The Instigator
oreostar
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
imabench
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points

Antarctic Exploitation

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/21/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,970 times Debate No: 20535
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

oreostar

Con

Should the present ban on exploiting the resources of the Antarctic be maintained?
imabench

Pro

I accept this debate and will be arguing that the present ban on exploiting the resources of the Antarctic SHOULD be maintained. Now that that is out of the way,




Debate Round No. 1
oreostar

Con

humans are using resources faster than they can be obtained,
banning on tapping Antarctic sources should be removed, its just unfair. The ban on exploiting the resources of the we Antarctic resource ban should be lifted immediately to fill the need for a world that is using natural resources much faster than they can be obtained. Because of increased populations resources are going fast, and until alternative sources are found humanity must utilize what is at hand maintain itself. by the year 2020 the world be 12 billion
imabench

Pro

Ill use three arguments,
1) What we can get from Antarctica
2) Populations are still manageable and population growth is in areas that are too poor to exploit Antarctica
3) Preserving the environment

- 1 - What resources could we get out of Antarctica that the world is in need of so badly? Ice??? There are few, if any, resources in Antarctica that the world could even use, and the ones that are in demand that are found in frickin Antarctica could probably be found somewhere else unless penguins are considered a resource that can be "mined"

My point is, Antarctica doesnt have much resources to offer, and those we can use we can find somewhere much closer.

- 2 - You claim that populations are expected to be 12 billion by 2020, which is an outrageous lie. World populations are only expected to reach 7.6 billion by 2020, not 12 billion. In fact we arent projected to reach 12 billion until at least 2050...

http://www.worldometers.info...
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu...

You can see in the last link that most of the human population growth will occur in developing countries, a majority of them in Africa. But these countries are too poor to be able to open up mining operations in Antarctica to mine enough resources and bring such resources back to their own shores, meaning that the ban shouldn't be lifted for resource exploitation since the countries that would need those resources to support surging populations are too poor to open up such operations.

- 3 - Most importantly, the reason those bans on mining are in place are to preserve the environment of the Antarctic continent, one of the largest unblemished parts of the world still in its natural state that the world had agreed would only be inhabited for scientific study. Lifting the ban would allow corporations to completely trash the environment to exploit a very small amount of resources that could be found elsewhere. Lets pretend the ban was lifted, oil was found, and a corporation started drilling it there. Well that oil could only head back to the country of origin by ship, and if an oil spill were to occur in an environment as vulnerable as Antarctica's and as far away from rescue groups and containment teams as possible, the risk for environmental damage and catastrophe skyrocket.

The ban on mining in Antarctica should stay in place because there may not be any resources there to exploit, populations are not growing at an alarming rate, the places where populations are exploding are too poor to take advantage of Antarctic resources, and the mining operations would do a great deal of damage to the precious environment of Antarctica.
Debate Round No. 2
oreostar

Con

first i would like to thank you for your introduction

im attack your three arguments:

-1- "What resources could we get out of Antarctica that the world is in need of so badly? Ice??? There are few, if any, resources in Antarctica that the world could even use, and the ones that are in demand that are found in frickin Antarctica could probably be found somewhere else unless penguins are considered a resource that can be "mined
My point is, Antarctica doesnt have much resources to offer, and those we can use we can find somewhere much closer.""

my attack on your opinion: theyre are many resources we can get out of Antarctica. fact one of the largest holders of fresh water, 90% of the world's ice. over the next few decades the would is going to experience a shortage in fresh water. by the year 2030, the population of the world will reach 8 billion. fresh water will become rare and this could lead to war. but if we use the fresh water ice in Antarctica this may not be a problem. you see 70% of the world fresh water is located in Antarctica (in ice form). many types of minerals which are important elsewhere on Earth cannot be expected in Antarctica, VOTERS WE MUST REMOVE THE BAN IN ORDER TO SATIETY OUR WAY OF LIVING.... i will explain this the next round

-2- You claim that populations are expected to be 12 billion by 2020, which is an outrageous lie. World populations are only expected to reach 7.6 billion by 2020, not 12 billion. In fact we arent projected to reach 12 billion until at least 2050...

