I am a person who gets very easily distracted. For that matter, prohibiting plastic bags has no effect on my habits, only on my pocket. I do not often go to the supermarket, but when I do, I never remember to take the famous reusable bags with me. Eventually, I end up buying the green bags anyway.

Even though both sides hold very solid arguments, I would tend to agree with the group which is against the theme.

Hosting the Olympics is a great responsibility and, of course, demands an extremely large amount of money. There are more important issues in our country that should be taken care of, such as Education, for instance.

Arguments very well placed. Besides the problems mentioned above, I believe that regulating prostitution would also give this "profession" more credibility than others which are still marginalized. For example, a street vendor. If one can legally sell their body, why not allow citizens to sell ordinary merchandise (as long as it does not include counterfeits, of course)?

Sustainability is up for sale

[Bruno Augusto Martinelli Mariano de Almeida (BrunoA1E) , Pedro H. Magalhães De Grande (Pedro2E)]

After two months of optional adherence, enters into force a law that prevents the free distribution of the usual plastic bags in supermarkets of São Paulo. The stores now have to put biodegradable bags available for a price up to R$ 0.59, and this has been seen by consumers as a way for the companies to make profit.

The elitist character of the law is clear, whose principle is: if the price of the bags weigh in the consumers’ pockets, they will start saving. That attitude affects only the less privileged social layer, because the upper classes can simply keep purchasing the same amount of bags that they would formerly receive gratuitously. Furthermore, it is known that the value of the bags was already included in the sale prices. As the institutions cut off a portion of their costs, that cut should be transferred to the final consumers, but that is not what necessarily happens. Therefore, the law eventually shows up with an intention far more commercial than environmental.

It was reported by the media that, in one store of Minas Gerais, there were ordinary plastic bags being sold as green ones. It is not possible to supervise all shops, but a solution would be to force all stores to use green bags, and not to sell them.

The Head of the UN Environment Program states that plastic bags harm marine life and shall then be banned or phased out. In fact, ordinary plastic bags have a long decay time (which may take up to one hundred years). They can also accumulate in natural environments, contaminating water sources and causing death of the wildlife. However, all of the referred issues do not happen because of the production of the bags itself, but due to way that they are discarded: people often use plastic bags for packing their trash.

Many supermarkets, as an alternative to the controversial prohibition, offer free empty cardboard boxes for consumers to take their products home. In the meantime, the media frequently proposes the exertion of reusable bags. Nonetheless, microbiological studies show a high degree of microbial contamination on cardboard boxes, as well as on cloth bags, which can pose risks to consumers.

Returnable bags are only a palliative solution, because of their low durability, and they still pollute the environment by the means in which they are made (in factories which emit carbon dioxide). Moreover, the market of Tote Bags has grown considerably since the inception of the new law. Producers have converted the tote bags into another fashion accessory.

It is important to know, too, that no opinions from the consumers were heard before the ban. Analyzing these arguments, one can only conclude that the prohibition leaves consumers with either unrighteous or potentially dangerous options, especially the lower classes; there is an economical reason for it, regardless of the alleged environmental solution.

Attacking technology is to attack all the advances it brings. Medicine, for instance, only evolved to the current patterns thanks to the technology which has been applied to it. The internet, even with several caveats, was a key factor in the democratization of information, and continues to be the best way of research.

It is normal for a population to become dependent on what is discovered by them. After discovering fire, the human being started to use it frequently. Nowadays, we can’t imagine how life would be without the use of fire. Therefore, we are too dependent on it. However, it is not impossible to come up with arguments against the fire. I could say that, without fire, there would not be conflagrations (unless they are a phenomenon of nature), there would not be firearms, etc. Those arguments would sound ridiculous, of course.

So, why condemn the dependency on technology? Unless you are thinking about the rumors that, in the end of 2012, there will be changes in the terrestrial magnetic bias which will ruin all electronic devices, there is no purpose to it. If mankind created technology, they shall be able to use it in all the ways that they can.

The youth of today has easy access to the media, which can be inappropriate in many ways. Children can be exposed to pornography, discovering their sexuality alone and precariously. That might even develop a conflict that could be avoided if the matter were placed on the table since the early hour.

School has the central purpose of educating children and teenagers, preparing them for a better life. Then why not include sexual education in their program, by showing with a sufficient grounding the best way of everything to happen?

The purpose which would be assigned to the school is not to encourage sex, but to alert and take possible doubts that may arise. Thus, it would raise a teenager who is more informed, more able to discuss the matter, becoming a more responsible adult.