Resolved: Allowing deep-water offshore oil drilling is in the best interest of the United States.
Debate Rounds (3)
I am pro and believe that allowing deep-water offshore oil drilling is in the best interest of the united States, con is AGAINST this belief.
4 rounds, first round acceptance only, full 10,000 characters
Prepare your eyes, this will be a long one.
(^Theres a sex joke to be made off of that but im too lazy to think of it)
Anywho, I cordially accept and look forward to a stellar round. Good luck!
Bench, you have the floor.
"Bench, you have the floor."
^ Theres probably a bench joke that can be made off of that, but once again im too lazy to think of it.
Lets get on with the debate then: Reasons why allowing deep-water offshore oil drilling is in the best interest of the US
1) The US depends on oil, and lots of it, which deep-water offshore drilling can help provide
The US economy itself functions only when there is an abundance of oil. The very act of workers commuting form their homes to their jobs depends on the availability of oil, and if its abundance goes down, that causes gas prices to go up, which effects EVERY working class citizen who commutes to work because if they cant afford to buy the gas to get them to their job and back, then that causes a crapload of economic problems for the US. This is exactly what happened in the oil embargo's of the 1970's where Arabic countries boycotted oil exports to the US and the economy subsequently slid into a massive recession....
These days, the US is still a slave to oil consumption, and the only reason why gas prices arent hovering near record highs like they were in the past is due in part to large amounts of oil still being discovered and accessed in places we couldnt reach before, such as deep offshore....
Deep offshore oil mining has taken off in recent years (despite the BP oil spill hiccup) due in part to recent developments in technology making it easier to access and safer to do so, without negatively impacting the environment.
Since we still live in a world where gas prices heavily influence whether or not the economy can perform or not, it is in the best interests of the US to exploit deep-water offshore oil drilling since one of the biggest reasons why oil prices are still manageable is because vast oil fields are still being discovered or accessed when they previously couldnt be. Its also projected that deep-water drilling could account for up to 13% of all oil production in the world by 2020, and that US offshore production is expected to grow by 18% by 2020 as well
2) It is a hell of a job creator
Offshore oil drilling stimulates a hell of a lot of industries in the US that not only creates jobs, but makes them lasting jobs while stimulating other industries as well. Shipping jobs, drilling jobs, construction jobs,engineering jobs, refining jobs, exploration jobs... All of these plus many sectors are all stimulated by deep-water offshore drilling. These arent your minimum-wage cant-live-off-the-salary type jobs either, the average salary of oil rig workers STARTS at 66k a year, and can jump up to 6 figures after just a year.....
Off shore drilling is simply a fantastic economic stimulant, which is useful to the US with its ever-lagging recovery form this last depression we are climbing out of.
3) Its actually safer then other means of oil drilling
Oil rig catastrophes dont happen very often... In fact they really were an issue only during the 1980's when it was a pretty new industry..... When oil rigs do fail though they also dont result in a massive oil spill like we saw with BP's Deep Horizon spill, 80% of the time nobody is killed
^ Also worth mentioning, Most oil rig failures dont happen in the Gulf of Mexico or the US.... They usually happen in Indonesia, the middle east, or some other place that is even remotely close to the US. Also worth noting is that a third of those incidents that DID happen in the Gulf of Mexico were caused by hurricanes striking the oil platforms, not by an engineering failure.
Point is: They dont catastrophically fail that often, when they do happen its usually not near the US, and when it is near the US not a lot of people die and its usually only minor damage caused by nature.
Compare that to fracking, in which people's drinking water can be poisoned and become combustible while also potentially causing EARTHQUAKES to occur, suddenly deep-shore oil drilling seems a lot safer then other means of drilling for oil.
3) Its immune to political events, instability, and revolutions
What makes oil drilled deep off-shore different then oil imported from Middle Eastern countries is that the flow of oil from the offshore rigs isnt effected by political developments. When a government in the Middle East becomes unstable, collapses, or goes to war with another nation, it puts a potential threat on oil that is imported from that region from being cut off all of a sudden for extensive periods of time..... When Iran and the US were really on edge with each other, oil prices spiked since Iran threatened to shut off the strait of Hormuz and potentially cut off a ton of oil imports from reaching the US.