You can see in the last link that most of the human population growth will occur in developing countries, a majority of them in Africa. But these countries are too poor to be able to open up mining operations in Antarctica to mine enough resources and bring such resources back to their own shores, meaning that the ban shouldn't be lifted for resource exploitation since the countries that would need those resources to support surging populations are too poor to open up such operations.

-2- my attack: my point is the population of the world is rising fast.. your source prove you right on my inaccuracy of the worlds population in 2020.. but my main point is the worlds population is rising fast and in order to prevent war over water from out breaking we need use Antarctica as a water source and remove the ban.

-3-Most importantly, the reason those bans on mining are in place are to preserve the environment of the Antarctic continent, one of the largest unblemished parts of the world still in its natural state that the world had agreed would only be inhabited for scientific study. Lifting the ban would allow corporations to completely trash the environment to exploit a very small amount of resources that could be found elsewhere. Lets pretend the ban was lifted, oil was found, and a corporation started drilling it there. Well that oil could only head back to the country of origin by ship, and if an oil spill were to occur in an environment as vulnerable as Antarctica's and as far away from rescue groups and containment teams as possible, the risk for environmental damage and catastrophe skyrocket.
The ban on mining in Antarctica should stay in place because there may not be any resources there to exploit, populations are not growing at an alarming rate, the places where populations are exploding are too poor to take advantage of Antarctic resources, and the mining operations would do a great deal of damage to the precious environment of Antarctica.

MY ATTACK:
Oil and gas exploration should be allowed, both on the Antarctic continent and in the southern ocean surrounding it. Although current technology would not enable exploitation of any reserves at economic prices, future technological advances and rises in the price of fossil fuels may change this equation. Once, deep water extraction from the hostile North Sea or Arctic Oceans seemed impossible, but now these are taken for granted. Our prosperity depends upon cheap energy from fossil fuels, and it would be wrong to risk this by an arbitrary decision to declare the Antarctic off-limits to exploration, especially given the continuing scepticism of many about claims of global warming.we should lift the ban on mining and using antarctic resources

""The ban on mining in Antarctica should stay in place because there may not be any resources there to exploit, populations are not growing at an alarming rate, the places where populations are exploding are too poor to take advantage of Antarctic resources, and the mining operations would do a great deal of damage to the precious environment of Antarctica.""

my opposition went out of his way to correct me on my inaccuracy of the expected population in 2020, but fails to notice that Antarctica is the last great "pristine" continent sitting at the bottom of our world and that Antarctica is loaded with natural resources/minerals. Please consider this and vote for me please.

i would like to thank my opposition and voters for reading my opinion

question to opposition: NOTHING TO DO WITH DEBATE!!!
this has nothing to do with the debate ... im sorry for this... uhhh i was wondering how one would bold letters when writing a post on this debate site...thank you
imabench

Pro

1) Exploitable resources
You claim that there are "many" resources we could get out of Antarctica, yet you only list freshwater in Ice form, which literally was the only thing I said we could get out of Antarctica... But there are other more ethical ways of getting fresh water than melting Antarctica

- 1 - Desalination of the oceans is a great way to get fresh water since its much closer to home, much faster, much less controversial, and much less expensive
- 2 - Rain Water collection is the easiest way to collect water
- 3 - Water rationing is a viable option because if governments ration water it both conserves water for the existing populations and raises awareness about water consumption which could inspire citizens to consume less
- 4 - freshwater rivers and lakes if filtered enough could be the quickest way to additional water...

We dont need to melt Antarctica for its water to satisfy our water needs since we have much better options that are more ethical, less expensive, and flat out easier.

