The Instigator
merciless
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
rougeagent21
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points

Resolution: Allowing deep water offshore oil drilling is in the best interest of the United States

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/16/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 9,443 times Debate No: 12758
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (4)

 

merciless

Pro

This debate is to be in public forum format. Round 2 will be speech 1. Round 3 will be crossfire 1. Round 4 will be speech 2. Round 5 will be crossfire 2. If my opponent has any questions, he/she may ask in Round 1. Pro wins by proving that the resolution is more likely to be true than false. Con wins by proving that the resolution is more likely to be false than true.
rougeagent21

Con

I do LD, but I should be fine with the format. Haven't really researched the topic, but I've been meaning to. Thanks for the challenge.
Debate Round No. 1
merciless

Pro

Recently, President Obama issued a 6 month moratorium on deep sea drilling. This supposedly gives experts enough time to examine the problems in the Deep Water Horizon oil well and set new regulations. I will be debating that this is a grand mistake.

I state 3 contentions to support the resolution: 1. Allowing deep water offshore drilling decreases US reliance on foreign oil. 2. Allowing deep water offshore drilling increases the supply of usable oil. 3. Allowing deep water offshore drilling increases the number of job opportunities, which leads to less unemployment, which benefits the economy immensely.

Contention 1: Allowing deep water offshore drilling decreases US reliance on foreign oil
According to ehow.com, "in March Obama proposed a plan to increase domestic offshore drilling." The main reason was to decrease reliance on foreign oil. Less reliance on foreign oil would mean less spikes in oil prices when foreign countries refuse to sell an adequate amount of oil to the US. Less reliance on foreign oil means less competition with other big oil users like China. Less reliance on foreign oil means that we don't have to rely on depleting oil supplies, and that our oil companies don't have to compete with foreign oil companies, especially the oil companies that belong to the country that own the oil fields. According to the Economic Times, "Locked out of the 'easy' oil fields in the Middle East with the exception of Iraq they (the oil companies) are forced to turn to increasingly difficult areas." Bottom line is that less dependence on foreign oil will maintain or drop oil prices. The more dependence we have on foreign oil, the higher our oil prices will be in the future. The moratorium will only delay our detachment from foreign oil.

Contention 2: Allowing deep water offshore drilling increases the supply of usable oil
In a world where the population is growing exponentially while the supply of oil in the known oil reserves is decreasing linearly, any method of getting more oil is extremely important. The moratorium will delay the discovery and retrieval of millions of gallons of oil. This is bad for the United States because it would have to depend more on foreign oil, which is depleting and is a source of competition between many powerful countries. Oil prices will sharply rise.

Contention 3: Allowing deep water offshore drilling increases the number of job opportunities, which leads to less unemployment, which benefits the economy immensely
The government promised a financial life line to the unemployed. The less unemployed people there are, the less the government has to pay and the more money it makes. This is obviously beneficial to the government, and thus beneficial to America.
The moratorium not only delays potential job opportunities, but also destroys thousands of jobs, says Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal. The moratorium will force a lot of rigs to close, forcing oil companies to fire a lot of workers. Unemployment will rise, forcing the government to pay millions of dollars more for unemployment life lines. Millions that could be better spent on bettering American society.

Sources:
http://www.nola.com...
http://www.ehow.com...
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...
http://thinkprogress.org...
rougeagent21

Con

rougeagent21 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
merciless

Pro

merciless forfeited this round.
rougeagent21

Con

rougeagent21 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
merciless

Pro

merciless forfeited this round.
rougeagent21

Con

Unfortunately we got thrown pretty far off schedule. For now I will rebut my opponent's case. Good luck.

=============================
Contention 1 - Reliance on foreign assets
=============================

I have three main responses.

- Achieving energy independence is feasible without drilling offshore.

America is sitting on top of a massive 200 billion barrel Oil Field that could potentially make America Energy Independent and until now has largely gone unnoticed. Thanks to new technology the Bakken Formation in North Dakota could boost America's Oil reserves by an incredible 10 times, giving western economies the trump card against OPEC's short squeeze on oil supply and making Iranian and Venezuelan threats of disrupted supply irrelevant. [1]

- Reliance on oil does not encourage "clean" energy development.

The more oil we have, the longer we can survive without alternative energy sources. (electric, hydro, geothermal, etc.)
The longer we can survive without clean energy, the smaller the sense of urgency about developing new, cleaner technologies becomes. This leads to the US falling behind on new forms of energy development, and does nothing to improve our oil problems or help the environment.

- Competition is inherently good for the (US) economy

My opponent says that increasing our offshore drilling would lower competition with other countries such as China as far as gas prices go. Last time I checked, competition was what has driven the US economy since, well, THE BIRTH OF THE US. Capitalism has certainly been in ths US's best interests so far, and has been one of the main reasons we are so prosperous. Why would my opponent want to throw that away. More competition means lower gas prices. Isn't this what he is arguing for? His argument about competition is self-defeating.

