The Instigator
Ore_Ele
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points
The Contender
jessbrox809
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Oil drilling in the USA should be expanded

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 4 votes the winner is...
Ore_Ele
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/11/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 884 times Debate No: 16209
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)

 

Ore_Ele

Pro

This was a challenge, but it went unanswered, so I will be opening it for all.

Both sides agree to share equal Burden of Proof.

I will use this first round for definitions. My opponent may offer other definitions that he plans on using later in his first round. If he so want, he may start in round 1, but by no means is obligated to, he may do whatever he prefers.

"Oil Drilling" - the process of pulling oil from the natural environment (as opposed to refining recycled oil) so that it can be used and/or sold.

"expand" - to make larger, in quantity or size (for this debate, quantity).

"USA" - The United States of America, including but not limited to, the US government, US based companies, state governments, and foriegn companies opperating on US soil/water (within the legal borders of the USA).

"should" - ought, a degree of obligation, would be better by some measurement to do as oppose to not do.

Thank you,
jessbrox809

Con

Sincere thanks to my opponent for issuing a challenge on such a worthy topic. I hope our debate can be fruitful, civil, and respectful to all.

I respectfully accept all aforementioned definitions. Just for clarity (meaning in case I forget later):

"ppm" - parts per million (basically an oft used scientific percentage that uses 1 million as it's "denominator" in the place of what we would normally use in a percentage [i.e. 350 parts per million = 350 / 1,000,000]).

With that said, I would deter to Pro to begin opening arguments. Good luck Pro.
Debate Round No. 1
Ore_Ele

Pro

With the current price of oil, it is economically benefitial for a company to drill for oil which is currently untapped, therefore, if we get out of the way, and make sure that others don't interfere (enviromentalists or big oil trusts), companies will naturally drill more oil. Basic rules of supply and demand [1] ditate that this will happen if allowed, so we don't have to provide incentive to drive it (meaning no cost to us).

This has a number of benefits.

1) Increasing the supply of oil causes a decrease in the cost of it. That means that every single person that uses oil, will get to use it for less. This will benefit billions of people around the world (oil is a global product), while still be benefitial to the company.

2) The company would be hiring people. This will provide jobs, so that the demand for other good can go up and make money for various other companies.

3) The profits of the company are taxed, so there is increased revenue to the government. And since there are more people employed, there is more tax revenue from that, as well as a lower expense from the unemployment benefits.

So we have benefit for billions of customers, thousands of employees, hundreds of other companies, the company itself, and the government.

Other benefits we see. Since there is a strong push for alternative energies, part of the increased revenue to the government can be used to fund those alternatives, and so, by allowing more oil to be drilled, we are speeding up the research and development of alternative fuels.

Thank you,

[1] http://www.investopedia.com...
jessbrox809

Con

jessbrox809 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Ore_Ele

Pro

extend arguments
jessbrox809

Con

jessbrox809 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Ore_Ele

Pro

Extend and end this failure.
jessbrox809

Con

jessbrox809 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by MonsieurChen 3 years ago
MonsieurChen
Of course we should all expand it. Common sense is to expand it rather than not expand it.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
Ore_Elejessbrox809Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeits lose conduct and leave arguments unanswered.
Vote Placed by MarquisX 3 years ago
MarquisX
Ore_Elejessbrox809Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 3 years ago
quarterexchange
Ore_Elejessbrox809Tied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: had a souce, arguments, and responded in each round
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 3 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Ore_Elejessbrox809Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.