2) World population growth
Now its no new fact that the world may have a population growth problem, however you have completely ignored the fact that almost all of this growth is going to occur in developing countries that do not have the financial or technological means of exploiting Antarctica for its water... You yourself even said that

".....current technology would not enable exploitation of any reserves at economic prices"

So if modern nations dont even have the means of melting Antarctica for its water sources at an economical rate, then how would third world nations like Sudan, Nigeria, Somalia, and Chad have a chance? As I said before there are much cheaper and effective ways for obtaining water than melting Antarctica...

3) Trashing the Environment
My opponent hasnt even acknowledged the environmental impact and disasters that could occur if the ban on Antarctica were lifted. Instead he has argued that the demand for oil is the sole reason we should violate the beauty of Antarctica and start drilling away, but like finding access to water there are other ways to satisfy humanity's demands without trashing Antarctica

- 1 - Alternate fuel sources like electric cars or Bio-fuels
- 2 - Increase drilling in other areas already open to drilling
- 3 - Rely on technology to increase the average MPG of cars
- 4 - Increased funding of public transportation to ease the burden on oil resources
- 5 - Open up drilling for oil in other environments closer to nations instead of Antarctica which is hundreds of miles away from most of the world.

NEW ARGUMENT
4) Rights to drill
If say the ban were lifted and oil companies were allowed to come and make Antarctica the next Saudi Arabia, well which countries would have the actual right to open up drilling operations? Many countries have already made land claims to Antarctica (all of which are not recognized by the world) but if a large oil reserve were found then countries would viciously fight for rights to the oil, which may cause countries to rush to set up operations and sacrifice safety for time.

(To make something bold, click the blue link that says "Rich Text" which is right on top of the actual box you type your arguments. After you hit it you highlight the part of your argument you want to put in bold, ten click the "B" button that appears right underneath the "Text" link...)
Debate Round No. 3
oreostar

Con

thank you for you and help

point one

I will stand my my point... there are MANY..MANY resources found in Antarctica. Antarctica is loaded with natural resources and minerals such as iron ore, gold, nickel, copper,chromium, and platinum among others. According to the Antarctic Treaty, mining is prohibited needs to change because the world demands more and more metals to feed a hungry industry and for technology.http://en.wikipedia.org...

desalination is extremely expensive and There are many bad things about desalination plants. they are very expensive to use, and also let off a lot of carbon emissions which damage the ozone layer. The government spends a fortune on the chemicals needed to desalinate the water, then they discharge all the waste back into the ocean which can kill fish and damage the marine life.

-2- many country's around they world are experiencing acid rain and this would further growth of many cancers when humans drink/use acid water it often has serious effects on their health that

3) water rationing might just lead to a war... it is expected that in the near future Israel will go to war with neighboring Lebanon and Egypt to get their water.

Read more: http://www.upi.com....

4) areas such as new and Toronto are locate near one of the only fresh water sources available... places like Arizona (6 million people) are experiencing a water crises!!! if Antarctica started a water industry not only would it supply country's with more water, but also create more jobs

5) population growth is becoming a problem... fresh water Is becoming limited... the economy isn't doing too well...
third world country are already suffering, the only difference is that the water crisis is just starting in the U.S, EUROPE, AUSTARLIA....There is a danger in using the methods listed above, without regard to either economic logic or democratic accountability. If the Antarctic can help to provide additional resources for a rapidly growing world population, then we should be able to have an intelligent debate about the costs and benefits involved.

ATTACK ON LAST POINT

new argument resolved
my opponent fails to recognize that no environmental disasters would happen...The Antarctic Protocol of 1991 should be amended to allow for the possibility of mineral prospecting. The failed CRAMRA Convention of the late 1980s would have allowed for this possibility subject to strict regulation and the agreement of all treaty nations; reasonable conditions which were rejected by environmental purists. Geological analogies with other continents suggest that several very valuable minerals may be present in Antarctica. multinational companies are prepared to pay high prices to treaty governments for concessions, why should we turn down this source of revenue? Almost all mining activity would be underground, so it would be little or no affect environment and likely to have little adverse impact upon it.
my opposition contradicts himself when he mentions that its OK for drilling company's to destroy areas where were live rear such where the BP oil spill was, but drill in a safe area like Antarctica... Antarctica is a empty deserted land why would this effect anyone.. in fact it makes sense to drill in Antarctica because it wouldn't effect anyone

lastly noted that most of the resources are located in a deserted area in west Antarctic,

