The Instigator
Con (against)
1 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
7 Points

A Resolution to Drill for more oil

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/5/2009 Category: Technology
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 832 times Debate No: 8110
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)




Think for a moment...being the nature loving person that you are, you've been to many beautiful parks, forest, etc. The tall majestic trees, the delicacy in a flower, the cute little furry animals...simply everything in nature is beautiful, but because we have decided to drill for more oil, there's been an unfortunate oil spill. All of the sudden...everything in nature is not so beautiful.
That's exactly what has happened previously and what can continue to happen if we continue to drill for more oil.
Because of this I have three main points as to why I stand in the strong negation of this resolution.
(1) Oil Spills
(2) The Harmful Effects and
(3) The Alternatives


I would like to thank my opponent for debating with me.
First I would like to point out that my opponent has made an assumption that I like nature, which may or may not be true. She also implies that when an oil spill happens that I no longer think that the same trees, and flowers are no longer beautiful, even if I am hundreds of miles from the spill.
I would like to refute my opponents contentions first, then state my own.

(1) Oil Spills may be a problem, but we are working on finding solutions to help animals harmed by oil. Plus the number of spills to the number of gallons that make it safely if almost none.
(2) I shall refute this once more information is presented.
(3) I understand that if we find new alternative resources, it may help the Earth. But as I will state in my contentions a large part of the economy relies on oil.

My contentions:
1) Socially we depend on oil. If you look out your window chances are you will see at least 1 car go past. each of those cars suns on the oil that is drilled either domestically, or bought over-seas. If we find a new way to fuel our cars, it will take a long time to get all of the old cars taken car of.
2) Politically we depend on oil. One of our nations largest imports is oil, so if we drill our own oil the nations might have to pay less, and get out of debt easier.
3) Economically we depend on oil. Oil rigs can house and employ hundreds or even thousands of people. So if we no longer drill for oil all those people are without jobs.
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thank the opponent for accepting the debate...

Little FYI to the opponent...the scenerio is just for you to imagine and pretend that you did care about nature and to get you to feel what it would be like to witness such thing...anyway

I will present my case first and refute what the opponent has stated, in the last round.

(1) The Oil Spills. The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill 20 years after. People are still cleaning the estimated 16,000 gallons of oil. This unfortunate oil spill occured in Alaska's Prince William Sound in March 24 1989. Barely two months ago it has been exacly 20 years since the unfortunate accident. Although they have cleaned a is not perfectly squeeky clean as it was before the Oil Spill. This oil spill is the largest oil spill in the nations history. Is this what we want? More accidents?!? To have more drilling for oil and risk having these horrible oil spills. I don't think so.

(2) The Harmful effects. For those that have seen Wall-E or read The Lorax...these are kid movies and kid books that are showing the negative effects that come with hurting nature. With oil spills for example, w2e are hurting nature more than it already is. In the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill only 9 specieshave fully recovered, 7 species are still recovering, and 2 species did not recover at all. What about the other species? Everyone is being effected by this in a negative way. Even those that don't care about nature are effected negatively in the way that money has to go to fix these accidents. And of coarse those who do catre about nature hate to see how many innocent little lives have been lost of the animals.

(3) Alternatives. People seem to think that we really need oil, we do, but we are not at a point where we need it really bad that we are willing to harm nature more than it already is.

Becasue of these three main reasons I urge a vote on the negation of this debate.


DebateFever forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Speechee111807 forfeited this round.


DebateFever forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by StephenAlsop 7 years ago
but noone won sorcses
Posted by StephenAlsop 7 years ago
as it seems there was little effort in this debate and that we can not rationally just stop pumping oil i agree with pro
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
While neither debater earned my vote, CON wins conduct.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by StephenAlsop 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 8 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10