The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Hydro Fracking: Good or Bad?

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/21/2014 Category: News
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,242 times Debate No: 60774
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




This is my first time on this site, so i would like to open up with a BIG topic of HYDROFRACKING.
I believe that this is a very good thing for our society today, both horizontal and vertical alike. Hydrofracking is a great way to give our economy a boost, depending on how much we invest in it. And Hyrofracking is also a easy way to create lots of energy.


Anything high-tech is dangerous towards natural tools. Hydro Fracking involves toxins - like pesticides and special chemicals that enlarge fruit, I would rather have small oranges than giant ones if they are just filled with toxins. It also disturbs the geological infrastructure.
Debate Round No. 1


I can see what you mean how the "toxins" that enlarge fruit can be harmful put in the chemicals used to extract oil from many miles underneath the ground. But... Everyone's water is purified this day, so if through Hydrofracking some so called pesticides INDIRECTLY got into your water they will be purified. Is that not like washing your fruit which had been DIRECTLY sprayed with pesticides?

Still on the chemicals used for the chemicals, a little more than 99 % [1] of the fracking fluid is water!

Plus as we continue to develop this form of gathering energy, we will continue to make it safer and add more regulations as over 100 bills have been passed regulating the use of chemicals used, in only 13 years of horizontal fracking's existence.

[1] -


Purified water doesn't 100% cleanse the water. It just makes it harder for toxins to survive. Do you even research? Or do you just make claims? This is people's lives you're toying with here.
Debate Round No. 2


Well if you consider that 99% of the fluid is water, which leaves a mere 1% of chemicals. And then you purify it! there isn't much of a chance that those "toxins" will survive. And even if some did your body is completely immune or somewhat immune to them because you eat them all the time. Since when you are washing fruit, kinda of like when your water is purified 100%, your fruit is also not completely cleansed.


That's not how it works. Think of purified water like diet soda - people think it's healthy, but it's not. Purified water is detrimental to our health and diet soda caused cancer.

The only ones that want this to go through are greedy monsters and fools.
Debate Round No. 3


There are many other things that effect the environment much more than the small amounts of chemicals that might not even harm you.

Coal is the leading industry and projected to be through 2035. Now coal mining is dangerous for its many workers with cave-ins and gas explosions, from the build up of methane. Plus it can result in lung damage from breathing in the air. But coal is WORSE for the ENVIRONMENT than hydrofracking. Because in order to gather its energy you must burn it, releasing Carbon Dioxide and Methane into the atmosphere, which contributes to the depletion of the ozone layer. This along with the air pollution it causes is far worse than some chemicals that probably don't even get into your ground water that you drink.


"might not even harm you", great choice of words - very assuring.

Just because coal mining made it pass legislation, does not mean it's legitimate. People cheat the system - coal mining is one of them.

You cannot just say one evil is lesser than a greater evil and assume justification.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's case never got off the ground. He never actually provided solid arguments for his position. Pro, in contrast, actually provided some evidence and argument for his position. While I think his case was actually kind of weak, it was certainly stronger than Con's--and that's all it has to be. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.