The Instigator
ResilientKeii
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
m93samman
Pro (for)
Winning
42 Points

Allowing deep water offshore oil drilling is in the best interest of the United States

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 10/13/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,129 times Debate No: 13369
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (7)

 

ResilientKeii

Con

I agree with the resolution
Resolved: Allowing deep water offshore oil drilling is in the best interest of the United States.
I offer the following definitions
Allowing-to permit From Merriam Webster dictionary
Best Interest- Authority delegated for taking any action or step the delegate thinks to be the most advantageous to the organization, under the circumstances. From business dictionary
Deep water offshore oil drilling- Drilling in an oil rig of below 1000 meters. From Offshore-Mag
We offer the following observations

Observation 1: The best interest of the United States doesn't have to deal with the long term effects of offshore oil drilling due to the fact that the best interest of the U.S can change later on.

Observation 2: According to CBS News there are only 79 deep water offshore oil wells.

Contention 1: Deep water offshore oil drilling increases job opportunities. The 6 month moratorium does not benefit the increase in jobs. Offshore oil drilling increases the amount of jobs immensely which leads to less unemployment. Each oil rig employs hundreds of people. By 2011 there is expected to be a 30% increase in the number of offshore oil field workers. With 79 oil wells offshore the unemployment rate will drop tremendously. With the moratorium put in place it will increase unemployment rate drastically. Banning offshore oil drilling will force a lot of rigs to close, forcing oil companies to fire a lot of workers. Unemployment will rise, forcing the government to pay millions of dollars more for unemployment life lines. Millions of dollars that could be better spent on bettering American society. We ought not ban these oil wells due to the fact that an increase in jobs is in the best interest of the United States.

Contention 2: Deep water offshore oil drilling decreases our dependency on foreign oil. According to Huffington Post, President Obama proposed a plan in March to increase domestic offshore oil drilling. The main reason was to decrease the dependency on foreign oil. With less reliance on foreign oil the U.S wouldn't have to worry about the prices of oil increasing or a country refusing to sell an adequate amount of oil. Less reliance on foreign oil also allows us less competition with countries such as China. According to MSNBC "China has become one of the biggest oil consumers in the world, and economists expected it would burn even more fuel this year." Buying from OPEC will make competition harder for the U.S. By drilling in deep water offshore the U.S doesn't have to rely on depleting oil supplies, and that our oil companies don't have to compete with foreign oil companies, especially the oil companies that belong to the country that own the oil fields. Constantly buying from companies such as OPEC won't benefit the U.S as much as drilling offshore.

Contention 3:. By banning deep water offshore oil drilling, it damages United States businesses. According to USA Today in Galveston, Texas Craig Marston, general manager of the 80-employee Malin International Ship Repair, didn't have any oil-related clients scheduled to come in. Instead, he's bracing for a 30% to 40% drop in business in the next few weeks as the full impact of the moratorium, in its third month, sets in. Less drilling means less business for hundreds of companies from Texas to Alabama, including shipbuilders, repair shops and those that supply boats to service the rigs. With the constant amount of jobs loss by the moratorium our country will suffer severely. After the BP oil spill problems only worsened due to the job losses. Even now the government may lift the moratorium due to the countless job losses. This simply does not benefit Americans. It is in our best interest to continue to drill.
m93samman

Pro

I thank my opponent for this debate and look forward to an interesting exchange of ideas.

I accept all of my opponents definitions, emphasizing the definition of Deep water offshore oil drilling; the important part being the defining factor of "below 1000 meters". Now, let's begin with the top of the affirmative case.

[REBUTTAL OF PRO CASE]

Obs. 1: My opponent claims that we don't have to deal with the long term effects because the US can change; this is a ridiculous claim, it's like saying I can take any action I want and not worry about the impacts because I can fix it later. If I launch a nuclear weapon, I doubt that I can solve it; if I choose to run a communist government (e.g. Russia, China) I will feel the impacts long after I change.

Obs. 2: I'm perfectly fine with that; this will be critical in the round.

Now, to the beef of the case.

Contention 1: My opponent seeks to solve for economic problems by saving the jobs in the deepwater-offshore-oil-drilling sector. He then provides stats that by 2011, the number of workers will increase by 30% in offshore oil fields. Consider the following responses.

