The Instigator
michaelhigley10
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
ewo2
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Resolved: 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: 11/11/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,155 times Debate No: 13621
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)

 

michaelhigley10

Pro

Because I support the latter choice to redefine the law when it comes to Offshore drilling, therefore, I stand resolved: Allowing deep water offshore oil drilling is in the best interest of the United States.
For further clarification I have provided some terms with definitions
Allowing: to give permission to or for
Best: better than all others: of the highest quality or standard or the most excellent type
OIL DRILLING:
Oil drilling is the process of perforating the earth's surface and rock layers to extract fossil fuels, or oil, for energy production. Oil can be found all over the world, and it is drilled in many countries. Oil is formed from the organic decay of plants and animals that existed millions of years ago. In the absence of oxygen between the earth's layers, the decaying process of this organic waste eventually lead to oil production

1. The environmental damage done by the Deepwater Horizon spill has been grossly exaggerated. According to Josiah Schmidt of the Associated Press, most of the heavy components have dispersed into the ocean sediment where it will be digested by bacteria. http://www.lewrockwell.com......... The harmful benzene has mostly evaporated into the upper atmosphere where it will have no noticeable effect.

Time reports that the spill has killed less than 1% of the number of birds that died as a result of the Exxon-Valdez. http://www.time.com......... Despite the horror stories, wildlife organizations have found only three oiled marine mammal carcasses. Only about 350 acres of Louisiana marches have been damaged – paltry compared to the 150,000 that erode naturally each year.

b. The economic damages have been overstated as well. Fishing areas have been reopened following NOAA's findings that fish populations are safe and uncontaminated. http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov......... The projected damage to beaches has also proven to be largely a false alarm. http://www.aipnews.com......... Projections claiming that the oil slick would creep up the east coast failed to take crucial into account crucial factors, such as the Gulf's ability to break down oil. Testing done in the "threatened" areas show an oil concentration of less than .2 parts per million -- barely above the threshold of detection.

c. Government directed cleanup efforts were badly mishandled, leading to far more damage than was necessary. The Mineral Management Service (MMS), a federal regulatory body charged with overseeing safety standards and contingency plans for offshore drilling operations has an extensive 582 page report on procedures following a spill. Of course, the plan doesn't so much as *mention* protocols for a *deep-water* spill. http://www.lewrockwell.com......... The number of deep-water rigs has increased nine fold in the last twenty years, yet the number of MMS inspectors has remained the same over that time period.

The Jones Act of 1920 prevented foreign oil skimming ships from working in the Gulf region. The law requires that all work ships in US waters be built in the United States and manned by American crews. http://tinyurl.com......... The law can be overridden by a Presidential waiver, however, the Obama administration has opted not to do so. With help from Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, and other countries, the cleanup could be completed in three months. Currently, it is projected to take nine. http://www.examiner.com.........

d. It's tragic that eleven workers died in the Deepwater Horizon incident, however, this hardly makes the case for a ban on offshore drilling. There are far more dangerous occupations, including construction work, taxi driving, power line maintenance, farming, logging and fishing. http://www.businessinsider.com......... Needless to say, all of these jobs, like oil drilling, are extremely important and significant harm would result from their ban. Risky occupations usually offer higher pay to compensate for the danger involved. When workers take these jobs, they decide freely that the rewards outweigh the risks. If they believe the risk is unacceptable, they are not forced into these positions. All eliminating these jobs would do is destroy employment opportunities for those willing to take on risks for the opportunity of greater personal gain.

2. Drilling would actually decrease the amount of oil that seeps into the ocean. Oil naturally bubbles up from the ocean floor. Drilling helps to alleviate pressure. http://www.dailytech.com......... On average, the amount that leaks from the ocean floor exceeds the amount spilled. The amount of seepage eliminated by drilling is far greater than the amount released by the occasional spill.

3. The United States stands to benefit economically from offshore drilling. Extremely conservative estimates by the EIA show at least 18 billion barrels of technically recoverable crude in the Gulf and off the coast of California. http://www.eia.doe.gov......... At $100 per barrel, the damage done by a potential spill would have to exceed $1.8 trillion in order to make an economic case against drilling. http://www.cato.org.........

