our whole debate my team believed that urban sprawl should be regulated. On the other hand our opponents were against that fact. Overall both debate teams had strong logica facts and sources to back up what they had to say but i believed that we had a stronger argument.THere main arguments against urban sprawl being regulated was that crime rates are lower with urban sprawl and there are more amenities with urban sprawl. My team for urban sprawl regulations believed that without regulations there would be more pollution and we would lose land that is very valuable to our agriculture which wouldn't be good do to our increasing population.
But wait, our opposing team claimed that urban sprawl would benefit the world and the people because with our growing population bigger and more expensive houses are on the rise. Plus with wages going up people are chasing more fancier things and want everything in a hands reach so with urban sprawl people are getting what the desire but at the cost of the
…show more content…
A large piece of evidence that i found against urban sprawl was that urban sprawl creates a mass increase in pollution.It pollutes the air, water, it degrades human health, also with more people that means more people are dependent on cars and an increase of cars meansmor carbon dioxide is emitted into our atmosphere which effects our environment horribly.Another piece of evidence i found was that there's a huge loss in land from open space,parks, farmland habitats including land for agriculture. But an alternative i found was smart growth its a planned economic and community development that attempts to curb urban sprawl and worsening environment. With alternatives society could still get what they want without harming the environment as