The Instigator
Fracking
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
whooplaah
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Fracking

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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...
whooplaah
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/22/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 886 times Debate No: 86824
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (38)
Votes (1)

 

Fracking

Pro

Fracking is good because it creates jobs and helps the government, besides who cares about the environment?
whooplaah

Con

Fracking is bad because:
1. Fracking has been linked to increased seismic activity;
2. Fracking has been linked to ground-water contamination and air pollution;
3. Fracking removes water from the hydrologic cycle - permanently reducing the amount of water available for other uses;
4. Fracking is most commonly used in shale formations which, in America, are densely populated regions;
5. Fracking benefits wealthy individuals, but is detrimental to middle- and lower-class individuals.
Debate Round No. 1
Fracking

Pro

Mr.KnowItAll, fracking is a way to help make money and support the economy, it creates a large supply of natural resources such as oil, and gas. It creates jobs which helps the U.S. Economy. Finally fracking is quick and easy and allows more benefits.
whooplaah

Con

Consider this:
The 9-11 attacks upon the US created thousands of jobs. The FBI and CIA and Army expanded to deal with terrorists, and construction workers were hired to build various monuments and repair New York. Air ports hired more security.

But we don't say this was good because the negative consequences outweigh the economic benefits.

Likewise, fracking may result in short-term benefits to the economy (jobs, taxes) but the pollution byproducts threaten our long-term survival as a species.
Debate Round No. 2
Fracking

Pro

You can't compare 9/11 to fracking, it's apples and oranges. Fracking, done right can have no harmful after effects. 9/11 will stick with this country forever. The key to fracking is creating a decent sized border between the concrete and water, if successful, you get natural gas and oil with no aftermath. Plus, the seismic activity is to small to be recognized.
whooplaah

Con

According to the USGS, in America:
From 1973 to 2008 there were 21 earthquakes
From 2008 to 2013 there were 99 earthquakes
In 2014 there were 659 earthquakes
These quakes are most common in areas of fracked shale.

According to a recent EPA report, "we found specific instances where one or more mechanisms [of fracking] led to impacts on drinking water resources, including contamination of drinking water wells."

I think that earthquakes and poisoned water are comparable to domestic terrorism.
Debate Round No. 3
Fracking

Pro

According to statista.com and daily mail.co.uk, since 2006 terrorism has resulted in over 200000 deaths, I don't know about you but that seems like a much bigger problem than minor tremors( 3.0 magnitude or less ) and non proven water poisoning. According to aoghs.com, in 60 years of hydraulic fracturing, there has been over two million projects and not one caused pollution of an aquifer.
whooplaah

Con

The link to the EPA water-contamination study is in the comment section of this debate (along with my other sources, to save space). I don't understand how that study is not proof of water poisoning.

Fracking also produces air pollution, such as hydrogen sulfide, which has been linked to hundreds of cattle deaths and severe degradation of human health.

Fracking a well consumes millions of gallons of water which can never be used for consumption again. It's only a mater of time before its gone.
Debate Round No. 4
Fracking

Pro

I read your sources and personally, i don't need 12 sources to back up my information, I use real life experience and what I've learned so far. Fracking is a better alternative than coal, it saves money, it helps the economy, and if done right has absolutely no after effects on the environment. The pros outweigh the cons. All the environmentalists can say our future is dim if we don't change our ways. Yet, me a conservative southern baptist believes that God has a plan for the future.
whooplaah

Con

I find it interesting that conservatives are not conservationists. I understand the desire to keep things as they are, but a driver who keeps their speed and trajectory as they are won't apply the breaks and might crash into a wall.