The proposed six month moratorium on offshore drilling would cost in excess of $3 billion and put 12,000 workers out of a job. If the moratorium were made permanent, it would destroy upwards of 400,000 jobs. http://www.cato.org......... Remember this only would impact current drilling sites. Experts estimate that by opening up additional offshore sites, 270,000 jobs would be created. http://www.heritage.org......... In addition to this, the increased purchasing power, greater energy availability, and lowered price of oil would benefit other industries in ways too numerous to expound here.

4. If American companies don't drill off the coast, others will. Currently, there is an executive ban on drilling within 200 miles of American coastline, however, the ban only applies to American businesses. Foreign companies are free to do as they please. The Wall Street Journal reports Respool YPF SA, a Spanish company, will begin drilling exploratory wells just 60 miles south of Florida within the coming year. http://online.wsj.com.......... China and other nations are likely to follow.

b. Not only would this make the US more dependent on oil from potentially hostile foreign governments, it would make the chances of another Deepwater Horizon type incident both more likely and more damaging. Chinese companies don't adhere to the same safety standards as American companies. http://www.ft.com......... Moreover, because of the United States government's weakened diplomatic position, it would be even more impotent at collecting damages in the event of a spill.

On balance, the economic gains from offshore drilling far exceed the dangers. The environmental issues also strongly support my case; drilling actually reduces the amount of oil that seeps into the ocean. Modern technology makes a repeat of the Deepwater incident extremely unlikely. Moreover, even if the United States chooses not to take advantage of its natural resources, other countries will, thus depriving the US of the benefits while subjecting its citizens to even greater risks.
ewo2

Con

Thank you for the opportunity to debate this critically important issue. I agree to all definitions set forth.

I take a stance in opposition to the resolution. Offshore deepwater drilling is not in the best interest of the United States. There exist means of energy production that are not only safer for the environment, but are more viable in the long-term, and will have greater benefit to the economy.

To address my opponent's points:

My opponent claims that the damage done by the oil spill has been grossly exaggerated. However, the fact of the matter is that the true damage the oil spill cannot be assessed yet, as oil spills have long-term effects that will only be made clear years down the road. "Scientists worry the oil deep below will get into plankton and the food web, maybe not killing species directly but causing genetic mutations, stress or weakening some species, with effects that will only be seen years later. ‘I think populations are going to be affected for years to come,' said Diane Blake, a Tulane University biochemist. ‘This is going to cause selective (evolutionary) pressure that's going to change the Gulf in ways we don't even know yet'" (http://www.time.com...). While it may be true that the immediate effects of the oil spill are not as drastically damaging as expected, only time will tell what the true impact of the spill will be. Personally, I value the opinions of the scientists researching the spill more highly than the AP reporter my opponent quotes in his argument.

It is true that the spill has largely steered clear of the beaches of the Gulf, but scientists have discovered that the oil that sank to the ocean floor did significant damage to the sediment. "University of South Florida's Ernst Peebles said the oil on the floor ‘is undermining the ecosystem from the bottom up.'" Additionally, while Time may have stated that the spill killed less than 1% of the birds that died because of the Exxon-Valdeez spill, we must keep in mind that the Exxon-Valdeez spill happened over a decade ago, and we are still seeing the effects of it. We would expect that the amount of damage done by the more recent spill would be fractional in comparison to the Exxon spill because that statistic quantifies data collected over years, whereas the Horizon spill happened only months ago.

It may be true that, to a certain extent, we ‘dodged a bullet' in regards to the damage done to Gulf beaches, Louisiana Wetlands, and the spread of the oil up the East Coast. However, it does not actually matter whether or not the oil spill did AS MUCH damage as predicted – the fact remains that the spill caused damage because offshore drilling is legal. Outlawing offshore drilling would prevent even the possibility of these disasters happening.