!!!not related but scientist have found tiny organism in Antarctica that may cure some cancers!!
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov...


thank you opposition
vote for me!!
imabench

Pro

1) Resources,
Pro claims that Antarctica has "MANY, MANY resources" but his own Wikipedia source shows how Antarctica has remained uncolonized by humanity because...

"because of its hostile environment, lack of resources, and isolation"....

So not only does the only thing Antarctica has to offer is ice, but anything else you could find in that wasteland wont be large enough to be mined and put into the world market to satisfy demand...

2) Other options to getting water,
Your claims and unfactual denounciations of desalination is almost criminal. Desalination is a simple process that only uses small permeable membranes to seperate small H2) molecules from other impurities, requiring no chemicals at all. To separate ocean water into fresh water table salt, and a few other products where most of the cost of operating these plants come from power consumption. Also, desalination produces NO CO2 LIKE THE PRO CLAIMS. Most of the cost of establishing desalination plants comes from construction, in reality they are quite easy to run and many countries all over the world can use desalination, The UAE (United Arab Emirates) have the worlds largest desalination plant that is has 7 times the output of the largest US desalination plant.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.athirstyplanet.com...

So to summarize
- Desalination uses almost no chemicals
- Desalination produces no CO2
- Desalination is available to many countries around the world
- Desalination is much cheaper than melting Antarctica and bringing the water back thousands of miles to countries

As for rationing water, your "source" quotes an anonymous Jordinian teacher and doesnt use any actual evidence, facts, or logic to imply that Israel may invade Egypt for their water... see for yourself
http://www.upi.com...

"A Jordanian academic has predicted that Israel will go to war with neighboring Lebanon and Egypt to get their water." - Thats ALL that is in the source.... Which isnt even close to enough evidence to suggest that an Israeli-Egyptian war is about to break out over water rationing. Try again Pro.

Water rationing though is more commonly used within certain countries during times of hardship to conserve water, and it is very effective in reducing water usage for short term periods.

As for my last argument about relying on local freshwater sources,

" places like Arizona (6 million people) are experiencing a water crises!!!"
" if Antarctica started a water industry not only would it supply country's with more water, but also create more jobs"

Tell me Pro,
- 1 - Who the hell would want to work in frickin Antarctica and make a living by literally destroying a pristine environment to convert Ice into water?
- 2 - How are you going to get that water to Arizona at a cheap rate?
- 3 - Arizona is landlocked and doesnt have access to the oceans.... So how would they benefit from any ships that do come back with water sicne they cant even GET to Arizona?

3) Human Populations
" population growth is becoming a problem..." - In only some parts of the world....
" fresh water Is becoming limited..." - And the situation is being handeled cheaply and effectively in many cases
" the economy isn't doing too well..." - I dont think destroying Antarctica would help...
"third world country are already suffering" - So we should make solutions to help them get more water from the funds and technology they actually have
"the only difference is that the water crisis is just starting in the U.S, EUROPE, AUSTARLIA" - What happened to third world countries? All three of these places are very advanced and have the funds to explore desalination, rain water collection, etc. which means we dont have to rely on incredibly risky, ineffective, expensive, and stupid tactics for obtaining water like melting Antarctica

4) Environment
The Pro claims that environmental disasters wont happen, and offers no evidence to suggest why. He quotes an old piece of legislation that failed to pass 30 years ago implying we could simply use that, but environmental disasters still happen despite regulation and precaution, which the Pro completely fails to understand. The ramnifications of any kind of oil

" Geological analogies with other continents suggest that several very valuable minerals may be present in Antarctica"
What the heck is a geological analogy and where is this source coming from because if its like your other claims its probably completely false or not supported by any facts or evidence at all...