Fracking is a large scale industry. If only 1% of fracked wells go bad that is still a huge impact on the environment. We should remember that fracking takes place not in remote regions, but in urban locations. That environment is, quite literally, our own backyard.
Debate Round No. 5
38 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by CodingSource 8 months ago
CodingSource
@EccentricSenator314: I think we have different styles of debating. If emotional manipulation is your best thing, that doesn't work for me.
Posted by CodingSource 8 months ago
CodingSource
Con's style of debate here is like how I debated against Pushpesh in the Biotechnology debate.
Posted by EccentricSenator314 9 months ago
EccentricSenator314
@matt8800: But you only posted a link to a Government website... (Liberal President, Liberal Administration, Liberal website, Liberal bias; pandering to their base of support.....) You cannot post 1 link to a biased website, claim that I got 'destroyed' because I did not need anybody else fighting my battles for me (Newsflash: Nobody here is backing your high horse here, might wanna step off while you're still ahead of yourself...), and then say 'Fact, fact, fact, fact, SCIENCE!!!' and act like I lost the Internet or something (The equivalent of smelling your own farts, though you feel GOOD about yourself for 'recycling' those harmful gasses that you emit, unlike all the other losers and retards out there lmao) An opinion, regardless of a 'reliable source', is still, at it's core, an unproven opinion: The bipolar opposite of a fact, opinions cannot be established or proven, an opinion typically relies upon skewed statistics and emotional spin to convince the other party that their opinion is fact (Example: You wish for me, very badly, to believe that Fracking is bad for the environment. You espose the supposed environmental damage it 'causes', thus holding me and my support 'liable' for this supposed 'damage'. You then try teasing me for not posting sources, claiming that I got 'eaten alive' and that this will 'continue happening on this site' for as long as I see it unnecessary, so you try to hold a 'righteous' high ground here by posting a link to a Government-run website, which presents a mirage of credibility: On the 1 hand, it's the Government, it's hard for them to post misleading statements, it can bite them in the back later on. But, our President is a Liberal, our President shares your beliefs and opinions, therefore he doesn't mind pandering to you as when it's debunked, he can fall-back on 'outdated information'... Emotional manipulation is one of my strongest suites, none of your tricks will work on my eyes.....)
Posted by matt8800 9 months ago
matt8800
Also, it is true that biased sources are not of any value. It is how the data is presented and interpreted.
If one is trying to make an argument that water boils at 100 C, a link documenting an experiment that demonstrated water boils at 100 C is valuable. A link to a source that says Jesus says it boils at 100 C is not valuable.
Posted by matt8800 9 months ago
matt8800
Opinions with good sources can be established as facts. Opinions without sources are just unsubstantiated opinions and of little value. Substantiated facts cannot be disagreed with; opinions can.
You don't have to post links that substantiate your opinions if you don't want. You are just at a disadvantage if you are trying to win votes on a debate. Nobody cares about someones opinions if they cant back it up.
Posted by EccentricSenator314 9 months ago
EccentricSenator314
It's ok to post a source or 2, and it is ridiculous to place the character restriction to 500, but I feel that people debating online SPAM links to sources. When you debate, much less speak, you are stating what you already know. It's ok to have a source or 2 to help rationalize your point, or to emphasize that your viewpoint is not fringe or minority, but at what point does 12 links become having other people fight your battle!!??? When you SPAM links or rely on too many sources to help, you run the risk of coming off as a Shill who has no idea what he's debating (Logic, science, and historical precedent are perfectly rationale ends to backup my point. This places the onus on the opposition to use similar means or whatever supporting source they feel is reliable to counter my argument...) I also wish to remind you 2 that your sources are all in the eye of the beholder: If the opposition, the audience, or both preconceive your source as 'biased', or 'unreliable', then the posting of sources completely backfires, regardless of the claims or logic behind the arguments...
Posted by matt8800 9 months ago
matt8800
Also, direct anecdotal evidence can be used but should be stated in a way that provides the most credibility apart from personal bias.
Stating personal bias without explaining the logic to support it is detrimental in a debate.
Posted by matt8800 9 months ago
matt8800
@whooplaah - Its impossible to have a comprehensive debate when restricted to 500 words. I see no reason why you cant provide them in the comment section if you dont have room although its idea to post them in the argument. Typically, most arguments are 8000 characters.
Every time you put forth a statement as fact to back up your premise, its a good idea to post your source. If no source is available, you have to be careful with stating it as fact or the debater looks like he is talking out of his a**. This is what put Pro at a disadvantage.
Example: If A = B and B = C, then A=C
Source - (link to established proof that A=B)
Source - (link to established proof that B=C)
Posted by whooplaah 9 months ago
whooplaah
So this is the second debate I've participated in, and I don't really know the mindset of users on this website. Is there a problem with too many sources? I come from a research background and work as a professor, so in my mind there is no such thing as too many sources.

If you don't want to read them, that's fine, but these pages are archived and future readers may want to mine for citations. Also, it can be difficult to corroborate a position with just one article. Opponents tend to find something wrong with the article and dismiss it entirely - with multiple articles this becomes more difficult. Multiple articles also help emphasize the magnitude and scope of a claim.

Also, different articles are needed to defend different aspects of a claim. I was limited to 500 words per post, so I synthesized info from multiple sources into a single sentence. I felt that I had to provide multiple sources because of how I was talking.

I also ran into difficulty because for my master's thesis I conducted interviews with people living in the Eagle Ford Shale of Texas. I had first-hand information from my studies and interviews, but that is not something I can cite in a debate. I had to find other research that backed up what I had discovered myself.

In summary, what would be the best practice?
Posted by whooplaah 9 months ago
whooplaah
From my final debate post:
Fracking out Back Yard:
http://www.alternet.org...
http://thinkprogress.org...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by matt8800 9 months ago
matt8800
FrackingwhooplaahTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro referred to Con as ?Mr Know it all?, which seemed unnecessarily disrespectful and combative. Con provided reasoning with sources as to why fracking is detrimental. Pro made some claims to which he stated he didn?t need to provide the sources for his information and claimed terrorism was worse, which had no relevance. His answer for the future was simply that God had a plan but provided no reasoning or evidence to support why that is a sufficient solution.