My opponent astutely points out that the spill cleanup was poorly handled by the government. However, this point works in my favor. There is no reason to suspect that future governments will handle cleanup efforts any better than the current one did. Many politicians accept donations from oil companies who expect those politicians to represent their interests, including President Obama (http://www.nytimes.com...). There is no reason to expect that oil companies will not continue to donate to future politicians.

My opponent notes that 11 lives were lost when the oil rig initially exploded. He points out that oil-rig workers are fully aware that they are participating in a dangerous occupation and are paid more as a result. However, workers have claimed that Exxon did not inform its workers of the radiation risk they faced while at work (www.nytimes.com). In regards to the Deepwater Horizon spill, a rig worker noticed a dangerous leak which was reported to BP, which failed to repair it www.businessweek.com). Even the BP employees hired to clean up the spill say they were not wholly informed about the dangers they would face while working on the cleanup (www.chron.com). Oil companies are negligent when it comes to the safety of their employees. As such, it is unfair of my opponent to claim that rig workers are fully aware of the dangers they face.

Natural oil spills, as my opponent calls them, do in fact account for the majority of the oil that ends up in the ocean. However, the fact that the ocean floor leaks oil naturally has no value in this argument. The fact remains that leaks from off-shore platforms still pose a significant risk and can still cause great damage. Part of the reason for this is that they are located so close to the coast, where they pose a greater threat to the United States. Natural leaks could occur anywhere – however, we have control over where rig-leaks can and cannot happen. Natural spills will occur no matter what we do, but we have the ability to prevent man-made disasters from happening by banning off-shore drilling.

It is a known fact that eventually we will run out of oil. Eventually, we will need to find a new major source of energy. New energy sources present great economic opportunities including job creation. My opponent points out that 400,000 jobs will be lost if off-shore drilling is banned, and 270,000 jobs could be created if more platforms were opened, for a total of 670,000 jobs. However, there are far more jobs in alternative energy than in off-shore drilling. According to a study conducted by the University of Illinois, the University of California, and Yale, switching to alternative energy means a potential 1.9 million jobs would be created. In the states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Indiana alone, around 180,000 jobs would open (in just three states, that's roughly a quarter of the total jobs off-shore drilling would create) (www.alternative-energy-news.info).

As we are well aware, the vast majority of the money generated by oil drilling is not flowing into the coffers of the United States – rather, it goes directly into the pockets of oil executives. Creating new sources of energy production gives us the opportunity to restructure and regulate the money flow so it would have a greater benefit to the United States government– a much more manageable task than attempting to create a new monetary framework for the oil companies, which would mean fighting the politicians who have been in the oil companies' pockets for years.

Finally, my opponent claims that banning US companies from setting up platforms would be a wasted opportunity, as foreign companies would simply sweep in and set up shot on vacant wells. However, there is no reason that a full-on moratorium banning drilling by both foreign and domestic companies could not be put in place. Additionally, by setting up new oil platforms instead of establishing renewable means of energy production, we are essentially saying that we wish to continue using oil as a primary source of fuel. This means that we will be forced to continue economic relationships with potentially and known-to-be dangerous countries including Iraq and Saudi Arabia, as we are forced to import much of the oil we need to power the nation (http://www.globalpost.com...). Even if we opened more platforms to supply ourselves with more oil, we would still need to import oil to meet our demand. I challenge my opponent to prove that we could completely sever ties with hostile foreign nations through off-shore drilling. If we established a solid energy network based on renewable energy that could be produced in the United States we could opt out of funding dangerous foreign governments.