This is something that doesnt effect deep-water offshore oil drilling. Offshore oil drilling that is done in the US's own backyard is immune from political instability in other parts of the world, which makes it much safer to rely on then imported oil that comes from areas that are known for being plagued with political upheaval, which is just about EVERY oil producing region that isnt Canada.
4) There arent many downsides to offshore oil drilling
The most common concern over deep-water offshore drilling that many people think of first is that its an environmental hazard, and theres a degree of truth to that concern..... However, the US overall has extensive safety protocols in place that drastically limits the number of oil-rig incidents that happen compared to the rest of the world.... And after the BP oil well exploded, a crap-load of additional safety protocols were put in place to make sure such an event wouldnt happen again.
The biggest environmental incident involving an oil spill prior to the BP oil rig explosion was the Exxon-Valdez incident, in which an oil tanker ruptured its hull and caused the deadliest oil spill in the US at the time: http://en.wikipedia.org...
After the incident, a ton of regulations were installed requiring oil tankers to be double-hulled to prevent another spill of that size from happening again due to a hull rupture, among other protocols and regulations as well. After the safety measures were implemented, there wasnt another oil spill like that of the Exxon-Valdez that happened in the US ever again, and the exact same thing is being applied to oil rig safety after the BP oil spill.....
It used to be pretty unsafe, but we've had our wake up call now and weve corrected what needed to be corrected, meaning that another incident like the BP oil rig explosion likely wont happen anytime in the next 30 years, if ever.
- The US needs oil, and lots of it
- Deep-water oil drilling can provide that oil and its projected to help do so
- It is a great job creator, pays great wages, and stimulates a lot of other industries which the US could use right now
- It isnt effected by political events and developments in the Middle East like imported oil from that region is
- Its been pretty safely used in the US in the past
- It will DEFINITELY be safely used in the US in the future since we've had our wake-up call for what can go wrong and how we can stop it.
Thanks, Bench! I'll make my case, then rebut Pro's.
If you are unaware of what offshore drilling is or what it entails, this offers a good explanation: http://science.howstuffworks.com...
Contention One: Environmental Harm
In the gulf, for example, one of the "biggest environmental impact[s] has been the estimated 10,000 miles of canals dug by the oil and gas companies to transport oil and lay pipelines...The canals crisscross the coastal wetlands...and have contributed to coastal erosion."  This degradation of the "marshland removed an important natural buffer against storms and amplified Hurricane Katrina's damage." 
More generally, "when oil is brought up from beneath the ocean floor, other things are, too. Chemicals and toxic substances such as mercury and lead can be discharged back into the ocean. The water pumped up along with the oil may contain benzene, arsenic and other pollutants. Even the exploration that precedes drilling, which depends on seismic air guns, can harm sea mammals...The biggest pollution risk involved in offshore drilling is in transporting the oil." 
What this evidence suggests is that it isn't just oil spill themselves that harm the environment, but the entire operation. Building pipelines, testing for oil-rich sites, extraction of the oil--these all have deleterious consequences on top of and separate from the risk of oil spills. But, let's not downplay the risk of oil spills. In some areas, like the Artic, experts believe that oil companies have been unable to show that they have the proper safety procedures and technology to cope with the conditions. 
Underscoring the concerns of an oil spill is the Exxon-Valdez catastrophe. "Over 40,000 tons of toxic oil spilled into one of the world's most productive, pristine, cold-water, coastal ecosystems. The oil eventually spread over 10,000 square miles of Alaska's coastal ocean, 1,300 miles of spectacular shoreline, including national parks, wildlife refuges, wilderness areas, a national forest and ancestral lands of Alaska Natives. And the oil spread over 600 miles from the site of the grounding...The spill killed thousands of marine mammals, and hundreds of thousands of seabirds, and much of the intertidal zone. And there were long-term, chronic impacts to fish and wildlife--reproductive failures, deformities, reduced growth rates, altered feeding habits, organ damage, tumors, genetic damage and viral diseases. The Sound's ecologically important herring population collapsed."  You'd only need one spill of similar magnitude, and 600+ miles of ecosystem could be irrecoverably damaged. This would harm biodiversity, local economies, and more.
