Difference between revisions of "Talk:Using 'natural' as a criterion for prioritisation"
From Testiwiki
(first argumentation added) |
m |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Dispute= Can 'natural' be effectively used as a criterion?| | Dispute= Can 'natural' be effectively used as a criterion?| | ||
Outcome= 'Natural' cannot be effectively used as a criterion.| | Outcome= 'Natural' cannot be effectively used as a criterion.| | ||
| − | Argumentation= | + | Argumentation= |
:{{Attack|1|Cannot because the term natural is ambiguous.|Jouni}} | :{{Attack|1|Cannot because the term natural is ambiguous.|Jouni}} | ||
::{{Defend|3|If loss of biodiversity is caused by nature or a non-human species, is it therefore natural and preferred over human actions to prevent the loss?|Jouni}} | ::{{Defend|3|If loss of biodiversity is caused by nature or a non-human species, is it therefore natural and preferred over human actions to prevent the loss?|Jouni}} | ||
Revision as of 17:23, 27 December 2006
Can 'natural' be effectively used as a criterion?
| Statements:
Resolution: Resolution not yet found. (A stable resolution, when found, should be updated to the main page.) |
Argumentation:
|