========================
Contention 2 - Increases oil supply
========================

As of recently, said extra supplies of oil have been dumped into the Gulf of Mexico. I have already addressed this with safer, on-shore methods. Again, reference my argument about alternative energy.

===================
Contention 3 - Employment
===================

There are many things in this world that could provide jobs for people who have no work, and help the economy. Some are worthwhile endeavors, and some are not. What about employing people to make iPods? Are iPods harmful to the public when used responsibly? No. Are they hurting the environment? Nope. Are they creating any lasting negative impacts on humanity? Negatory. Should we employ people to make them as long as there is a demand for them? Sure. It stimulates the economy and helps the jobless, just like my opponent said.

Now, consider offshore drilling.

Has offshore drilling harmed the public? Yes. Has offshore drilling hurt the environment? Certainly. Has offshore drilling created any lasting negative impacts on humanity? Arguably. Layers of oil now coat beaches, ocean floors, and fumes have been released into the air. Could we help some jobless people by employing them to help in the offorts of offshore drilling? It is possible. Should we?

I'll let the voters decide.

[1] http://www.nextenergynews.com...
Debate Round No. 4
merciless

Pro

For this round, I will post my second speech and crossfire.

Second speech:

In response to my first contention my opponent said that achieving energy independence is feasible without drilling offshore, reliance on oil does not encourage "clean" energy development, and competition is inherently good for the (US) economy. I won't dispute the fact that the United States sits on top of a 200 billion barrel oil field. My opponent's source is from February 2008. It's the year 2010, and behold, we have an oil spill on our hands. If there was such a large oil deposit ripe for exploitation, why would oil companies risk getting sued over ecological damage to drill offshore? It doesn't make sense. I've also got sources that say that there really isn't that much oil in the Bakken formation.
Whether clean energy helps the environment is a different debate. But regardless of whether clean energy helps the environment, there is no reason to believe that a reliance on oil will slow our progress towards clean energy. There are new, "clean" vehicles being developed, and they will soon be mass produced. Everyone knows that oil is a finite resource and that we will soon need to find a new fuel. The sooner the better.
Competition is inherently good for the United States, when the United States is the seller. My argument has nothing to o with domestic capitalism. In my first contention, I wrote about competition on the international scale. When several countries compete for a resource, the producer of that resource always benefits. Unfortunately for the United States, in the competition for oil, it is the consumer, not the producer. The supply of oil is going down while demand for it is going up. The increasing demand is the result of rising populations and competition between world powers. If you apply the rules of supply and demand, oil prices will increase dramatically. More competition only lowers oil prices when oil companies compete. That means only competition on a domestic scale is beneficial to a country. International competition is bad for all competing countries.

In response to my second contention, my opponent refers to the fact that there is a massive oil field under North Dakota. This doesn't mean that offshore drilling doesn't increase the supply of usable oil.

In response to my 3rd contention, my opponent suggests another way to supply the unemployed with jobs. I agree that Ipod production provides jobs. I also agree that offshore drilling has harmed the public. But with economics, and everything else, we need to look at the long-term. Would allowing offshore drilling benefit society in the long-term? I believe it will. The ultra-deep depths at which the oil companies are now forced to drill provide a very difficult engineering challenge. This engineering challenge will be difficult to surpass, but once surpassed, a lot of new things are possible. Underwater exploration by humans (instead of robots) will be that much closer. Body armor will be made much more durable. The day that man first sets foot on Mars will draw nearer. These are just a few of the things that would happen when ultra-deep depths are conquered, but it could never happen if offshore drilling is prohibited. Any advancement in technology is beneficial to society.

Sources:
http://jacksonville.com...

Crossfire:

1. You said that because we have that massive oil field under North Dakota, we don't need to drill offshore. What do we do when that oil field produces no more?

2. If oil is so damaging to the environment, why do we use oil? What alternative to oil do you suggest? Factor in cost and universal availability.

3. What evidence do you have to prove that the US economy was driven by competition since the birth of the US?

4. Yes, lots of oil have been wasted and is tragically on the loose in the Gulf. How many gallons have been produced offshore without accidents? Why has the Deep Water Horizon well exploded while all other wells remain intact?

5. Coastal states rely on the ocean for their economies. What does the Ipod have to do with the ocean? How is it going to benefit the coastal states in any way?