Contention Two: Human Safety and Wellbeing
“Dispersants washing up on the Gulf shoreline could be immediately dangerous, especially for the tens of thousands of workers...involved in the cleanup. Fumes...may overwhelm spill responders. So far, more than 400 oil-exposure complaints have been logged by poison-control centers and 100 oil-spill-related illnesses have been reported…but these maladies may be just the tip of the iceberg...Studies [of spills] have shown us consistent evidence for oracular, neurological and dermal exposure as a result of exposure to volatile organic compounds. Short-term lung, kidney and liver functions could be affected.” 
Also "the groundwater contamination happening across the U.S. from drilling for natural gas, combined with the challenges of what to do with the toxic fracking wastewater, a byproduct of drilling, makes me wonder how...the natural gas industry [is] to significantly grow without 'putting the health and safety of our citizens at risk.'" 
Contention Three: The Economy
Offshore oil drilling will only account for around 2-2.5% of America's oil reserves. [5, 6] The risks associated with drilling cannot be reasonably offset or justified by such paltry benefits.
We also need to consider two additional facts: (1) oil is not sustainable , (2) we need to diversify. As to the first point, our oil reserves are temporary--they will run out eventually. If we persist in our reliance on oil, we may put ourselves in an untenable position later. Consider, once we can no longer manufacture oil for ourselves, foreign nations could charge us even higher rates for what limited oil remains. Another issue here is that once oil fields dry up, we have hundreds of workers with no jobs. Oilmen who lack other skills will be left economically adrift, and America may be unable to absorb the shock of the lost revenues and the unemployment increase.
The second point leapfrogs off of the first one. Since the oil industry is not a sustainable one, we need to start implementing a longer-term plan. Instead of investing in offshore oil, we should be investing into other, cleaner, renewable forms of energy that will create stable jobs.
Thus, I negate.
Pro's remarks will be in italics.
"These days, the US is still a slave to oil consumption, and the only reason why gas prices aren't hovering near record highs like they were in the past is due in part to large amounts of oil still being discovered and accessed in places we couldn't reach before, such as deep offshore."
The U.S. is a slave to oil production and to oil companies with their sizeable lobbying powers and political influence. In order to break our subservience, we should redirect our oil subsidies into renewable energy. And what happens when the oil wells run dry--energy prices will probably break some records.
Keep in mind, of the U.S. oil reserves, only 2% are accessible by offshore means.  Therefore, offshore oil drilling is having only a small impact on America's energy independence.
Finally, offshore oil drilling won't significantly impact gas prices. 
"Deep-water drilling could account for up to 13% of all oil production in the world by 2020, and that US offshore production is expected to grow by 18% by 2020 as well."
This is all highly speculative. How much of that 13% will occur in the U.S.? And, even with an 18% growth rate, only 2% of U.S. oil is offshore; all we'd be doing would be depleting our own limited resources faster.
"It is a hell of a job creator."
Pro fails to provide sourcing here; I ask that he do so next round. Anyway, these jobs are all unsustainable. When the oil runs out, these jobs will end suddenly. That could create a crash in multiple industries since they're all interconnected--welcome back, Great Depression. It would be a more strategic choice to diversify our energy resources now, and to shift focus there instead of on offshore oil. Green energy even makes more jobs. 
"Oil rig catastrophes don't happen very often."
As my evidence shows, all it would take is one spill to obliterate an ecosystem. It's not an issue of frequency, it's an issue of magnitude. Moreover, even if rigs don't spill, ships and pipelines will. BP was a deep water incident.
"It's immune to political events."
So too are land drilling and renewable...Domestic energy is good, just not offshore.
"The US overall has extensive safety protocols."
Then why was BP able to engage in unsafe practices?  If regulators don't enforce them (as with BP), the protocols are meaningless.
1 - http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...
2 - http://www.cnn.com...
3 - http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
4 - http://content.time.com...
5 - http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
6 - http://oceana.org...
7 - http://www.bloomberg.com...
1) Environmental harm
"The canals crisscross the coastal wetlands...and have contributed to coastal erosion."
Offshore oil drilling isnt the only thing that causes pipelines to be build on the mainland, that happens no matter what type of oil drilling you do, whether it be fracking or traditional drilling.
"The biggest pollution risk involved in offshore drilling is in transporting the oil."
Which we also know how to do safely and regulate those transport ships to ensure that they are safe.
"What this evidence suggests is that it isn't just oil spill themselves that harm the environment, but the entire operation"
....... We cant just NOT pump and refine oil bsh, the economic impact that oil has on the economy and people's daily lives far outweighs the environmental downsides that oil extraction and processing has on the economy or and the environment.