1- He says that the rigs employ hundreds; given 79 rigs, a 30% increase would only add several thousand jobs to the economy that is millions of jobs deficient. [3] The impact is not significant enough to look to in the round.
2- The 30% increase is in "offshore oil"; notice how his lack-of-a-source doesn't specify that it is in DEEPWATER offshore oil. The impact isn't even applicable to my opponents advocacy.
3- His claim that unemployment will increase "drastically" is unwarranted; rather, I contend that offshore oil drilling would NOT produce any new jobs, and advocate the following: we should take the money used on deepwater offshore oil drilling and spend it on green energy and traditional fuels [1]

Looking to his second contention, we go foreign. His argument is contingent upon a very shaky link- that is, the allowance of deepwater offshore oil drilling will decrease our dependency on foreign oil noticeably. The problem is, or rather, the problems are, numerous and rampant in this argument.

1- The Huffington Post article is not unique to DEEPWATER offshore oil drilling. He can't claim the impacts of the argument.
2- The "competition" with China seems to be a negative impact... My opponent doesn't clarify what we are competing with China in. The from MSNBC says that China is a monstrous oil consumer, so I would rationally assume that my opponent wants us to compete with China's oil consumption. Unfortunately, deepwater offshore oil drilling won't provide much- like he said, we only have 79 rigs. Moreover, if we allowed offshore oil drilling (again, not unique to deepwater) we would only decrease our dependence by 2.5%. With only the deepwater rigs, the number is even LESS. [1]
3- Our reliance on foreign oil can only be solved either by reverting to alternative energy OR tapping into our largest reserves- which are on land. 200 billion barrels of oil we sit upon, untapped, in the Northwest US. [2] This would far outweigh the impacts of deepwater drilling.

My opponents 3rd contention is unstable. He makes a claim, that "banning deep water drilling... damages US businesses." Then he provides a testimony from a whiny old man who had no clients. Poor Mr. Marston. Meanwhile, US businesses are in no way affected given my opponents data/source. The link is unstable, and given that my opponent has the burden of proof in his third contention, I can safely drop it from the debate.

To provide a few arguments against the resolution.

[CON CASE]

Contention 1: Deepwater offshore oil drilling is insignificant.

As my opponent provided, we only have 79 deepwater rigs. The millions of dollars that go into maintaining a rig could, like mentioned before, be used much more efficiently in other sectors.

Contention 2: We can rely on shallow water drilling and on land drilling. Deepwater is unnecessary and has significant potential problems. [4] The environmental problems outweight the economic potential benefits, which my opponent has scarcely provided for. We can look to the BP spill and see that, as my opponent claimed in his Obs. 1, the US cannot make changes that easily. The environmental impacts will plague us for years, and we can't do anything about it; and just that one blast has cost dozens of billions of dollars [5]. We don't need to look far to see that deepwater offshore oil drilling is NOT in the best interest of the United States.

The resolution is negated.

[SOURCES]
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Sorry they were presented in a random order in the round :P

[1] http://na.oceana.org......

[2] http://www.nextenergynews.com......

[3] http://www.ogj.com......

[4] http://www.environmentflorida.org......

[5] http://news.yahoo.com......
Debate Round No. 1
ResilientKeii

Con

I thank my opponent for this debate and look forward to an interesting exchange of ideas.

And having a rematch..

Obs. 1: My opponent claims that we don't have to deal with the long term effects because the US can change; this is a ridiculous claim, it's like saying I can take any action I want and not worry about the impacts because I can fix it later. If I launch a nuclear weapon, I doubt that I can solve it; if I choose to run a communist government (e.g. Russia, China) I will feel the impacts long after I change.

It is not a ridiculous change. I am stating that the best interest of the United States can change therfore the short term is what we must look at.

Contention 1: My opponent seeks to solve for economic problems by saving the jobs in the deepwater-offshore-oil-drilling sector. He then provides stats that by 2011, the number of workers will increase by 30% in offshore oil fields. Consider the following responses.

1- He says that the rigs employ hundreds; given 79 rigs, a 30% increase would only add several thousand jobs to the economy that is millions of jobs deficient. [3] The impact is not significant enough to look to in the round.

