The Instigator
Con (against)
6 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Antartica and Artic, a paradise for oil mining

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/24/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,294 times Debate No: 31637
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




As we all know, the world is a hungry monster for energy, and this world heavily relies on crude oil for energy, which is not a clean energy type.

With the remaining oil reserves and including an approximated value for upcoming crude oil reserves but excluding Antarica and Artic, the world's crude oil would last us around 75 years. But this monster is becoming more and more hungrier for energy, thus lets take it to be 50 years. Now is it worth for us to disturb the natural wild life and scenery of the inhabited continent of Antartica and Artic.

In my opinion, no. because crude oil is not the only type of energy in this world, there are many cleaner energy(renewable energies) like wind, solar, tidal and geothermal, but there is also one non-renewable energy, which have very less problemes, but when a problem occurs it causes big time problem, this is nuclear energy, but under proper and sophisticated supervision there would be no problem.
Lets piturize this, we mine oil in Antartic and Artic for oil, which would create more green house gases as there is an availability for oil, but these gases would also affect Antartica and Artic creating it warmer for its existance. Then in this type of case, the whole continent would be extint destroying life, study of that unique continent and making it more difficult to mine oil there.

It is very well admitteed that Antartica and Artic has a unique unbelievable untamed beauty like the Northen Lights, etc. And goingn ahead to do this while alternative options are available seems like a stupid decision.

I am hoping to see challengers to my debate.


1. Jesus will protect us. There's no need for green BS as the world has ways of fixing itself

2. Green is all bs. Its all a plot to control as proven by behind the green mask.

3. Oil and Antarctica have whats been called as a Post byproduct adaption. A post byproduct adaption is a way of naturally working out the problems in environmental problematic events. Such events have helped in the ecosystem collapse of 1966. The land had a massive forrest burn out. The ecosystem was failing but by a byproduct adaption land grew with forests. It makes sense even if your an evolutionist. Land would survive better if it had a byproduct adaptation embedded in the ecosystem

4. Green energy is very expensive and ineffective. Mockten proved there would be a mass energy outage leading to riots and widespread social chaos.

5. It kills jobs

"for every renewable energy job that the State manages to finance, Spain"s experience...reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average

"Legally mandated measures for reducing greenhouse gas emissions are likely to have significant adverse impacts on GDP growth of developing countries [...] This in turn will have serious implications for our poverty alleviation programs."

6. Conservation

The universe has a law of conservation. If there is something such as a loss of land, there will be a gain in oceanic sea rise. Just as the artic sea loss matched by Antarctic sea ice gain.

In fact, the global sea-ice record shows virtually no change throughout the past 30 years, because the quite rapid loss of Arctic sea ice since the satellites were watching has been matched by a near-equally rapid gain of Antarctic sea ice. Indeed, when the summer extent of Arctic sea ice reached its lowest point in the 30-year record in mid-September 2007, just three weeks later the Antarctic sea extent reached a 30-year record high. The record low was widely reported; the corresponding record high was almost entirely unreported

Whenever there's an effect whats conserved?

My arguments are solid how ya gana respond?
Debate Round No. 1


Firstly, I would like to thank Anti-Atheist for taking on my challenge, and I would like to assure Anti-Atheist that this would be his first debate that he shall lose.

Okay, the first thing on your debate was that Jesus will protect us, by saying this are you trying to imply that lets say a boy has his exams tomorrow, and he did not study anything, but he is a good religious boy , so according to your principal; it would mean that Jesus will save the boy from failing and would get the boy an A grade. Now that is simply insane, before Jesus could help you, you have to help yourself. Therefore, your reason of Jesus protecting us is invalid.

I quite did not understand your sentence of your second reason "2. Green is all bs. Its all a plot to control as proven by behind the green mask." But when did I say say that the world should only run on green energy, the world can also run on nuclear energy. And keeping the earth green is to our benefit. In-case, our world become so very polluted that there is so much smoke on streets that everybody has to wear masks and install air purifiers in rooms, basically like the capital of the country which has decided not to care about its environment and to just go ahead with producing goods with not a green energy; China, Beijing.

In your third point, you are trying to say that, the world has learnt a lot from its mistakes and now knows how to drill out natural resources without hurting mother-earth. In the example you have given of land growing with forests, what I have to say about that is that, why was the eco-systwm failing in the first place because humans went there to exploit energy, so basically if they had not gone there in the first place; no eco-system would be failing and no need to reproduce anotherr eco-system. OIL exploration of mining is not a safe game as you might think it is, and we talking about it at a fragile place such as Antartica and Artic, not possible for a safe game to be played.

Green energy is not expensive, it simply has a heavy first time investment, but other than that very low maintainance cost, compared to something like a gas plant for producing electricity, asa in the gas plant you bring the gas look after it, it is much expensive compared to the one time investment of green energy. It depends where and how you install these renewable plants that will determine their ability of being effective. Unfortunately, not all the countries in the world have these facilities, so for them and other countries with high energy consumption the solution is nuclear energy, which is cheaper, readiliy available, effective enough to priduce a lot of energy from a small bar of radoi active material, the only problem is that proper care has to be taken to monitor the plant, because any small problem could result into radoi active spills, moreover the waste product is water and radio active waste which cannot be used in weapons and is in small amount.

For your second point, yes i do agree that there are some organisations behind the green mask. Well, its true but for this type of serious project the higher officials should just veto these useless people, that's the reason why dictatorship is a good idea if the leader is good.

Yes it will kill jobs, but not much as people would stop going to that field, and oil mining will stop immediately but will just shrink. And there will be more job creation in the other sectors of new energy.

About the law of conservation, yes it does work. But that principal is more of a common sense principal. like water covers some parts of Indonesia , now INdonesia has lost that much land and the sea has gained that much.
And the amount of ice lost by Antartica canoot always be equal to the amount of ice gained by Artic. And well yes there is something like law of conservation but the time is not specified, like the Artic can loose about half of its ice in one year which shall cause devastating effects on the earth's climatic cycle, and Antartica will gain that much amount of ice in 50 years time.

And one day or another the world would have to move away from using crude oil as its source of energy, but for the time of seting up other energy plants, oil could be mined from place across the tropical belt, as there are several countries in Africa which are discovering oil like Kenya,Mozambique and Ghana.

So why to disturb the solitude filled continent of Antartica and Artic.

Lets see how you come back from my solid agruments, I hope I don't see you backing out and posting no agrument against moi!


Anti-atheist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Why we should be concerned about Arctic off-shore drilling:

No technology exists that would allow oil companies to recover significant amounts of oil from the ocean after a spill, especially in rough, cold seas.

Due to the frigid climate and the sensitivity of Arctic ecosystems, the Arctic is unlikely to recover as quickly as another region might from a major oil spill.

Extreme Arctic weather and the remote location make the effectiveness of planned safety precautions for Arctic drilling highly unpredictable.

There are many several other ways to produce clean energy, and crude oil would not be a long term solution, as the world oil would last for about 50 more years(excluding the unknown amount of oil in Antartica and Artic).

The solitude and unique continent of Antarrtica and Artic should be left to nature, there should be no oil drilling taking place there.


Anti-atheist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by aniw89 4 years ago
Yes but communist good leaders never occur. In simple language communism is bad. Democracy is good.
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
Can't wait to learn how arctic drilling will spoil the northern lights.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Magic8000 4 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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: FF and Pro was just incoherent. An ecosystem collapse in 66? Never heard of any such thing.