The Instigator
Willoweed
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
danjr10
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

All EPA actions (before 11/15/2011) under Obama and Lisa Jackson have benefited society.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Willoweed
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/17/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,067 times Debate No: 19325
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

Willoweed

Pro

I believe that my opponent has the burden of proof to prove that an EPA action under Lisa Jackson will be/has been detrimental to society, so I will let my opponent put forth the first arguments.
danjr10

Con

thank you for posting this debate.

resolved: A EPA actions (before 1115/2011) under Obama and Lisa Jackson have benefited society.

I stand in firm negation of the resolution for the following reasons.

The EPA supported stopping the keystone XL pipeline.
The EPA has stopped numerous jobs from being created.

Overall society has not benefited at all from the actions of the EPA. they stopped a pipeline that would create jobs in the united states and also provide oil from Canada which is closer to the united states.

I will further my argument in the next round

I urge your vote in con
Debate Round No. 1
Willoweed

Pro

----Once you take into account the health and environmental effects of Tar sands and the pipeline the economic benefits of not building that project outweighs the economic benefit of building it. The health and environmental impacts of pollution from the tar sands includes increased rates of autism, cancer, obesity, heart disease, lower IQ's, lung disease and ailments, also increased greenhouse gasses increase tropical storms, floods, tornadoes, droughts, and wildfires[4] .
----Another negative aspect of the pipeline is oil spills. TransCanada the company that would build the pipeline has had 12 oil spills this year with one spill dumping 21,000 gallons of oil into North Dakota[3].
----Energy produced form the tar sands is even dirtier than conventional oil and coal[1] and when you include health and environmental impacts of conventional oil and coal (this means that the tar sands is worse) you find that they are twice has expensive as solar and wind[2]. This is supported by 3 scientific independent research studies.
----Also there is only 1 independent study (IE not done by the pipeline company) and is in fact done by people who support the pipeline, they show how the study done by the pipeline company inflated its jobs numbers (meaning they lied) to make it look like the pipeline would benefit the economy when in reality it most likely would harm the economy, the environment and peoples health.

[1] http://thinkprogress.org...

[2] http://thinkprogress.org...
http://thinkprogress.org...
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org...
http://www.reuters.com...

[3] http://thinkprogress.org...

[4] http://www.debate.org...
danjr10

Con

danjr10 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Willoweed

Pro

My opponent forfeited. I also will make the case that if my opponent forfeits again in round 3 and 4 that they should not be able to make an argument in round 5 given that I wouldn't have the opportunity to address their argument.
danjr10

Con

danjr10 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Willoweed

Pro

Con forfeited
danjr10

Con

danjr10 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Willoweed

Pro

opponent forfeited. I ask that if my opponent posts another post that you do not consider it given hat if he posts another post I will not be able to reply to it and that would be unfair to me.
danjr10

Con

danjr10 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by logicrules 5 years ago
logicrules
what, exactly. does under mean? Obama aint over us.
Posted by TeenageApologist 5 years ago
TeenageApologist
If only Ron Paul was on here.
Posted by logicrules 5 years ago
logicrules
benefit should also be defined.
Posted by Willoweed 5 years ago
Willoweed
After reading Ore_Ele's commits I am deciding to narrow the debate; I will be doing this shortly and thank Ore_Ele for the idea
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
There is so much that the EPA has done, and so many different environmental policies that exist throughout the USA, that having such an open debate can cause too many arguments, and too litte depth per argument. Narrowing it, and thus allowing deeper digging and understanding of those few, might prove to be a more thought provoking debate.
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
Do you want to look at a particular environmental policy?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by jm_notguilty 5 years ago
jm_notguilty
Willoweeddanjr10Tied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: ff