Hydro Fracking: Good or Bad?
Debate Rounds (4)
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.
Still on the chemicals used for the chemicals, a little more than 99 %  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.
 - http://fracfocus.org...
The only ones that want this to go through are greedy monsters and fools.
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.
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years 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:||3||0|
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.
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.