🟢 Affirmative Side: Single-use plastics should be banned completely
🧩 Argument 1: Environmental protection
💡 Opinion: I strongly believe single-use plastics should be banned because they are
one of the biggest threats to our environment.
⚙️Reason: These plastics do not decompose for hundreds of years, polluting oceans,
rivers, and soil.
📊 Support: According to the United Nations (2022), over 11 million tons of plastic
waste enter the oceans each year, harming marine life and ecosystems. Sea animals
often mistake plastic for food, leading to injuries or death. Scientists warn that if we
don’t take immediate action, plastic waste in oceans could outnumber fish by 2050.
This shows the urgent need to eliminate single-use plastics completely to protect our
planet’s future.
🌎 Argument 2: Harm to human health
💡 Opinion: Another reason for banning single-use plastics is their negative impact on
human health.
⚙️Reason: When plastic breaks down, it releases microplastics that enter our food and
water.
📊 Support: A study by the University of Newcastle (2019) revealed that an average
person consumes about 5 grams of microplastics per week, equivalent to eating a
credit card. Experts have found microplastics in human blood and lungs, which may
cause inflammation and long-term diseases. By banning single-use plastics, we reduce
these hidden health risks and create a safer environment for everyone.
🚫 Refutation 1 (against “Plastics are cheap and convenient”)
💡 Opinion: Opponents say plastics are cheap and convenient, but this argument is
short-sighted.
⚙️Reason: The “cheapness” of plastic ignores the massive environmental cost of
cleanup, pollution, and waste management.
📊 Support: The World Bank estimated that countries spend over $30 billion annually
dealing with plastic waste damage. When we include these hidden costs, plastics are
no longer cheap—they’re extremely expensive for the planet and for taxpayers.
🚫 Refutation 2 (against “Banning plastic hurts businesses and jobs”)
💡 Opinion: Some claim that banning single-use plastics would harm businesses and
workers.
⚙️Reason: However, bans can actually create green jobs in the production of reusable
or biodegradable materials.
📊 Support: For instance, after Kenya banned single-use plastic bags in 2017, new
industries producing eco-friendly alternatives grew rapidly, providing thousands of
new jobs. Therefore, a ban can shift the economy toward sustainable innovation rather
than destroy it.
🔴 Negative Side: Single-use plastics should NOT be banned completely
💼 Argument 1: Plastics are affordable and practical
💡 Opinion: I believe banning single-use plastics completely is unrealistic because they
are cheap and practical for daily life.
⚙️Reason: Plastic is lightweight, durable, and inexpensive to produce, which makes it
essential for packaging, food preservation, and medical supplies.
📊 Support: The World Economic Forum (2021) reported that over 50% of medical
products, including syringes and gloves, rely on single-use plastics to maintain
hygiene and prevent infection. A full ban would disrupt healthcare systems and
increase costs, especially in developing countries.
🏭 Argument 2: Economic and social disruption
💡 Opinion: Completely banning single-use plastics could harm economies and small
businesses.
⚙️Reason: Many industries depend on plastic packaging to keep products affordable
and safe.
📊 Support: For example, in India, before the 2022 partial plastic ban, small vendors
protested because alternatives like paper or biodegradable packaging were three to
five times more expensive. According to the World Bank, a sudden ban without
proper alternatives could lead to job losses in plastic manufacturing sectors, affecting
millions of workers worldwide.
🚫 Refutation 1 (against “Environmental protection”)
💡 Opinion: While plastics cause pollution, the real issue lies in waste management,
not the material itself.
⚙️Reason: If countries improve recycling systems, plastic can be reused efficiently
instead of being dumped into oceans.
📊 Support: For instance, Sweden recycles over 99% of its waste, proving that
effective waste management is possible without total bans. So instead of banning
plastics, we should focus on better recycling policies and public awareness.
🚫 Refutation 2 (against “Harm to human health”)
💡 Opinion: The claim that microplastics seriously harm human health is still under
research and inconclusive.
⚙️Reason: While microplastics are present in the environment, there is no solid
scientific evidence proving direct harm to human organs.
📊 Support: According to the World Health Organization (WHO, 2020), current studies
do not show clear evidence that microplastics pose significant health risks. Therefore,
it’s premature to ban plastics completely based on uncertain findings.