"multinational companies are prepared to pay high prices to treaty governments for concessions, why should we turn down this source of revenue?"
Because it will be expensive as sh*t to move mining equipment to a continent already abandoned for lack of resources, because any resources that are found would never be large enough to play even a remotely large role in world economic trade, and because Antarctica is so remote that maintaining such operations would cost a fortune....

On another note, do you have actual evidence that corporations are ready to pour millions of dollars down the drain to mine Antarctica or is this another fabricated claim

"Almost all mining activity would be underground, so it would be little or no affect environment and likely to have little adverse impact upon it. "
I guess now would be a good time to inform voters that by "underground" the Pro means that to get to the resources that may or may not be underground companies would have to drill through miles of frozen ice, A process that would be time consuming, expensive, and probably not yield any stupendous result...

"my opposition contradicts himself when he mentions that its OK for drilling company's to destroy areas where were live rear such where the BP oil spill was, but drill in a safe area like Antarctica.."
I would like to ask the Pro to stop being a liar and watch his tongue... I never said anything about drilling near places people live or anything about BP...

"Antarctica is a empty deserted land why would this effect anyone.. in fact it makes sense to drill in Antarctica because it wouldn't effect anyone "
Its not that people would be harmed its that other animals already living there would be put in harms way to drill for oil or other resources that may not even be there meaning we would be gambling with valuable ecosystems for a chance at oil or other things we can find plenty of elsewhere

To be fair though the marine life in Antarctica might not be of any value to society, I dont think that scientists will find a tiny organism in Antarctica that may cure some cancers or anything like that.....

"scientist have found tiny organism in Antarctica that may cure some cancers!!"
Thank you Pro for providing a solid reason of why we should not open up Antarctica to mining. The environmental damage done to Antarctica may put species that live there in danger and some of these species may prove far more useful to society than any resources Antarctica holds....

To recap
1) Antarctica has been abandoned due to lack of resources
2) Mining Antarctica might not yield any resources at all
3) Any resources that are found would not be able to be mined economically and be competitive at world prices
4) There are many other, safe, proven, cheap ways to get water than destroying Antarctica
5) Desalination ,water rationing, rain water collection are proven and effective and safe
6) The cost for opening up operations and moving what little goods is mined back to other countries would be stupendous
7) The ecological impact that could happen from any disasters as a result of mining operations is always a factor
8) Organisms living there that could be very beneficial to humanity could be severely affected by mining operations







Debate Round No. 4
oreostar

Con

1) my opposition fails to prove me wrong in his from his first point... this is a logical debate and not only has he fails to support his own evidence but doesn't understand my evidence and points. i want to inform the public/voters that my opposition clams im a fibber, he is the only lier in this debate!

my wikipedia source said that
The continent, however, remained largely neglected for the rest of the 19th century because of its hostile environment, lack of resources, and isolation.

my opponate doesnt realize that potentally antartica is a land full of resources.
Apart from water and biological resources, Antarctica is attaining great importance, as a possible sources for minerals, oil, coal etc. However, at the present moment, the amount of resources potential and economic values are less known because of the The Antarctic Treaty of 1959, but our technological advancements, will bring the days when mining is legal, off-shore oil drilling, towing of ice-bergs etc. may become a reality in Antarctica.

desalination is harmful in two ways. Desalination plants kill marine organisms with its pumps thus endangering biodiversity. Also, waste products from the plant has to be carefully disposed off to prevent contamination and health risks.

