We will be using all definitions from the Merriam Webster Dictionary.
In this debate, we will be discussing if Shein should be allowed to sell to the U.S.
Round 1
Fast Fashion seems cheap, but it's cost isn't just monetary.
Arguments:
Fast Fashion Destroys the Environment
Imagine for a moment if we could cut 10 percent of carbon emissions. That would have a colossal effect on our fight against climate change. Obviously, we should do what ever we can to eliminate this amount of emissions.
What we can do is to fight fast fashion. Creating such cheap clothes has a detrimental effect on the climate.
The following article has further detail if you want to know more:
It Comes at the Cost of Another
If someone's making a profit from a shirt that's only a few dollars, it's hard to pay the person who made it. So they don't.
Less than two percent of people working creating clothes for fast fashion brands earn living wages, and the average garment maker often works around 16 hours every day the entire week. Investigations have also shown disturbing amounts of children working in these factories.
So I ask you, is the five dollar shirt worth it?
Fast fashion is cheaper, and none of my opponent's arguments disprove that. So logically, people should want fast fashion legal.
My opponent talks of increase in children being employed, which I guess proves that fast fashion also creates jobs, but thats irrelevant as long as price of products is low.
Even if my opponent proved that fast fashion is bad for environment and gives jobs to young people, then people should want to make fast fashion legal.
Round 2
Rebuttals:
Fast fashion is cheaper, and none of my opponent's arguments disprove that. So logically, people should want fast fashion legal.
Slave labor is cheaper. So logically, people should want slavery to be legal.
See the issues with that?
My opponent talks of increase in children being employed, which I guess proves that fast fashion also creates jobs, but thats irrelevant as long as price of products is low.
You're going to have a hard time making child labor an advantage.
These jobs that are created are jobs that take advantage of people.
These jobs that are created are jobs that take advantage of people.
Fast fashion employees, including children work unbelievably long hours in often hazardous conditions and for below legal minimum wage.
The price of Fast Fashion is not low.
Slave labor is cheaper. So logically, people should want slavery to be legal.See the issues with that?
Slave labor being cheaper doesnt change the fact that fast fashion is cheap, thus fast fashion shouldnt be banned. Fast fashion being cheap is more important than slave labor being cheaper. Fast fashion is better and more important than slave labor. Young people working in factories isnt slave labor, as it isnt slavery, so fast fashion isnt slavery. But even if it was slavery, it stands as fact that it is cheaper and not like other slavery which is banned, so fast fashion shouldnt be banned. Fast fashion is most important, and it should remain fully legal.
Round 3
1. My opponent has dropped the point regarding fast fashion's affects on the environment.
_________________________________________
2.I think you misunderstood by argument.
I'd like to ask you a basic yes or no question:
Because slavery is cheaper, should we legalize it?
1. My opponent has dropped the point regarding fast fashion's affects on the environment.
Nothing was dropped. Your point was negated by the fact that fast fashion is cheap.
2.I think you misunderstood by argument.I'd like to ask you a basic yes or no question:Because slavery is cheaper, should we legalize it?
Basic yes or no questions dont exist.
If you asked me if I want candy, I wouldnt be able to answer with neither yes neither no, because sometimes I want candy and sometimes I dont.
Thus, from this, we see that every "basic yes or no question" suffers from:
1. The fact that both yes or no can be true at different times
2. The fact that both yes or no can be true at different place
3. The fact that both yes or no can be true at different circumstances and conditions.
Thus, voters should just reject this question which ignores reality and doesnt account for time, place and conditions.
But this was already somewhat answered before. My argument was not "Anything that is cheap should be legalized", but "Fast fashion is cheap, so it should be legalized".
From this, we see basic difference between words "anything" and fast fashion.
For example, if you said how some horrible thing is cheap, I merely need to point out that fast fashion isnt that horrible thing, thus fast fashion should remain legal.
If fast fashion is slavery, then such slavery should remain legal, obviously, since its not same slavery as slavery which is not fast fashion. Thus, fast fashion should remain legal because its cheap and different from other types of slavery. Other types of slavery can remain illegal while fast fashion remains legal, due to the difference between them.
Some slavery is always legal, like parents and government owning kids and determining their life.