Are we willing to sacrifice the environment and human lives for short-term economic gain? Why not take immediate measures to create renewable energy that will do less harm to the environment, create safer working conditions and new jobs, and help us to become a nation that meets its energy needs domestically rather than being forced into partnerships with hostile nations simply to meet our need for oil?
Debate Round No. 1
michaelhigley10

Pro

First i want to say thank you to my opponent for accepting my challenge then i will say Resolved: Allowing deep water offshore oil drilling is in the best interest for the UNITED STATES. Now i will move on to defend my case and attack my opponents in the process.
Contention 1. The oil spill was grossly exagguratted.
Evidence: www.lewrockwell.com. It now seems that about a third of the oil from the infamous oil spill has already evaporated into the atomosphere where it will have no effect. Furthermore, all of the toxic elements of the oil will soon have evaporated as well. Some globs of oil may wash up to shore, but whatever remains will apparently sink down to the sea floor and just become part of the sediment.
Now to go on and attack my opponents part of their case where they say Additionally, while Time may have stated that the spill killed less than 1% of the birds that died because of the Exxon-Valdeez spill, we must keep in mind that the Exxon-Valdeez spill happened over a decade ago, and we are still seeing the effects of it. We would expect that the amount of damage done by the more recent spill would be fractional in comparison to the Exxon spill because that statistic quantifies data collected over years, whereas the Horizon spill happened only months ago.
We do need to keep in mind about the spill times however we need to think of how The United States stands to benefit economically from offshore drilling if our judges vote for the con side of the debate then they killing many job opportunities. We feel very bad for those families that lost loved ones due to the BP blow out but we need to think are we going to let them die in vain? Are we going to let the money that were making be blown away? No if we eliminate these jobs were are cripiling our economy! When workers take these jobs THEY decide that having this job is better then having no jobs.
Next though I did say cleanup was poorly handled by the government it was to see if they would bite on the bait that i left for them. We need to get people into government positions where they will NOT watch Pornograpgy instead of working. Now this penalizes both parties Pro and Con for it is average everyday people doing this instead of going out there and helping out.
Now im going to ask all the judges to look at this "In regards to the Deepwater Horizon spill, a rig worker noticed a dangerous leak which was reported to BP, which failed to repair it www.businessweek.com). Even the BP employees hired to clean up the spill say they were not wholly informed about the dangers they would face while working on the cleanup" my opponent says in his case that workers are aware of dangers. Now im going to ask ALL of you out there to tell me what 2+2 equals
Lastly i will say directly to my opponent what are the NEW sources of energy to transition to and how much will they cost. How log will it take to instill them in our government? Now also Are we going to REQUIRE all of our construction workers, taxi drivers, power line maintenance crew, farmers, loggers, and fishers to wear chemical and bio suits to make them as safe as can be?

I hope that you judges will say we need to change things around and i ask for a Pro ballet in todays debate!!!!!
THANK YOU AMERICA
ewo2

Con

Thanks to my opponent for responding!

