Should America continue to frack oil?
Debate Rounds (4)
1. According to Carl Gibson, lead investigative reporter for Occupy.com, "Oklahoma, home to hundreds of fracking sites, is now more earthquake-prone than California. Between 1990 and 2008, Oklahoma had only three earthquakes per year that registered at 3.0 or more on the Richter scale. In 2013, Oklahoma had 109 earthquakes. That number has increased to 238 as of June 2014." [source 1] The number of earthquakes in Oklahoma alone is substantially more than before fracking came. [source 2]
2. Constant oil fracking is killing the oil industry. Per barrel, oil cost over $100 in 2014. Now, it is under $40. [source 3]
3. The OSHA and NIOSH have both issued Hazard Alerts based on the poor chemical working environments for fracking plant workers. Plants include an abundance of hydrogen sulfide gas and silica dust. [source 4]
4. Fracking results in illegal immigrant workers being imported into the country. Fracking companies looking for cheap labor bring in illegal immigrants to do their dirty work. These immigrants work in terrible conditions with a measly income.
5. "In the past two years alone, a series of surface spills, including two blowouts at wells operated by Chesapeake Energy and EOG Resources and a spill of 8000 gallons of fracking fluid at a site in Dimock, Pa., have contaminated groundwater in the Marcellus Shale region," says Seamus McGraw. [source 5] Fracking fluid has the power to contaminate water.
6. " In suburban Johnson County, Texas, 99.5 percent of the area"s 150,000 residents now live within a mile of the county"s 3,900 wells " in 2000, there were fewer than 20 oil and gas wells," says Katie Valentine, Deputy Editor and Climate Reporter for ThinkProgress. [source 6] This exemplifies how many people are affected by contaminated water, earthquakes, and other side effects of fracking.
I'll stop there, but there is much more I could say. Please actually respond this time, instead of dodging my points. Your turn, VR.
I have made six solid, strong points, five of which sourced. I have used six credible sources, as well as quotes by credible people. ViceRegent, on the other hand, has made no points. He has wrote twelve total sentences, refuted zero of my own points, and has not presented any sources or evidence of any kind to back up his almost non-existent claims. It seems obvious who has won. Facts > Statements.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Greg4586 10 months 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:||5||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro really didn't understand what was being debated. His argument was basically "MAH LAND MUH FREEDOM" but that wasn't the topic at hand. What was being debated was whether fracking is an action that should be done, not whether fracking is something the US should actively prevent private industries from fracking on private land. On the other hand Con brought up 6 points about why he asserted fracking is bad. Most of them came from reliable sources. Some of them I didn't find persuasive such as the argument about illegal immigrants where Con never really demonstrated why that's a bad thing. However Con did have some solid arguments such as pollution, earthquakes and harm of the oil industry
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.