The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Resolved: Offshore drilling is in the best interest of the United States

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/17/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,100 times Debate No: 13170
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)




Scince the BP hired oil rig the Horizon capsized in the Gulf many people are agents offshore drilling. There are more benefits than harm. Offshore could eliminate our dependence on foreign oil, create jobs, and lessen the price of fuel. Round one will be used to post your reason for opposing offshore drilling and three major reasons to support your reason. Round one may also be used for questions about anything that need to be answered!


My opponent stated above that this first post will only be to negate his claims and to set up my own contentions so that's what I'll do...

RESOLUTION: Offshore drilling is in the best interest of the United States.

Quote, "Scince the BP hired oil rig the Horizon capsized in the Gulf many people are agents offshore drilling." I do not fully understand what my opponent is trying to say here so I will let this go until it can be better explained. After that my opponent claims that Offshore drilling in the United States will eliminate our dependance on foreign oil, create jobs and lessen the price of fuel.

First my opponent says that offshore drilling would eliminate our dependance on foreign oil. This is simply not true, we will never be able to produce enough oil ourselves to eliminate our dependance on foreign oil. We may be able to lessen our foreign needs, but it would not be enough to end our dependance completely.

My opponent then said that offshore drilling would create jobs. I completely agree. It would. But how many jobs? Not very many compared to other less expensive job sectors. Life for instance, the GREEN TECHNOLOGY sector. Instead of wasting our valuable worker on a job sector (oil) thats doomed to fail, why not create more Green energy jobs. IT is estimated that for every 1 oil job, you can create 2.7 in the green sector for the same price. Plus we're saving the planet while we do it!

My opponents last case is that it will lessen the price of oil. It might, yes. But is this necessarily a good thing? We as American's need to stop our addiction to oil. Right Wing-ers complain about the hippies and their marijuana addictions, but what about America's inherent oil addiction. And by just giving ourselves easier, cheaper, planet killing oil we just delude ourselves into thinking that it is a good sustainable way of life. And even so, oil will eventually run out (leading scientists estimate in under 80 years), and will gas prices still be low then? I think no.

CON CONTENTION 1: One fish, two fish, red fish, dead fish.
As you've probably figured out by my crude Dr. Suess reference, this contention is about the environmental impact of oil rigs. You know that stereotype of the nice eco-friendly oil company? Of course you don't. Because IT DOUSN'T EXIST. Oil companies are jerks to put it lightly. The BP oil rig didn't blow up because of some act of god, it blew up because it was crudely made and BP had rushed the rig to get more oil. Oil companies are greedy jerks and when they mess up, which they do all the time, the environment pays.

CON CONTENTION 2: The future of America.
Many leading social experts say that the future of the united states of america is dependent on one thing: oil. They say that the future of the US and the world depends on whether America can quickly quit the addiction and convert to Green Energy, or whether we milk oil for as long as it can last us. And when that day comes, we as a nation will be destroyed. Oil rigs help this insane fetish towards the thought that we can live on oil forever and ever and live happily ever after. IF we can stop the flow of oil in any way possible and convert to green, we will make a better future for the next generations, the United States of America and the world.

CON CONTENTION 3: Political Peace.
Right now america is split up into two groups. Oil-lovers and oil-haters (often refered to as Democrats and Tea-Partiers (formally known as republicans)). Once this question of oil has passed we may be able to finally move on and unite as Americans. Oil has brought our contry into internal conflict time and time again. Take the middle-east as one big desaster of an example. Why did we invade Iraq? Because of WMD's of course! If by WMD you mean oil. But come to think of it, oil really is a WMD because it will destroy the planet. I guess Bush was right.

Okay, I am done with my hippie rampage. As left-ist and hippie-ish I sound here, know that I'm really a moderate. Just not when it comes to WMD's (oil).

--Good luck pro.
Debate Round No. 1


First off I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate, and may the best man win.

1. Pro Contention: The U.S. currently spends 1.5 billion dollars a day on imported oil. The Gulf's untapped oil areas, in the Atlantic, and off the Alaska's shore hold approximately 22 billion barrels of oil. That is enough oil to meet the U.S. energy needs for decades to come, and is more than our estimated reserves. The fact is our dependence on middle-east oil is hurting us. We didn't invade Iraq to liberate them we did it for "black gold". We started this long war for oil, when we had enough to sustain us in untapped areas. Since we depend on oil so much we are willing to pay for it. My opponent says it will only reduce our dependence, but with the many green energy options along with the oil we should be able to sustain ourselves. The green options alone are not enough to sustain the U.S. for a long period of time. The U.S. spent billions on equipment and troops when we should spend it on offshore drilling. The 1.5 billion per day may be used in other ways than just giving it to the middle east

2. Pro Contention: The oil industry accounts for 9.2 million American jobs,that number would increase if there were new rigs drilled in untapped areas. During a six month memorandum on deep water offshore drilling would cause a loss of 46,200 jobs over 33 rigs. You also have people working at gas stations and oil refinarys as well. If a permanent memorandum were to stop all drilling this would have even more disastrous effects on our already broke economy.

3. Pro Contention: The offshore drilling would lower gas prices in the long run and not right away. I think the fact that we are drilling for oil very limited has an mpact on oil prices. We need to tap these untapped areas in order to get an efficant drop in prices. I am not simply saying that oil is the only way, the green options would also reduce the use of oil therefore reducing the price.

Before the BP hired deep water rig Horizon capsized there hasn't been a large oil spill from a rig in the last 40 years. Offshore drilling is relatively safe in my opinion. The rigs problem wasn't in the fact it was poorly built but the fact that BP had a higher demand of oil per day than the rig could produce.


GriffinGonzales forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


THE_OPINIONATOR forfeited this round.


GriffinGonzales forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by THE_OPINIONATOR 6 years ago
my appologies my computer is on a LAN conection and i couldnt get connected in time i hope this doesnt effect my votes
Posted by Ramshutu 7 years ago
Are you talking about ANY offshore drilling? Or NEW offshore drilling in moratorium area's?
Posted by THE_OPINIONATOR 7 years ago
Blame it on spell check, and just because yo are more knolageable on spelling and grammer let your voting do the talking you dont have to point out the flaws of my argument.
Posted by m93samman 7 years ago
Biggest grammar/spelling fail ever
Posted by I-am-a-panda 7 years ago
I'm of the opinion Pro will have a pretty strong economic argument that will probably win him it if he uses it right.
No votes have been placed for this debate.