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

Should America continue to frack oil?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/28/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 772 times Debate No: 88892
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)




I believe that oil fracking causes much more harm than good, from a economic, sociological, and political point of view.


"America" does not frack for oil. Private landholders do. What they do with their property is none of your business. They have a God-given right to do with their property what they want. You have no such right to be a busy body. Mind your own business and leave others alone.
Debate Round No. 1


First off, thank you for debating this with me. This is my first debate, so I apologize for not responding until now. Secondly, and more importantly, I believe that you are simply ignoring the points I've made. Aside from interjecting with something that is a point rather than a rebuttal, I have put out three sides in which, for all of them, it is better if we stop fracking. Yes, landholders can frack if they wish. However, that causes so many other problems that it is better for them to do almost anything else with said land. What I will now say is this: Go ahead and choose one of the three listed, and I will explain why, from that standpoint, it is better for the state of the country for us to cease oil fracking.


Well, since we agree it is not up to you, others or any collection of others what I do with my land, I am confident in my ability and the ability of my fellow landholders to do what is right by them and their land. But thanks for your concern.
Debate Round No. 2


You continue to dodge my points. I believe that this is "," not "" I suppose I will make my information present, despite no points being made from the opposition.

1. According to Carl Gibson, lead investigative reporter for, "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.



Dude, your point is that you want to be a fascist and tell me what do with my land. I say, no, thank you. I prefer freedom to the slavery you offer.
Debate Round No. 3


I'm not telling anyone what to do, I'm saying there are far better things to do with it.

Closing Statement-
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.

Vote Con.


And none of these "strong statements" means this fool get to be a busybody in his neighbor's lives. Vote freedom. Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by runninggreg1 2 years ago
@Con: pro has stated that no one or thing has the right to force their views and opinions on others. Do you think this statement is true or false? We will get to the rest of ur arguments after, but only after u can counter this statement.. If u think it's true then this discussion is over. If You think the masses have the right to take other ppls stuff and tell them what they can and can not do....then let's debate....Please debate pro. I want to get to ur points in a logical manner and not skip to them cause u can't answer a simple the majority have the right to force minorities to their will? I'm under the opinion that force leads to violence.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: Saska// Mod action: Removed<

6 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Pro refuses to argue. Pro deflects all discussion and sticks to one very specific talking point.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain conduct or sources. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The refusal of one side to argue doesn't by itself determine the outcome of the debate. Without an assessment of BoP or of Con's arguments (to establish that he negated the resolution), the RFD is incomplete.
Posted by DATXDUDE 2 years ago
lol, look who's talking. The PHONY intellectual. There is a greater plan that is being carried out. You can't possibly understand it. And by then, it will be too late...
Posted by ViceRegent 2 years ago
Mommy, VR is so mean. He won't let me be a busybody in someone else's life so I can hide the fact that my own life is out of control because I am too immature to do something with it. Will you beat him up?
Posted by ViceRegent 2 years ago
I love how truth makes pagans so angry.
Posted by DATXDUDE 2 years ago
ViceRegent is pathetic for even attempting to respond to this scoundrel.
Posted by DATXDUDE 2 years ago
Scum sucking parasite. I spit at you.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Greg4586 2 years ago
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:50 
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