The Instigator
JrRepublican
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
boredinclass
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Resolved: That we should drill in ANWR

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
boredinclass
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/7/2011 Category: Science
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,577 times Debate No: 15840
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

JrRepublican

Pro

I believe that, seeing the vast wealth of oil we have in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, we should safely drill for oil in that region. I will allow my opponent to present his arguments in the first round.
boredinclass

Con

1.It takes the focus off the real cause of the oil shortage -- our excessive consumption.
2. A wildlife refuge could be disturbed by humans, with animal lives possibly changed in the process.
3. The drilling may not yield much of anything.
4. It could take years or decades before any significant amount of oil is ready for use.
5. The reserve can be saved as a last resort decades from now when we've exhausted other supplies.
6. A majority is against drilling in the ANWR [1]
-sub point a. this causes political backlash against rebuplicans
-sub point b. to drill is anti-democratic

I reserve the right to clarify these points as the debate goes on.

I look forward to a fun and educational debate, and I await my opponents arguments
Debate Round No. 1
JrRepublican

Pro

Response to:
1: Well, yes, we do make things that are unnecessary, but that's a red herring itself.
2: No, there are pictures that show caribou clustered around oil rigs in Alaska--the email is going around.
3/4: The longer we wait the farther away it gets. The same thing is true about renewable energy, but that doesn't stop peoplee from trying!!!
5: Possibly, but we'd still have to drill there, so that's not really germane.
6: What majority? A majority of anti-energy anti-capitalist tree-huggers? Or a majority of Alaskans? Or a majority of scientists? Please clarify.
subpoint b: How is drilling un-demcratic? Many people opposed Obamacare (a majority opposed it in fact), but did that make any difference to the socialist politicians that supported it? No.

Arguments:
1: Drilling here is needed to reduce dependence on foreign oil.
2: The picture circulated abot ANWR are not from the location proposed for drilling. The drilling is proposed in a coastal plain, not in the lush mountain valleys that the pictures show.
3: Oil rigs do not disrupt animal life: caribou still wander around in Prudhoe Bay, happy as ever.
4: Why not? Why should we restrain ourselves for no good reason? Give me one good, unrefutable reason that we shouldn't?
boredinclass

Con

1. It is not a red herring, because it is pointing out the red herring of the main focus. Instead of focusing on what is needed, just explore, I'm saying that it takes the focus from a much more needed debate
2. ok, caribou are clustered around oil rigs, one species is ok with humans living there. What of the plants and other animals, they still need a home
http://apspcb.org.in...
3/4
1- he uses the red herring of renewable resources. that isn't the debate on this secific point
2- he completely drops point 3
3- even if we wait, we still cannot drill, because of other adverse effects
kick point 5
6. A biparisan survey shows 53% of americans
http://usgovinfo.about.com... (sorry, I didn't realize that I didn't post the source, my bad)
sub point b- a red herring, at least energy had some relation to the debate, Obamacare has noting to do with this debate

onto his points
1. since he effectively drops point a, we cannot asume that it is enough to cure foreign oil dependency. Besides, it is impossible to reduce dependency on foreign oil. First america makes 11% of the worlds oil, but consumes 25% even if there was some oil in the ANWR, we cannot stop dependency, because we consume more each year
http://www.good.is...
2. ok, any drilling is still dangerous and still causes all impact I list
3. again this argument is only independent to caribou, he does not take into accout migration patterns, nesting, mating and other rituals animals take part of.
4. Just extend all my points

Vote con
Debate Round No. 2
JrRepublican

Pro

Refutation of arguments;
1. Alright, if you wish to have this "much more important" debate with me, issue the challenge, and I'll be sure to accept.
2. There is also a picture of a bear walking on the pipeline near the Prudhoe Bay site. The actual area disrupted by the actual building of the rigs is small. Plants can still grow under pipelines and around the area, since the actual rigs are very small. Drilling would not remove the homes of plants or animals. Drilling areas don't cover the whole region, or even a large percentage of it.
3/4. All I meant is that the argument that it would take several years is no reason to delay the drilling.
6. The survey is not accurate because of the popular misconception about ANWR. If you showed people pictures of the actual drilling area, they would not oppose the drilling. The area is a barren coastal plain with limited vegetation. The drilling would not take place in the lush valleys and mountains that the protectionists show as evidence that ANWR drilling would destroy a national resource. I would oppose drilling in THOSE areas, but they issue is not there. My other point was that popular opinion does not necessarily influence policy.

I never attempted to show that ANWR drilling would eliminate our foreign oil dependency, just that it would help reduce it.
Drilling in this area is not dangerous, and the small area impacted would not even begin to disrupt migration patterns.
boredinclass

Con

1. ok first he completely drops this point that this is a distracter from the real debate needed here
2. ok, he doesn't provide said picture, and because he does not present it, we have to assume that it does not exist. perfer my argument because I use evidence
3/4. No, I'm saying that the probability of how much it will yeild is unknown, therefore we cannot assume that it would solve anything, he drops point 4 entirely
6. It doesn't matter if it is a misconception, people are against it. And besides, He didn't bring any evidence forward on where we will drill. Therefore, you cannot assume what he says is true

>>>I never attempted to show that ANWR drilling would eliminate our foreign oil dependency, just that it would help reduce it.
-then just bring up my point on that it is impossible to reduce dependency, those were my word, plus he shows no impact

>>>Drilling in this area is not dangerous,
-since he effectively drops the evidence about wildlife, by not bringing up the actual picture, vote con

>>>the small area impacted would not even begin to disrupt migration patterns
-if it is such a small area, then you have to assume that it cannot yeild alot of oil

In conclusion, you must vote pro. My opponent drops all my points, especially the wildlife point. He never claims that it can solve for foreign dependency, or that it will yeild anything. I actually had evidence, so you must vote me up for that. I win
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
JrRepublicanboredinclassTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides made some pretty bad arguments, however, it is Pro's duty to present arguments for the resolution and defend those arguments.
Vote Placed by RougeFox 6 years ago
RougeFox
JrRepublicanboredinclassTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con actually used sources and pro did not refute con's arguments effectively.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 6 years ago
socialpinko
JrRepublicanboredinclassTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con actually had reliable sources. Pro only used red herrings and did not adequately refute any of Con's arguments.