BP should be forced to pay all reparations
Debate Rounds (4)
I'd like to request that the final round in this debate be used as a summary round instead of a rebuttal round. Thank you.
I affirm the resolution for 2 main reasons. The first is that BP allowed the deep water horizon disaster to occur and that they could have stopped it, but didn't. the second is that because they caused the disaster, they should be forced to stop the spill and pay reparations for damages in the areas the spill has disrupted.
Contention 1: the deep water horizon disaster was allowed by BP's negligence and continues because of that same negligence.
Sub point A: BP allowed the disaster to happen. The deepwater horizon blowout happened as a result of a sudden, unexpected increase in pressure coming from the well. In case this happens, there are usually 4 devices in place to prevent a blowout. The primary preventer is a manual switch, which failed to operate in this case, it is unknown why. The second device, the "dead man switch" is an automatic device that usually would switch the blowout preventer on in case of a sudden pressure change. This device did not function correctly either, and it is yet unknown why. The 3rd device that should have been on the deep water horizon drill, the acoustic switch, was not installed on this oil well. This device would normally allow a 3rd party to come in after a blowout and turn off the well remotely. However, BP decided not to pay the relatively low cost for the device, as it is not federally mandated (the bill to federally mandate these devices was shut down using money from BP) BP did not install it. The final device intended to prevent blowout is the "shear ram" a device which, in case of blowout, is meant to automatically cut off and cap the well. However, the device has only a 50% success rate. BP has not attempted to increase the efficiency of this device since it was tested in 2002.
This shows that BP's greed and negligence directly allowed this disaster to happen.
Sub point B: BP's current attempts to stop the disaster are insufficient as a result of greed. In a letter from the coast guard to BP, the coast guard complains that BP's newest attempt to contain the disaster is insufficient, and needs to be expanded. BP has attempted to marginalize the disaster in the past, claiming the broken well was spewing about 1/5 of what it actually was. They still to this day marginalize the actual amount, claiming it is discharging 20,000 barrels a day when, in actuality, the number is double that. This evidence shows how BP is attempting to hide the true magnitude of the disaster from the public and hold on to as much money as they can.
Contention 2: BP should be forced to pay reparations for damages caused by the disaster because of the magnitude of the disaster and the fact that they allowed the disaster to happen.
Sub point A: Because BP allowed the disaster to happen, they should be forced to pay for it. (this is going to be a much more philosophical argument). Is killing a man the same as allowing a man to be killed? According to the U.S. government, yes. Since in America, you can be charged for allowing death through negligence, BP should be charged for reparations. To put it in more simple terms, those who knowingly allow death or destruction, should be forced to atone for said crime.
Sub point B: The deepwater horizon drill blowout is a large scale disaster that could result in a global extinction, the likes of which haven't been seen for 251 million years. 251 million years ago, a massive undersea methane bubble caused the extinction of 96% of all life on earth. "BP's Deepwater Horizon drilling operation may have triggered an irreversible, cascading geological Apocalypse that will culminate with the first mass extinction of life on Earth in many millions of years. "(Aym) This evidence shows the massive scale and implications of the disaster that BP has allowed to happen. The least they can do is pay for it.
I have shown how BP allowed the disaster to happen, are continuing to allow it to happen, and why they should be charged for reparations. I know stand open for cross-examination.
Secondly it is the fault of the Worker who survied and said that he told the president that their were safety failure. The worker should have resigned and then submitted a letter to congress.
I am sure if these 2 steps were taken President obama would have never been in this situtation.
1) My opponent suggested that the disaster should be blamed on the secretaries of interior and energy. This is untrue, because their job is to enforce current regulations. Because the current laws don't require the 3rd remote shut off valve, this allowed BP to get away with not installing it. Also, I will admit that their was some oversight by these departments, but the oversight was paid for by BP! If nothing else your argument helps mine, by showing that BP had obvious malicious intent as they were bribing government officials!
2) I have many responses to my opponents second argument. First, I have yet to see any evidence whatsoever of the existence of this worker. Who does he work for? What is his job? And, secondly, is it the fault of the person who notices negligence in a case like this? No, it is still the fault of the negligent! Simply because a worker failed to notice the problems with BP's well does not mean that it is that workers fault for the whole disaster. It remains the fault of the negligent entity, in this case BP.
I would like to point out that my opponent has not specifically responded to any of my case points, so those points still stand. thank you.
Animalwiz forfeited this round.
Animalwiz forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by thatguy15 6 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||7||0|
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.