6. We can force BP and other oil companies to lay off thousands of American workers. Should we? I'll let the voters decide.
rougeagent21

Con

==========
Contention 1
==========

Sub point A
My opponent defends by saying that it wouldn't make sense for the companies to drill underwater and risk being sued if there were such a large oil field in the US. Well until recently, being sued wasn't a large risk. Companies had deep-water oil plants running all over with few malfunctions at all. "It's the year 2010, and behold, we have an oil spill on our hands." Precisely. SO WHY SHOULD WE KEEP DOING THE ACT THAT LED TO THE OIL SPILL?

Sub point B
"But regardless of whether clean energy helps the environment, there is no reason to believe that a reliance on oil will slow our progress towards clean energy. There are new, "clean" vehicles being developed, and they will soon be mass produced. Everyone knows that oil is a finite resource and that we will soon need to find a new fuel. The sooner the better." I would agree with most of what my opponent has stated. However, the more of the "finite" resource that we have, the less of a rush we are put in to develop new technologies. My opponent later contradicts his reasoning when he says that we should advance technology in deep-water drilling. If that kind of technology should be researched quickly, why not this kind? If you accept his attack against my case, you have to drop his defense here.

Sub point C
"My argument has nothing to o[sic] with domestic capitalism." I know, I was showing how capitalism and supply-and-demand have helped shape one of the greatest economies ever. While your capitalism is on an international level, the same principles apply. When many parties are trying to sell the same thing, the PRICE GOES DOWN. If only one company had access to all of the oil in the world, prices would skyrocket. Why? Because no one is there to compete with them, to offer the consumer a lower price. Basically, competition=lower prices, domestic or not.

===========
Contention 2
===========

"In response to my second contention, my opponent refers to the fact that there is a massive oil field under North Dakota. This doesn't mean that offshore drilling doesn't increase the supply of usable oil."
This is not all that I said, but I do agree with your statement. Its not really an argument so much as a fact. If you drill for more oil, you will bring in more oil. (duh) However, we have dumped that extra oil into the ocean's of the world and onto the shores of our nation. Neither of which are beneficial to the United States' interests.

===========
Contention 3
===========

(Please note that I was only offering an example of a better way to employ people. I was not suggesting that we take them out of the oil industry and put them in apple factories.)

Note also that he DROPS my attack on the employment issue completely. He concedes that it provides safer jobs, but says that its ok to drill because it would give us better technology which would benefit society as a whole. In addition to bringing up a new argument, he contradicts his earlier attack on my technology issue. You cannot give him both points because they contradict. I believe that there is a healthy medium, that involves not dumping billions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.

I don't really see why you should get to ask questions now since I can't ask you any, but whatever.

1 - Hopefully we would have either found another safe field or developed clean energy technologies. I could ask you that same question about your offshore oil fields.

2 - We use it for several reasons. A few are the difficulty of converting ALL gasoline engines to alternative energy consuming engines, huge costs, and the fact that we simply don't have a better alternative right now. Thats why I want to speed up the improvement of alternative energy technologies.

3 - The fact that we are allowed to freely trade across the states...its in your history book.

4 - Thats really not my problem, you can bring up your own evidence if you wish.

5 - It has nothing to do with the ocean, it was just an example. Coastal areas usually fish though.

6 - I don't think that last question was intended for me.

Thanks for your time, and for the good debate. Cheers.

http://energy.er.usgs.gov...
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
I said up front that I hadn't researched it before...

*bologna
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
It was pretty clear that Con did not research the topic and was making up baloney-type debater's arguments. Pro won the arguments. Still, Pro should have referenced the immediate loss of about 100,000 jobs during a recession, and the trade deficit increase caused by having to import that much more oil.

References should be linked to individual claims, not offere as general reading.

Con started the forfeiting, so loses conduct.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
The president votes for himself...and I don't think that I was more courteous or had better sources than my opponent. He had a spelling error or two, but I think I gave a fair vote.
Posted by larztheloser 7 years ago
larztheloser
lol rougeagent21 - didn't know you could vote for yourself. Sad you didn't think you deserved 7 points.
Posted by twsurber 7 years ago
twsurber
Lotsa forfeits! Sir, we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory :o)
Posted by merciless 7 years ago
merciless
Round 4 will be my crossfire and 2nd speech.
Posted by merciless 7 years ago
merciless
actually, cross my last sentence. I can't write a 2nd speech if there's nothing to attack/defend.
Posted by merciless 7 years ago
merciless
yes, you may post your first speech and questions next round. I'll do my 2nd speech.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
sorry, i was thinking this had 72 hours to post. should i also ask questions in this next round or hold off?
Posted by belle 7 years ago
belle
no we won't do your homework for you....
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Irishguy2011 6 years ago
Irishguy2011
mercilessrougeagent21Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by TFranklin62 7 years ago
TFranklin62
mercilessrougeagent21Tied
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:05 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
mercilessrougeagent21Tied
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 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
mercilessrougeagent21Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04