But if fast fashion isnt slavery, then it logically follows that you are promoting fast fashion by saying how its not slavery. Thus, fast fashion being both cheap and not slavery leads to conclusion that fast fashion should be legal.
So is fast fashion slavery or not?
Round 4
But this was already somewhat answered before. My argument was not "Anything that is cheap should be legalized", but "Fast fashion is cheap, so it should be legalized".From this, we see basic difference between words "anything" and fast fashion.For example, if you said how some horrible thing is cheap, I merely need to point out that fast fashion isnt that horrible thing, thus fast fashion should remain legal.If fast fashion is slavery, then such slavery should remain legal, obviously, since its not same slavery as slavery which is not fast fashion. Thus, fast fashion should remain legal because its cheap and different from other types of slavery. Other types of slavery can remain illegal while fast fashion remains legal, due to the difference between them.
Frankly, I had a bit of a hard time tracking this argument. I think you're logic is that fast fashion is different from slavery, and therefore better. Though, the point I was trying to express is that monetary cost being lower does not provide moral justification for something.
We can agree that slavery is bad, even though it is cheap.
I've illustrated that fast fashion is bad, and it being cheap does not counter that.
Speaking of which, my opponent has not provided a direct argument that fast fashion does not exploit workers, and they've completely dropped the point regarding fast fashion's effect on the environment.
Fast fashion is not truly cheap. Granted, the monetary cost is lower, but we pay for it with 1.2 billion tonnes of carbon, as well as the well being of other people.
Since this debate is practically over I will go ahead and state an uncomfortable fact. The expensive shit uses the exact same slave labor as fast fashion. You can't escape it by banning fast fashion.
Frankly, I had a bit of a hard time tracking this argument.
Since my opponent just conceded that he doesnt understand my argument, I guess we can just conclude he has no ability to negate it either. Thus, my argument is unchallenged.
I think you're logic is that fast fashion is different from slavery, and therefore better. Though, the point I was trying to express is that monetary cost being lower does not provide moral justification for something.
My argument was never "something that is cheap is justified", thus my opponent is punching a strawman.
He conceded that fast fashion is better than slavery, thus fast fashion should be legal because its cheap and better than slavery.
We can agree that slavery is bad, even though it is cheap.
This isnt a debate about slavery.
I've illustrated that fast fashion is bad, and it being cheap does not counter that.
This point is negated by simple logic:
Slavery = bad
Fast fashion =/= slavery
Fast fashion =/= bad
Fast fashion = cheap
Cheap + not slavery = good
Speaking of which, my opponent has not provided a direct argument that fast fashion does not exploit workers, and they've completely dropped the point regarding fast fashion's effect on the environment.
These points were negated by the fact that fast fashion is cheap.
Thus, we see this simple logic again:
Fast fashion = even if slavery, isnt as bad as other types of slavery
Fast fashion = cheap
Thus,
Not being as bad as other types of slavery, plus cheap = good
Fast fashion = good
Fast fashion is not truly cheap. Granted, the monetary cost is lower, but we pay for it with 1.2 billion tonnes of carbon, as well as the well being of other people.
This point is completely negated. First, we dont pay for carbon. Nobody pays for carbon because nobody is selling carbon. As for well being of people, that point is negated by fast fashion being cheap. If people prefered well being and what you are saying over cheap fast fashion, they wouldnt keep buying cheap fast fashion.
Also, if some people die, thats actually better for the rest of humanity, as more resources are left to them. So most people obviously profit much more if fast fashion is legal. Not sure why my opponent wants to harm majority to maybe save few individuals from working in fast fashion so they are either jobless either have to work some other exploitative job.
Contrary to popular belief, taking away one bad job doesnt mean another bad job wont take its place.
Thanks. I will use that argument in last round so he cant respond to it.
Since this debate is practically over I will go ahead and state an uncomfortable fact. The expensive shit uses the exact same slave labor as fast fashion. You can't escape it by banning fast fashion
Yes. Its cheaper.
Do you realize you took the stance that fast fashion should be aloud?
Not sure how that harms nature, but it can be banned anyway.
Like breathing and farting?
Anything which harms nature should be banned, obviously.