"Underscoring the concerns of an oil spill is the Exxon-Valdez catastrophe."
Which happened 20 years ago in 1989 and has not happened since the event on a scale or impact close to the exxon valdez either.
"You'd only need one spill of similar magnitude, and 600+ miles of ecosystem could be irrecoverably damaged. This would harm biodiversity, local economies, and more."
Yeah, but you seem to not be emphasizing the '600+miles of ecosystem' part there which isnt really present in the Gulf of Mexico.
The BP oil spill was 19 times larger then that of the exxon Valdez spill, but it only killed 8,000 birds, turtles, marine mammals, etc. The Exxon Valdez spill on the other hand killed 100,000 seabirds alone, some estimates put it at 250,000, and the exxon valdez spill killed off billion of potential salmon as well.
Point is, the Gulf of Mexico is not NEARLY as much of a biological hotspot as the piece of Alaska that the Exxon Valdez accident occured, even though the amount of oil spilled in the Gulf of Mexico as a result of the BP incident was literally 17 times LARGER.
2) Human Safety
"So far, more than 400 oil-exposure complaints have been logged by poison-control centers and 100 oil-spill-related illnesses have been reported"
100 illnesses and 400 complaints? Thats literally nothing! You cant claim that human safety is an issue for offshore oil drilling when nobody (who wasnt on the oil rig at the time of the accident) has ever even died. Thats makes offshore oil drilling safer then cows, which kill about 20 people in the US a year
"the groundwater contamination happening across the U.S. from drilling for natural gas, combined with the challenges of what to do with the toxic fracking wastewater, a byproduct of drilling, makes me wonder how...the natural gas industry [is] to significantly grow without 'putting the health and safety of our citizens at risk"
I heard 'natural gas' and 'fracking', I didnt hear a single word about deep offshore oil drilling in there.
in fact it sounds like a hell of a reason to support offshore oil drilling more since other means provide a more ready and present threat to people
"Offshore oil drilling will only account for around 2-2.5% of America's oil reserves. "
I find that hard to believe considering that just a few years ago, offshore oil drilling accounted for 25% of oil production:
"(1) oil is not sustainable , (2) we need to diversify."
True as that is, the unfortunate truth is that oil is the best thing we got for right now and diversifying takes a hell of a long time to achieve. Solar and wind is great and all, but we cant just ignore how much of a role that oil has in today's economy and the future one as well. It is completely devoid of reason to think the US can completely kick its oil habit or somehow make it so that there are more hybrids and electric cars on the world than oil-dependent ones.
Dont get me wrong we are presently diversifying and its good that we are, but diversifying is a process that can last a lifetime, and banning deep-offshore oil drilling isnt going to change the rate of diversifying.
"Consider, once we can no longer manufacture oil for ourselves, foreign nations could charge us even higher rates for what limited oil remains"
Fracking and offshore oil drilling though can make sure that doesnt take full effect, hence why its happening everywhere.
"Another issue here is that once oil fields dry up, we have hundreds of workers with no jobs"
Ok first off oil fields dont simply 'dry up' all at once. When one oil field goes dry then those workers and machine experts move on to the next closest oil field that is hiring.... Thats why every oil guy and their mother is heading up to North Dakota and the Northeast right now.
Second is that not every person who works in the oil industry works specifically in drilling for it. You have those who make the equipment, those who work in the refineries, those who work on docks to bring in the imports.... You get the point.
The oil fields arent gonna dry up all of a sudden anytime soon, the reason why is because the US has a real talent for finding more oil and finding newer ways to get oil they couldnt get access to before.
" Instead of investing in offshore oil, we should be investing into other, cleaner, renewable forms of energy that will create stable jobs"
Yeah because Solyndra was so stable right?
Also, Solar and wind power manufacturing isnt exactly a stable field to work in... In 2012 alone, 40 Solar companies went into bankruptcy while oil companies have been doing fantastic.
Oil is ironically more stable than these new green tech companies, so if youre opting for stability, then oil is actually your safer bet in the present day.
"Pro fails to provide sourcing here (About job creation)"
By all means help yourself:
"When the oil runs out, these jobs will end suddenly"
Oil fields dont suddenly run out all at once though, as ive already mentioned.
