Deep water oil drilling, Kimo vs. Pono
Debate Rounds (4)
My opponent has the burden of proof. He must prove with logical and/or data evidence that deep water drilling is wrong. I accept this debate.
I will give my opponent one more round to give logical and/or data support to her statement against deep water drilling before I post my arguments. If she does not provide this, I will post anyway.
http://waterdefense.org... go to this website and read both the deep water drilling and the nuclear articles.
"So what Beginner seems to be saying is he drives a gas guzzling vehicle and could give a damn if he kills innocent life forms."
My opponent seems to think that gas is ONLY used in vehicles.
The oil extracted is a very precious and much needed commodity. Oil runs everything. The clothes you wear, the food you eat, the car you drive, the housewares...all the items in this link: http://www.anwr.org... and much more. Almost everything requires oil. The world is now in a state that it cannot run without oil.
By giving up oil, you are agreeing that we should give up the production of nearly everything in the world. We should stop producing housing, ventilation, commodities (such as clothing, toothbrush), etc.
You are saying we should give up running water (because the engines running such pumps are, guess what? OIL-facilitated) and nearly all common necessities you probably don't even think about.
By denouncing nuclear energy, my opponent has also agreed to alternative forms of energy. Since we do not have anything close to a sufficient amount of supplies (economically and literally) to produce enough 'clean' alternative energy, we would be relying on the burning of fossil fuels (the old method) which is much more accessible/practical to mass produce.
The irony is that we use nuclear energy because its proponents want cleaner energy. They are against using oil/burning fossil fuels so they support using nuclear energy. This is because nuclear energy is very clean and does not harm the environment when contained.
If my opponent is against oil-energy, than the only other practical option is nuclear and vice versa. Other options such as wind and solar are expensive and hard-to-make products. The production of such clean energy alternatives will not cover our energy consumption rate. We consume millions of barrels per day even with nuclear energy:
I do realize gas is used i many more things than just cars but the fat that there is so mny cars nowadays is a big part of the issue at hand and just by you saying that the world is at a state where t can not run without oil is just proving my point further. The world has become so greedy and is taking too much for granted. Few would actually be able to survive it seems without oil. For example me, i dont drive and i have a green thumb, and i could survive without most electronics.
I dont have any sources for this beacus this is my personal opinion.
Meaning oil drilling is absolutely necessary and is not wrong. According to you, what is truly wrong is human society, but NOT human conduct itself. This does not prove that oil drilling, the conduct, is wrong. Your point is not proven.
I gave you an edge by digressing, but you digressed with me. . .sad
Point standing: Deep water oil drilling is a process that is not wrong.
"I dont have any sources for this beacus this is my personal opinion."
Coolios! Concession! Grammar! Free points! Yay!
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.