Difference between revisions of "Talk:Using 'natural' as a criterion for prioritisation"
From Testiwiki
(first argumentation added) |
m (Heta moved page Variable Talk:Using 'natural' as a criterion for prioritisation to Talk:Using 'natural' as a criterion for prioritisation) |
||
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Can 'natural' be effectively used as a criterion?== | ==Can 'natural' be effectively used as a criterion?== | ||
− | {{ | + | {{Discussion| |
− | + | Statements = Can 'natural' be effectively used as a criterion?| | |
− | + | Resolution = '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}} |
Latest revision as of 07:01, 22 August 2014
Can 'natural' be effectively used as a criterion?
Statements: Can 'natural' be effectively used as a criterion?
Resolution: 'Natural' cannot be effectively used as a criterion. (A stable resolution, when found, should be updated to the main page.) |
Argumentation:
|