"As my evidence shows, all it would take is one spill to obliterate an ecosystem"
The Gulf of Mexico doesnt HAVE a big ecosystem though, its literally all ocean out there.
"even if rigs don't spill, ships and pipelines will. "
Thats not a problem for rigs though and it especially isnt their fault.
"Then why was BP able to engage in unsafe practices?  If regulators don't enforce them (as with BP), the protocols are meaningless."
Because the protocols werent as rigidly enforced until the BP incident came along.
You know how America works with environmental disasters, if something catastrophic happens to the environment somewhere that shouldnt have happened, then a ton of regulations are adopted to ensure it doesnt happen again while existing ones are more viciously enforced.
Thanks to Imabench! In this round, I will rebuild my case, rebut Pro's case, and close with some reasons vote Con.
C1: Environmental Harm
Pro asserts that pipelines must be built regardless of whether its offshore or on-land drilling. Yet, pipelines winding their way through the mainland are not going to cause the types of coastal erosion that would expose people to hurricanes and flooding.
Most of America's offshore oil reserves are in the Gulf.  The gulf is a hurricane-prone region, and so laying down pipelines there is going to magnify the effects of hurricanes to make them even more lethal and devastating. So, if we wanted to harvest oil from the most abundant oil areas, we would build oil wells in the gulf. By doing so, we would erode the coastline, and endanger millions of people in the process.
The second-most oil rich areas (Alaska and the Arctic), also are dangerous areas to drill in. As I noted earlier, "experts believe that oil companies have been unable to show that they have the proper safety procedures and technology to cope with the conditions" in those regions. So, what this shows, is that the two most oil-rich areas are two of the most dangerous places to drill. And, if we chose not to drill here, we'd have access to so little offshore oil we might as well scrap the idea.
Pro attempts to downplay the harms of the BP spill. But lets realize that 8,000 dead animals is still a HUGE loss of life and of biodiversity, even if the loss wasn't as great as with Valdez. Basically, just because the death toll wasn't as disastrous, doesn't mean it wasn't disastrous.
Consider also the loss to local economies. The website Pro cited also describes the losses in the travel, seafood, hotel, and restaurant industries in the gulf. There was also damage done to the real estate industry. [2, 3] In fact, Pro source says the long-term impacts of BP are still to be determined, and some experts believe the economic harms could exceed that of the Exxon-Valdez. 
Pro also DROPPED that the process of drilling itself was harmful: "when oil is brought up from beneath the ocean floor, other things are, too. Chemicals and toxic substances such as mercury and lead can be discharged back into the ocean. The water pumped up along with the oil may contain benzene, arsenic and other pollutants. Even the exploration...can harm sea mammals." Pro's only comment here was that we can just not drill. Yet, I am not arguing for no drilling; I am arguing for no offshore drilling. Therein lies a key distinction.
C2: Human Safety
It is hard to deny the oil spills pose at least some risk to human physical wellbeing. Pro never disputed that hundreds of people (around 400) were impacted health-wise by the spill and the chemicals used to clean it up. It may be a small impact, but it still flows Con, because Pro does DROP it (insofar as Pro never contests its veracity or accuracy.)
C3: The Economy
I argued that offshore oil accounts for only 2-2.5% of America's oil reserves. Pro attempts to rebut this by saying that it accounted fro 25% of production last year.
In fact, Pro is making a non-argument here. If I have $100 dollars stored in room A, and $4000 stored in room B, and then I take $25 from room A, and $75 from room B, I will get the following result:
Room A has 2.5 % of the total money reserves, but accounted for 25% of the profits.
Room B has 97.5% of the total money reserves, but accounted for 75% of the profits.
This examples shows that just because we're extracting more proportionally from room A, that doesn't mean that room A has more to be extracted than room B. We're just taking more money out of a smaller cache.
In other words, just because offshore oil accounted for 25% of production last year, offshore oil reserves are still only 2.5% of the total oil reserves in the U.S. We're just taking more oil out of a smaller cache.
Therefore, Pro's evidence utterly fails to disprove my multiple credible sources, and so we can extend the fact that offshore oil accounts for only around 2.5% of our total reserves.
