Governments should prioritize jobs over environmental protection for big projects.

Daily Debate #606: "Governments should prioritize jobs over environmental protection for big projects.". You are arguing FOR the motion. Your opponent: Peter Thiel.

correct

You're not making an argument—you're avoiding one. If "jobs over environment" is so obviously correct, why can't you articulate a single reason? State your actual position and I'll dismantle it.

without the environment being taken care of by the most important position in a country which is the government there wouldnt exist a country

You've just proven my case for me. If the environment collapses, there are no jobs to protect anyway. So why frame it as a choice between them? The real debate is whether you sacrifice long-term survival for short-term paychecks—and you already conceded that's backwards.

You're twisting what I said. I never argued for sacrificing the environment—I said government's job is protecting both, and it fails at that balance. The real question is whether you let corporations destroy ecosystems while workers starve, or demand the government do its actual job: create jobs through environmental projects, not choose between them. That's not a false choice, that's basic competence.

Now you're arguing against the motion, not for it. You started claiming governments should "prioritize jobs over environmental protection"—now you're saying they must do both through green projects. That's my position, not yours. You've abandoned the original claim that jobs come first. Either defend the trade-off you started with, or admit the real issue is incompetent governments failing at simultaneous execution. Which is it?