If we are decreasing the amount of unemployment then it will be significant. Are you saying we must look to an EXTREME increase? If so then please show alternative

2- The 30% increase is in "offshore oil"; notice how his lack-of-a-source doesn't specify that it is in DEEPWATER offshore oil. The impact isn't even applicable to my opponents advocacy.
I am shortening the DWOSOD

3- His claim that unemployment will increase "drastically" is unwarranted; rather, I contend that offshore oil drilling would NOT produce any new jobs, and advocate the following: we should take the money used on deepwater offshore oil drilling and spend it on green energy and traditional fuels [1]
I understand of the lack of sources but where are your sources for green energy and traditional fuels being better?

Looking to his second contention, we go foreign. His argument is contingent upon a very shaky link- that is, the allowance of deepwater offshore oil drilling will decrease our dependency on foreign oil noticeably. The problem is, or rather, the problems are, numerous and rampant in this argument.

1- The Huffington Post article is not unique to DEEPWATER offshore oil drilling. He can't claim the impacts of the argument.
2- The "competition" with China seems to be a negative impact... My opponent doesn't clarify what we are competing with China in. The from MSNBC says that China is a monstrous oil consumer, so I would rationally assume that my opponent wants us to compete with China's oil consumption. Unfortunately, deepwater offshore oil drilling won't provide much- like he said, we only have 79 rigs. Moreover, if we allowed offshore oil drilling (again, not unique to deepwater) we would only decrease our dependence by 2.5%. With only the deepwater rigs, the number is even LESS. [1] I dont see an attack here

3- Our reliance on foreign oil can only be solved either by reverting to alternative energy OR tapping into our largest reserves- which are on land. 200 billion barrels of oil we sit upon, untapped, in the Northwest US. [2] This would far outweigh the impacts of deepwater drilling.

It wont solve a decrease in jobs. How long can we use green energy? How long will it take? When can we start? How will this benefit the U.S?

My opponents 3rd contention is unstable. He makes a claim, that "banning deep water drilling... damages US businesses." Then he provides a testimony from a whiny old man who had no clients. Poor Mr. Marston. Meanwhile, US businesses are in no way affected given my opponents data/source. The link is unstable, and given that my opponent has the burden of proof in his third contention, I can safely drop it from the debate.
My opponent has concedec that it does harm buisnesses.
To provide a few arguments against the resolution.

[CON CASE]

Contention 1: Deepwater offshore oil drilling is insignificant.

As my opponent provided, we only have 79 deepwater rigs. The millions of dollars that go into maintaining a rig could, like mentioned before, be used much more efficiently in other sectors.
What other sectors? Thsi contention lacks an impact

Contention 2: We can rely on shallow water drilling and on land drilling. Deepwater is unnecessary and has significant potential problems. [4] The environmental problems outweight the economic potential benefits, which my opponent has scarcely provided for. We can look to the BP spill and see that, as my opponent claimed in his Obs. 1, the US cannot make changes that easily. The environmental impacts will plague us for years, and we can't do anything about it; and just that one blast has cost dozens of billions of dollars [5]. We don't need to look far to see that deepwater offshore oil drilling is NOT in the best interest of the United States.

Shallow drilling still has risks. Where will the jobs go? What will we do with the decrease still? How does this benefit the united states.
My opponent has never touched on the solvency of the decrease in jobs
m93samman

Pro

Let the rematch begin. Before I proceed, I'd just like to point out that my opponent's format is rather hard to follow, so excuse me if I incidentally look over an argument or two. Anyways,

==REFUTATION OF AFF CASE==

Obs. 1- My opponent justifies all change based on short term interest simply because the "interest of the United States can change". That is a non-sequitur, and false. The environmental impacts of the BP spill are still rampant and will remain that way for years to come (see previous round for source). The long term impacts will in fact be the US burden to resolve.

[Responses to Contention 1]

1- "If we are decreasing the amount of unemployment then it will be significant." If I hire my friend to cater me water in a cafeteria for the entirety of my stay at college, I have decreased unemployment, but it is still insignificant. Moreover, I did provide an alternative (see: Response to C1 #3, round 1)

2- "I am shortening the DWOSOD". I assume my opponent means "Deep Water Off Shore Oil Drilling"; that doesn't even make sense as a sentence, much less an argument.