Pro then says diversifying takes a long time. Yet, why waster money developing risky offshore oil, when we could do safer, on-land drilling and diversify as we go? If offshore oil accounts for such a small fraction of our oil, it seems like a smarter investment to develop on-land drilling instead.
Finally, Solyndra is just once example, and is hardly indicative of the green economy as a whole.
I will address the main points of clash as I go down Pro's points.
1. Energy Independence
Firstly, it is relatively clear that 2.5% of our total oil reserves are only going to have a microscopic impact on our energy independence. Green energy, coupled with drilling on land, will be able to keep us energy independent and better improve our economy. This makes sense for several reasons: (1) we have more oil to tap into on land, (2) we can divert money we would have spent policing and developing offshore oil into diversifying our energy sector, and (3) we don't risk local, coastal economies in the process. This plan will not only reduce our dependence on foreign oil--something we both agree is vital--but it will shield us from some of the harms of offshore oil drilling.
Ultimately, oil will run out, and so we should have that green economy waiting to take over. Regardless of how suddenly oil fields dry up, I can still win this debate by pure cost-benefit analysis.
Keep in mind, Pro DROPPED that offshore oil would barely impact gas prices. So much for offshore oil helping our energy economy and bringing down prices.
Pro's first source based it's findings on a report that "was paid for by the Gulf Economic Survival Team, a Louisiana-based group pushing for more drilling." The second source cited "James V. Koch...hired by Virginia Natural Gas." Moreover, the second source notes that the study was "cursory" and that "estimates vary widely." Another study cited by this source was from a group with "ties to the oil industry." Clearly, both of these sources are biased and untrustworthy.
Also, Pro DROPS my evidence that green energy actually creates more jobs.
3. The Environment
Regardless of how large the gulf ecosystem is, it still has an ecosystem which could be obliterated leading to billions of dollars in losses to the economy. Consider also, why does a spill necessarily have to occur in the gulf? It could take place up in a key ecosystem in Alaska, for instance.
Finally, protocols may be enforced rigidly in the immediate aftermath of BP, but as time marches on, people will grow lax. Years after Exxon-Valdez, regulators were relaxed enough, and BP was crafty enough, to allow the BP tragedy to occur. This risk of an enormous disaster due to poor oversight is real, tangible, and empirically evidenced.
Pro argues that offshore oil drilling will help the economy. He fails to:
Provide unbiased evidence of how it would help jobs
Show that it would have any benefits for gas prices
Show that it could help us become energy independent because offshore reserves are relatively so miniscule.
I argue that there a clear harms to the environment and the economy. I show:
That the process of oil extraction itself is harmful
That it is too dangerous to drill in the Gulf and Alaska/Arctic--if we can't drill here we, we might as well scrap the notion
That an oil spill can devastate local economies.
Ultimately, a combination of land drilling and green energy is better than offshore oil. Therefore, I strongly urge a Con ballot.
1 - http://www.oilempire.us...
2 - https://www.nwf.org...
3 - http://www.ask.com...
4 - http://useconomy.about.com...
Thanks! VOTE CON!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by YYW 3 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:||2||3|
Reasons for voting decision: This is one of those debates where I think I could judge it more fairly if I knew nothing about the topic. But, I'm not ignorant. Unfortunately. CON is challenging the status quo, whereas PRO is arguing that offshore drilling is better than it is harmful. CON cited examples of human risks of offshore drilling, environmental and economic harms that may result from a spill or pollution, generally. However, while it's possible, if not probable that another spill might occur -that does not necessarily mean that it will. PRO cited some very compelling arguments about the overall economic benefits of offshore drilling and implied harms to its not continuing. PRO is also right in that the BP spill was a fault with BP and lack of oversight, and not offshore drilling generally. But despite that, PRO charted some very real risks that follow, even in the absence of ideal conditions. Very, very close win for CON. Counter Oromagi's source vote, as it was awarded without cause.
Vote Placed by Oromagi 3 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:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: Args to Con. Pro had BoP for best interest. Pro might have contended for the moderate ground by arguing for off-shore while we translate to renewable, but he left that ground to Con. Con gets the advantage by arguing the more moderate and forward looking options. Instead of convincing us why off-shore is a must, or the best, Pro drops straight into rebuttal while Con rebuts and continues arguments. Slight edge to Con on sources. Both sides leaned too heavily on editorial support, but Con gets the edge for using the weakness of Pro's sources against him.
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.