Desalination is Option and Distraction for a Thirsty World?"revealed that desalination of seawater is an expensive, energy-intensive activity that also contributes to the production of greenhouse gases that trap solar heat in the atmosphere. Impacts of desalination include brine build-up, increased greenhouse gas emissions, destruction of prized coastal areas and reduced emphasis on conservation of rivers and wetlands. Many of the areas of most intensive desalination activity also have a history of damaging natural water resources, particularly groundwater.quoted World Wildlife Fund.

sure i tell you
-1- currently no oil or primary serves business in antartica the E.P now bans all mineral resource activities in Antarctica (other than scientific research).The treaty on the other hand banned mining in Antarctica for limited period of minimum 50 years and designates the whole continent and its dependent marine ecosystem as a natural reserve devoted to peace and science16. After 50 years i.e. from the year 2040 the whole world will jump into Antarctica and say, "Mine, baby, mine"!17......
NOTED!!! i predect in 40 years technology will be advanced enough to open a primary seves business in a safe effective way...in fact my source tell me that the russian federation has discivedrd a clean meathod of driil... called heat drill or hot water drilling


other attacks are ireevivent attack.. if you please i will feather discuss them in the next round
imabench

Pro

- Resources -
Humanity has avoided Antarctica since the 19th century due to its hostile environment, lack of natural resources, and isolation, which means that not only is Antarctica devoid of resources, but that we've known about it since the 1800's

My Opponent is basing most of his argument that there are "potentially" resources that can be mined in Antarctica, the same could be said for the Moon, Mars, Halley's Comet, and other things that are ridiculously far away from civilization so that moving those resources back towards civilization would be immensly expensive.

- Desalination -
Ive looked into it and yeah desalination plants can be harmful to the environment if the byproducts from the process are not carefully handled. But which do you think sounds worse

Desalination of Ocean water - or - Melting Antarctica?

Desalination does cause problems, but the scope of those problems affect a very small area whereas melting Antarctica literally affects an entire continent....

As for all my other arguments,
- 1 - Pro concedes that Antarctica is a very isolated place and that any resources harvested from there would be insanely costly to move back into Civilization
- 2 - Pro concedes that Antarctica has a history for being avoided due to its lack of resources
- 3 - Pro concedes that collecting rain water can help satisfy water demands better than melting Antarctica
- 4 - Pro concedes that rationing water can help ease burdens on water resources better than melting Antarctica
- 5 - Pro concedes that better managing and exploiting of local freshwater lakes and streams can bring more fresh water that melting Antarctica
- 6 - Pro concedes that World population growth is rather concentrated and that it is limited to countries that cannot benefit from melting Antarctica
- 7 - Pro concedes that exploiting Antarctica would cause corporations to trash teh pristine environment
- 8 - Pro concedes that there are many other strategies that can be used to reduce the burden on oil supplies than trying to find oil reserves in Antarctica
- 9 - Pro concedes that there may be conflict between nations who want to fight to have drilling rights in Antarctica
- 10 - Pro concedes that water supplies will not cause a War between Israel and Libya
- 11 - Pro concedes that areas with low water access wont benefit from Antarctic water, like Arizona
- 12 - Pro fails to provide any sources showing that corporations are ready to pump millions into drilling for Antarctica
- 13 - Pro concedes that environmental accidents could strike and devastate Antarctica
- 14 - Pro forfeits that any resources that do exist lie deep underground under miles of ice
- 15 - Pro forfeits that drilling operations in Antarctica could threaten valuable species living there
- 16 - Pro concedes to lying about the projected population in 2020
- 17 - Pro concedes to lying about me saying its ok to drill near where people live

I thank the Pro for a fun debate and the voters for voting :)
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by oreostar 5 years ago
oreostar
voters i wish i had two more rounds....imabench i would love if we could debate this topic further with two more rounds...
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by airmax1227 5 years ago
airmax1227
oreostarimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con does a decent job asserting his reasoning why Antarctic exploitation may be needed. Pro however does an excellent job refuting nearly all of cons points and rebuttals. By pointing to better alternatives for fresh water, and general practical problems, pro largely negates cons most focal arguments. Pro had better s/g as well.
Vote Placed by Hardcore.Pwnography 5 years ago
Hardcore.Pwnography
oreostarimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: con's opening argument was underdeveloped, plus pro provides many arguments that were badly refuted. Antartica does have resources and with the large population today, it is needed. Con doesn't know how to capitalize sometimes too.