3- I provided sources already (see: Response to C1 #3, round 1)

[Responses to Contention 2]

My opponent doesn't "see an attack" in my first and second responses. I'll rephrase them.

1- Offshore oil drilling =/= Deep Water Offshore oil drilling; his impact is non-unique and not a Pro stance in regards to the resolution.

2- My opponent wants us to compete with China; in the stats he provided, we see that China CONSUMES more oil than us. He has to resolve the problem himself, that being, the argument is non-resolutional.

3- A few questions require nothing more than a few answers. "How long can we use green energy?" As long as we have it. "How long will it take?" Define "it"; we already have green energy. "When can we start?" We already did. "How will this benefit the U.S?" (See: Response to C1 #3, round 1)

[Responses to Contention 3]

I didn't concede that it harms businesses; I conceded that one individual case that he provided has been harmed, and I provided an alternative that could easily resolve his problems.

==DEFENSE OF CON CASE==

Contention 1: "What other sectors? This* contention lacks an impact"

The other sectors have been provided several times; it seems my opponent reads my arguments independently of each other. Please re-read the argument regarding alternative/green energy.

Contention 2: "Shallow drilling still has risks. Where will the jobs go? What will we do with the decrease still? How does this benefit the united states.
My opponent has never touched on the solvency of the decrease in jobs"

1) No risks have been shown by my opponent.
2) The jobs will go to the on-land reserves and alternative energy.
3) "What will we do with the decrease still?"... Uhh, how will we have a bigger pancake wait WHAT?
4) See green energy/on-land reserves; I don't need to provide benefits to be in the best interest of the US. Avoiding harm is enough reason to

VOTE CON

~~Summary~~

My opponent has made it difficult to debate given his strange copy-paste-attach format of debate; moreover, he has disconnected my arguments in an attempt to avoid refutation. His conduct is questionable. Spelling and grammar has made the round difficult to read, but I have done my best to be as lucid as possible. So far, I'm winning the S&G category. My opponent has yet to make any arguments; he has done nothing but ask questions. Sources? Meh.

I urge a con vote.
Debate Round No. 2
ResilientKeii

Con

ResilientKeii forfeited this round.
m93samman

Pro

Extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
ResilientKeii

Con

ResilientKeii forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
ResilientKeii

Con

ResilientKeii forfeited this round.
m93samman

Pro

Extend all the rooms in my house and make them grow with the flow! 20 elegant wall paper choices... feel luxurious! http://www.magnation.com...

And vote pro.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
who is "you"?
Posted by Tamdrik 6 years ago
Tamdrik
It looks like you don't need the help, but also note that increasing US production probably isn't a good solution to reducing dependence on foreign oil. For one thing, the global oil market is diverse and highly fungible, meaning that if one country decides to stop selling us oil, we can simply buy from another country. If one country decided to stop producing oil, it would raise the price of oil for everyone, but also severely damage that country's economy, making it an unattractive option for them, and a minor increase in US production wouldn't help much (not to mention, it would have already contributed to a slightly lower global oil price that we would have become accustomed to-- it wouldn't have just been sitting around as unused production capacity in case of an oil price shock).

The primary argument for (deep water) offshore drilling is simply the benefit to the US economy from US oil companies being able to profit from selling the oil (and related tax revenues, job creation, etc.). Whether or not that is enough to offset negatives like potential environmental impact is the question.
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
Damn I didn't even realize that lol
Posted by J.Kenyon 6 years ago
J.Kenyon
Change your position to Pro, mate ;)
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by S98-SAMMAN 6 years ago
S98-SAMMAN
ResilientKeiim93sammanTied
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 shadow835 6 years ago
shadow835
ResilientKeiim93sammanTied
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 Irishguy2011 6 years ago
Irishguy2011
ResilientKeiim93sammanTied
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 Vania.Ruiz 6 years ago
Vania.Ruiz
ResilientKeiim93sammanTied
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 sllewuy 6 years ago
sllewuy
ResilientKeiim93sammanTied
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 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 LaissezFaire 6 years ago
LaissezFaire
ResilientKeiim93sammanTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
ResilientKeiim93sammanTied
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:01