My opponent's points:
1. The oil spill was greatly exaggerated.
To support this claim, my opponent cites the blog of a libertarian political commentator and activist named Lew Rockwell. This blog is a collection of articles and posts by Rockwell and other libertarians. I was unable to find the specific article from which my opponent drew his quote – however, I would like to point out that Rockwell's work is politically slanted. Among Rockwell's articles we find predictions about the imminent end of the United States, arguments against our participation in World War Two, and other strongly opinionated writings. Whether or not one agrees with Rockwell is beside the point, because my intent is to demonstrate that Rockwell is neither a scientist nor a neutral journalist. In my post I cite direct quotes from scientists who have done hands-on research, while my opponent cites what is essentially an Op-Ed. I therefore maintain that my assertion about the dangers of the oil spill overshadows Rockwell's claim to the contrary.
Next, my opponent agrees that the data he cited in his first post is inadequate as the data from the Exxon spill quantifies a decade while the Deepwater spill happened less than a year ago. However, he then transitions abruptly into an argument that does not apply to the environmental side of the issue, which is what we were discussing there. From his post: "We do need to keep in mind about the spill times however we need to think of how The United States stands to benefit economically from offshore drilling if our judges vote for the con side of the debate then they killing many job opportunities." This argument does nothing to disprove my point. Additionally, the claim about killing job opportunities was addressed in my first post and will be elaborated on in detail later in this post, when I illustrate the job-creation potential of switching to renewable energy sources.
The next statement by my opponent is an amalgam of different ideas compiled into one incoherent paragraph. The first piece says: "We feel very bad for those families that lost loved ones due to the BP blow out but we need to think are we going to let them die in vain? Are we going to let the money that were making be blown away? No if we eliminate these jobs were are cripiling our economy! When workers take these jobs THEY decide that having this job is better then having no jobs." This is a bizarre appeal to emotion. He claims that stopping offshore drilling means the 11 lives lost because of the rig explosion would be in vain. This is a ridiculous idea. If anything, those 11 deaths provided further proof that offshore drilling is extremely unsafe, and their deaths would actually mean more if offshore drilling ceased. He then returns to his point about jobs, which again, has been addressed and will be elaborated on shortly.
My opponent's next paragraph explains that he believes that new politicians need to be brought in to ensure that oil spills are not mishandled in the future. While I agree with him, that has nothing to do with the debate at hand. We are discussing the costs and benefits of offshore drilling, not the effectiveness of the leadership in our country and what can be done to improve it.
My opponent's final point is not a point at all, as he apparently misread my post. He states that "my opponent says in his case that workers are aware of dangers. Now im going to ask ALL of you out there to tell me what 2+2 equals". I actually stated that workers were UNAWARE of the full range of dangers their jobs entail. And while I trust that everyone can add two and two, I'm unsure what the sum is supposed to tell us…
My opponent ends his post with a duel challenge. First, he wants me to cite examples of alternative energy sources and explain how much they will cost the government and the length of time they will take to fully establish. In addition to answering this challenge, I will list specific the economic and environmental benefits of renewable energy.
Renewable energy essentially means deriving energy from sources which are naturally replenished. Essentially, renewable energy research is engaged in converting this natural energy into useable electricity. I will use as examples the two most prominent and practical forms of renewable energy.
1.Windpower
The practice of using wind to spin turbines and generate power by use of windmills. This means of energy production has 0% output of greenhouse gasses, meaning it has effectively no impact on the environment once the construction of the windmill is complete. Wind power has the potential to produce 40 TIMES the global demand for power, meaning we would have forty times the power we actually need. While there is a land cost associated with windmills, setting up mills offshore would be an effective solution, as ocean winds are of much higher speeds and therefore produce more energy. (http://www.stanford.edu...)
2.Solar Power
Generating power from the radiation of the sun through the use of solar panels. Again, no greenhouse gasses are emitted through the use of solar power. This energy source can be used to power everything from home appliances to vehicles. In fact, photovoltaic power (solar energy) is 85 times more efficient than ethanol gas or gasoline from oil, and cars powered by battery would produce no harmful emissions. A common misconception is that solar power is only available during daylight or in sunny areas. However, solar power can be stored in battery form and distributed worldwide. On a domestic scale, the deserts of the Southwestern United States could produce enough energy to meet the needs of the entire nation. (http://www.awarenessintoaction.com...)
As demonstrated, utilizing a combination of solar and wind power would create vastly more energy than we need and produce zero emissions. There is seemingly no environmental reason not to convert to these sources, as there is a striking lack of danger involved in these sources when compared to the dangers offshore drilling poses to its employees.
My opponent asked that I note how long it would take and how much it would cost to fully implement these sources of energy. First, renewable energy sources are already being invested in heavily. Renewable energy usage and development has grown by a larger and larger percentage each year since 2004, with some technologies gaining a 60% rise in a single year. Essentially, if the United States began to phase out oil now and invested money that would be used to establish offshore platforms to instead build windmills and solar powers, we would be able to mainstream renewable energy within five years. (http://www.ren21.net...). Another economic benefit: once the solar cells and windmills are built, they provide FREE ENERGY FOREVER. Additionally, while fossil fuel technologies get more and more expensive as time moves forward, windmills and solar cells get cheaper and cheaper, and as the demand for them rises, the price falls even further. (Our Choice, Bloomsbury 2009). This means that the more we invest in renewable energy, the less expensive it becomes, and the greater the returns become as a result.
As far as the job creation potential is concerned, utilizing wind and solar power along with other types of renewable energy (such as hydropower, biomass, and ethanol), the Cleantech Jobs Trend Report for 2009 predicts that 16 million jobs will be created through renewable energy in the next twenty years. It notes that this will be the greatest job source since computers and the Internet entered the scene. Meanwhile, my opponent remarks on the benefit of creating a pithy 650,000 jobs through offshore drilling.
I am going to dismiss my opponent's question about taxi drivers wearing biosuits as hyperbolic. Please avoid that in the future and good luck to you in
Debate Round No. 2
michaelhigley10

