Debate Rounds (5)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by matt8800 9 months 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:||0||6|
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.
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.