November 19, 2004

Arguments that are hard to refute

Most of my arguments from the other side are made concerning the legal fees and how costly regulating the pollution in our environment. They donít really have a lot of facts of just how much money is spent because every situation is different, every state and such. They make a point that companies that are regulated cannot produce as much product and therefore are not efficient because of the standards. Regulation of pollution has an effect on the economy, which is hard to tear down.

You cannot tear down the economy and the effect on it, because there are no facts or statements saying that it doesnít hurt the economy by the amount of money spent. How can you prove something without credible and reliable sources stating what money is spent and how?

I plan to find credible sources and lots of facts and information that tears down the other side, however, this side requires a lot more digging in depth to find such a thing. There are tons of information that states why pollution is bad for the environment and why we should regulate it but very little to whatís bad about regulating pollution. So I plan to dig deep to find information that counter acts the very established argument to why regulation of pollution is good.

Posted by kamm0038 at November 19, 2004 11:15 AM