Pro

First i want to have our judges to look at my case then i want my opponent to please tell me EXACTLY how much these will cost since i did not see any evidenve in their case. next i will restate my whole case and have it to back up my case.
Because I support the latter choice to redefine the law when it comes to Offshore drilling, therefore, I stand resolved: Allowing deep water offshore oil drilling is in the best interest of the United States.
For further clarification I have provided some terms with definitions
Allowing: to give permission to or for
Best: better than all others: of the highest quality or standard or the most excellent type
OIL DRILLING:
Oil drilling is the process of perforating the earth's surface and rock layers to extract fossil fuels, or oil, for energy production. Oil can be found all over the world, and it is drilled in many countries. Oil is formed from the organic decay of plants and animals that existed millions of years ago. In the absence of oxygen between the earth's layers, the decaying process of this organic waste eventually lead to oil production

1. The environmental damage done by the Deepwater Horizon spill has been grossly exaggerated. According to Josiah Schmidt of the Associated Press, most of the heavy components have dispersed into the ocean sediment where it will be digested by bacteria. http://www.lewrockwell.com............ The harmful benzene has mostly evaporated into the upper atmosphere where it will have no noticeable effect.

Time reports that the spill has killed less than 1% of the number of birds that died as a result of the Exxon-Valdez. http://www.time.com............ Despite the horror stories, wildlife organizations have found only three oiled marine mammal carcasses. Only about 350 acres of Louisiana marches have been damaged – paltry compared to the 150,000 that erode naturally each year.

b. The economic damages have been overstated as well. Fishing areas have been reopened following NOAA's findings that fish populations are safe and uncontaminated. http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov............ The projected damage to beaches has also proven to be largely a false alarm. http://www.aipnews.com............ Projections claiming that the oil slick would creep up the east coast failed to take crucial into account crucial factors, such as the Gulf's ability to break down oil. Testing done in the "threatened" areas show an oil concentration of less than .2 parts per million -- barely above the threshold of detection.

c. Government directed cleanup efforts were badly mishandled, leading to far more damage than was necessary. The Mineral Management Service (MMS), a federal regulatory body charged with overseeing safety standards and contingency plans for offshore drilling operations has an extensive 582 page report on procedures following a spill. Of course, the plan doesn't so much as *mention* protocols for a *deep-water* spill. http://www.lewrockwell.com............ The number of deep-water rigs has increased nine fold in the last twenty years, yet the number of MMS inspectors has remained the same over that time period.

The Jones Act of 1920 prevented foreign oil skimming ships from working in the Gulf region. The law requires that all work ships in US waters be built in the United States and manned by American crews. http://tinyurl.com............ The law can be overridden by a Presidential waiver, however, the Obama administration has opted not to do so. With help from Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, and other countries, the cleanup could be completed in three months. Currently, it is projected to take nine. http://www.examiner.com............

d. It's tragic that eleven workers died in the Deepwater Horizon incident, however, this hardly makes the case for a ban on offshore drilling. There are far more dangerous occupations, including construction work, taxi driving, power line maintenance, farming, logging and fishing. http://www.businessinsider.com............ Needless to say, all of these jobs, like oil drilling, are extremely important and significant harm would result from their ban. Risky occupations usually offer higher pay to compensate for the danger involved. When workers take these jobs, they decide freely that the rewards outweigh the risks. If they believe the risk is unacceptable, they are not forced into these positions. All eliminating these jobs would do is destroy employment opportunities for those willing to take on risks for the opportunity of greater personal gain.

