The Instigator
mahoneysean
Pro (for)
Winning
30 Points
The Contender
repete21
Con (against)
Losing
29 Points

Drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR) should be blocked from oil extraction.

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
Pro Tied Con
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: 12/12/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,672 times Debate No: 315
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (17)

 

mahoneysean

Pro

Oil extraction from the Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve should be blocked on all fronts. The harmful effects caused from both drilling for oil and the subsequent burning of that oil does not outweigh the idea of becoming an energy independent America.
repete21

Con

First off I would like for you to clarify the "harmful effects" which will be caused by the drilling and burning. Second, because I am sure that you will bring up global warming, I would like you, and the voters, to be aware, that for every 60 giggatones of CO2 produced by the ocean, only 2 giggatones is produced by the Terrestrial cycle, this shows that the effects humans have on global warming are not by CO2. The EPA even states that deforestation is causing the problem, so unless you can show me statistics other than the 60vs2 it will be useless to say it will be because of CO2. Next, referring to the caribou, the ANWR (Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge) states ON THEIR WEBSITE, that caribou can co-exist with oil drilling, and have been for the last several years, and the population, of the animals, has actually been increasing, in the years of co-existence with oil drilling.
Debate Round No. 1
mahoneysean

Pro

mahoneysean forfeited this round.
repete21

Con

Wow... nice, I wish people wouldnt join, then make one argument and quit! I suppose I have nothing else to say, and anyone who opposes me should feel free to challenge me, assuming you have the same view as the Pro, I would like to debate this topic.
Debate Round No. 2
mahoneysean

Pro

Sir, excuse me for a power outage in my neighborhood in Seattle. Secondly, debate the argument, not me personally...Now to the issue.
In discussing the proposed closing of drilling in ANWR it is important to view the issue on a broad scale. To just look at the local Caribou population and to debate the controversial issue global warming is not the idea of this discussion, but rather, to look at America's future, and to tackle it in the best means possible.
For ANWR drilling, its contentious existence is not just environmental, it is economic. In my first argument above I stated that the negatives did not outweigh the positives on becoming an energy independent America. Drilling for oil itself is not the only negative (as pertaining to the caribou argument above) but rather it grapples with the American sustainability philosophy of providing the most good for the most amount of Americans in the long term. Because the basis of this philosophy has its roots in American culture and domestic management, it is important to use when thinking in terms of the future in America. This leads to the ideal of sustainable, renewable power. Hydroelectric, Wind, and Solar energy would (with the right funding) be the best way for America to: 1.) think about the future in terms of not destroying Wilderness sanctuaries 2.) provide power that would last American citizens for a longer time (The US uses approximately 20 million barrels per day, and according to ANWR.org-a pro drilling site-there is approximately 8 billion barrels, meaning that one day America is going to find itself a more oil dependant economy with no more internal sites to drill) and 3.) Create a new economic market that would insure thousands of jobs, and independence on a local and national scale.
The market for wind and solar are two hardly tapped markets. Both of which could use existing technology, and both of which can be harnessed by the typical American. Why not have wind and solar farming? Take the farmers that have crops being subsidized by the government and give them that same money to invest in a technology that will create independence at the lowest level and not to mention, America as plenty of wind and sun! That would create an energy independent America for the benefit of the most, in the long term. Talk about independence, we as Americans would never have to use foreign (or domestic oil) and we would be saving the "last frontier" for generations of Americans as wilderness land.
repete21

Con

First off, I am sorry to assume you were another of the quitters which we seem to encounter so often as this site grows, and for that, again I am sorry, and glad that you have power again.

Secondly, although you have focused mainly on the economy, and future power supply, you have brought up the fact that there will be caribou problems, which I have stated there will not be, and supported with evidence, I will not discuss these issues, because I believe that I have one that area of the debate, although that may be over confident of me.

Next, I would like to note, that the drilling in the ANWR, would not be a permanent solution to the energy "crisis", because we all know that oil is a natural resource that will run out one day, but I do believe that it is several other things.

1-It allows us to have a fall back, should foreign oil imports decline, for reasons such as conflict in the middle east, sanctions, etc.

2-It allows the United States to continue to help the US economy by selling oil, rather than hurt its economy, by buying oil, while we switch over to more environmental, and permanent solutions. To further this point I would like to state that the US is not currently in a situation where we would have power without oil, and it would not be an "overnight" process to change to a country that could rely purely on renewable resources. Until this time does come, we must rely on what we have, which is drilling in the ANWR, or relying on foreign oil.

3-Oil isn't used purely for power, as we all know, we live in a very active world, in which we are constantly moving around, a lot of the time in cars, which as of now do still use gasoline, which is still a product of oil, which could be taken from the ANWR without any harm to the wildlife of the ANWR, as I have previously stated.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by mahoneysean 9 years ago
mahoneysean
I understand that the conversion is not an "overnight process", but foreign oil is not going anywhere either.(war in the middle east insures that)And we, as Americans have to realize that when making decisions like drilling in ANWR, it is important to realize they are going to be long lasting. If we drill in ANWR we are going to put off the future of renewable energies, and we are going to be stuck in the same mess further down the line. Drilling for oil in ANWR has both mediate and immediate consequence, and that really worrying about the caribou population and if foreign oil is going to be available (because either way they will be fine, and foreign oil is not going anywhere-unless we want it to) but that we need to be make a change for the future of America in the long term and drilling for oil does not do that. Drilling for oil in ANWR is a temporary fix.
17 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
mahoneyseanrepete21Tied
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:61 
Vote Placed by repete21 7 years ago
repete21
mahoneyseanrepete21Tied
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 Josh 8 years ago
Josh
mahoneyseanrepete21Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by behindblueeyes 8 years ago
behindblueeyes
mahoneyseanrepete21Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by wheelhouse3 9 years ago
wheelhouse3
mahoneyseanrepete21Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by mrmatt505 9 years ago
mrmatt505
mahoneyseanrepete21Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by parkerdoc 9 years ago
parkerdoc
mahoneyseanrepete21Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by iloveher666 9 years ago
iloveher666
mahoneyseanrepete21Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by dr.doom 9 years ago
dr.doom
mahoneyseanrepete21Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by mahoneysean 9 years ago
mahoneysean
mahoneyseanrepete21Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30