2. Drilling would actually decrease the amount of oil that seeps into the ocean. Oil naturally bubbles up from the ocean floor. Drilling helps to alleviate pressure. http://www.dailytech.com............ On average, the amount that leaks from the ocean floor exceeds the amount spilled. The amount of seepage eliminated by drilling is far greater than the amount released by the occasional spill.

3. The United States stands to benefit economically from offshore drilling. Extremely conservative estimates by the EIA show at least 18 billion barrels of technically recoverable crude in the Gulf and off the coast of California. http://www.eia.doe.gov............ At $100 per barrel, the damage done by a potential spill would have to exceed $1.8 trillion in order to make an economic case against drilling. http://www.cato.org............

The proposed six month moratorium on offshore drilling would cost in excess of $3 billion and put 12,000 workers out of a job. If the moratorium were made permanent, it would destroy upwards of 400,000 jobs. http://www.cato.org............ Remember this only would impact current drilling sites. Experts estimate that by opening up additional offshore sites, 270,000 jobs would be created. http://www.heritage.org............ In addition to this, the increased purchasing power, greater energy availability, and lowered price of oil would benefit other industries in ways too numerous to expound here.

4. If American companies don't drill off the coast, others will. Currently, there is an executive ban on drilling within 200 miles of American coastline, however, the ban only applies to American businesses. Foreign companies are free to do as they please. The Wall Street Journal reports Respool YPF SA, a Spanish company, will begin drilling exploratory wells just 60 miles south of Florida within the coming year. http://online.wsj.com............. China and other nations are likely to follow.

b. Not only would this make the US more dependent on oil from potentially hostile foreign governments, it would make the chances of another Deepwater Horizon type incident both more likely and more damaging. Chinese companies don't adhere to the same safety standards as American companies. http://www.ft.com............ Moreover, because of the United States government's weakened diplomatic position, it would be even more impotent at collecting damages in the event of a spill.
Judges for these reasons and many more i ask for a pro(aff) ballot in todays election. Thank you for you time both judges and my opponent.
ewo2

Con

Thank you for a great debate Pro, I believe it was very productive.

To address your claim about the cost: it is true that solar energy is relatively expensive in comparison to oil and coal, at about $0.38 per kilowatt hour. However, as previously stated, while oil and gas technologies tend to get more expensive as time goes on, solar technology gets cheaper and cheaper as it becomes more and more mass produced. Additionally, the government plans to initiate tax incentives to benefit solar industry, which will help expedite the falling costs (http://greenecon.net...). Wind power is similar in that the startup costs are high, but much like any other long-term investment, both of these technologies pay for themselves and end up saving the investor money over the 20-30 year life of the unit. This is what people with Pro's mentality never seem to be able to grasp. Oil is a short-term investment that will cost us in the long run for environmental and economic reasons, while alternative energy has long-term benefits that will pay off in both environmental and economic benefits in the years to come. Saving the quick buck by continuing off-shore drilling is no way to build a sustainable nation, and sustainability is certainly in the best interest of the United States.

The rest of my opponent's final round is essentially a repost of his first round, which I have already negated. I feel no need to do so again. I will therefore end this debate with an appeal to logic and reason.

In summary, we have a choice. As world population continues to rise, we can either continue down a road that will inevitably lead to a dead-end when we run out of oil while we do severe damage to the environment in the meantime and miss out on great economic opportunities, or we can immediately shift our focus to alternative energy, which has a greater economic benefit, provides vastly more than enough energy for the entire planet, and is much less harmful to the environment. It is a choice that should be obvious - a choice that is not only in the best interest of the United States, but is in the best interest of the world at large. Vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by ewo2 6 years ago
ewo2
this isn't a big issue these days so i guess no one cares enough to read it and vote :(
Posted by ewo2 6 years ago
ewo2
haha what...
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Willoweed 5 years ago
Willoweed
michaelhigley10ewo2Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: oil is bad mckay
Vote Placed by michaelhigleysucks 6 years ago
michaelhigleysucks
michaelhigley10ewo2Tied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Cunit0814 6 years ago
Cunit0814
michaelhigley10ewo2Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by ewo2 6 years ago
ewo2
michaelhigley10ewo2Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00