The Instigator
shwayze
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
the-mad-ones
Con (against)
Winning
48 Points

Thank the libs for high gas prices.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/29/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,965 times Debate No: 3847
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (18)

 

shwayze

Pro

The idiot libs in the Senate and the House blame Bush for the high gas prices when they are ones blocking the drilling in ANWAR. This is libs at their finest: ideology over common sense.
the-mad-ones

Con

the-mad-ones forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 1
shwayze

Pro

shwayze forfeited this round.
the-mad-ones

Con

Gas prices increased less than the prices of other commodities overall over the course of the last 20 years. In addition, oil prices tend to be more volatile than prices of other commodities. So it could simply be a natural function of economics and inflation that these gas prices have increased so dramatically over the last year. Gas is simply catching up. We as citizens are surprised by this because of the volatile nature of the increase.

This also happens to be the most expensive time of the year for gas in general, further fueling the volatility. Drillers typically spend the late spring/ early summer repairing and maintaining their equipment, and they raise prices in order to account for this. Also relatively natural.

Emerging nations, such as China and India (especially china, which is a heavily industrialized nation), are increasing demand for gas, and will continue to do so in the near future. Increase in demand also provides upward pressure on prices. The OPEC nations are producing at or above capacity for the time being, so supply is still relatively restricted.

There is still a relatively limited supply of gas, and there is a reason OPEC isn't exceeding their planned capacity. This is because demand will continue to grow, and drilling beyond capacity could cause severe limitations with regards to future supply.

Drilling in Alaska is also not preferred, since it requires a certain level of pricing before it becomes profitable (or break-even at the very least) to drill .

All in all, the increase in gas prices is natural economic behavior. It is not the fault of the 'liberals' or the 'conservatives' (first of all, liberal and conservative are terms that do not relate to this situation AT ALL. I'm assuming my opponent is referring to Democrats). The only way to easily place downward pressure on this demand, and thus pricing, would be to produce new technologies, through innovation. These technologies would either produce greater productivity from currently available supplies of gasoline, or take advantage of alternative fuel sources.
Debate Round No. 2
shwayze

Pro

Thank you for your response. You obviously are very knowledgable on the subject. I understand the natural progression of the world and oil production, but I have to disagree and say that this whole issues of gas prices is a largely political. When liberals in the senate continue to block and deny oil companies the ability to build new refineries (we havent built a new refinery in about 25 years, thanks in large part to the environmentalists) and drill in places like ANWAR, the gulf coast of Mexico, the Pacific Ocean, the Atlantic Ocean, the Great Lakes, and most recently the northern plains of Montana and North Dakota, it causes prices of oil to increase significantly because of the demand. If we increased the supply of oil, which we easily could, AND GET OUT OF FOREIGN INDEPENDENCE OF OIL WHICH FUNDS TERRORISM, oil prices would dramatically increase. It's pretty astonishing that our Congress (with a vast majority of support from liberal senators and a few fake conservatives like McCain) hasn't been able to understand this concept. I still tend to believe that the left-wing liberals put ideology over common sense, but that's for another time.

"The only way to easily place downward pressure on this demand, and thus pricing, would be to produce new technologies, through innovation. These technologies would either produce greater productivity from currently available supplies of gasoline, or take advantage of alternative fuel sources."

And I 100% completely agree. But the libs and fake conservatives in Congress have blocked the oil companies from creating new state-of-the-art refineries. Does that make sense to you? It sure doesnt to me.
the-mad-ones

Con

1) In the last 25 years, the democrats have held a majority in senate less than 11 years and 7 months (and that's including the current 2 years, during which both parties actually have the same number of chairs, with lieberman as an independent). So assuming the liberals would have to power to constantly and consistently directly or indirectly affect the price of gasoline would be mistaken.

2) Assuming environmentalism is a major reason the democrats are blocking this refinery-building and production, this does not necessarily make the situation a fault of the democrats and environmentalists...It could simply be the fault of the environment for being unable to easily sustain such development. It could be the fault of refiners for not being convincing enough. Blaming one party is excessive and irrational.

3) Many gas companies are simply not promoting drilling in ANWR. Arctic Power is one of the main lobbyists for this drilling. ConocoPhillips, BP, and Chevron Texaco have all recently stopped supporting Arctic Power. ExxonMobil also supposedly has failed to support the group.

4) ANWR reserves would increase by less than a percent, and annual useability by less than 3%. And that would be over a decade from when drilling began.

5) It is not economically worth it. The average national refiner acquisition cost would have to be greater than $24 per barrel for it to be worthwhile. Currently, these costs are less than $20.

6) If liberals are at fault for high oil prices, then why is it that oil prices have risen at a slower rate than other commodities over the course of the last 20 years? Oil has just recently risen to what it's price should be, considering typical commodity inflation. This is totally ok. What is difficult for people to deal with is the high volatility of oil prices, which caused it to rise so quickly.

7) My opponent has not provided any hard evidence with regards to the value generated by these supposedly state of the art refineries. As a result, that statement should be void.

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 3
shwayze

Pro

If our Congress allowed us to drill in ANWAR, the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, the Gulf of Mexico, the Great Lakes, and the Northern Plains,we would not see such skyrocketing prices of oil. Brazil just found 3 of the largest oil reserves in the world in the Atlantic Ocean. They are set for life. If we would build new refineries and drill on our own land, we would save billions of dollars, as opposed to having to buy oil from the Middle East, Venezuela, and Canada. It's a simple issue of supply and demand.
the-mad-ones

Con

1) The republicans/conservatives gained a majority (a switch of 55 seats) in Congress in 1994. They held an advantage all the way up to 2006.

2) As I mentioned in a previous argument, even major oil companies are not supporting this drilling. Considering that these companies' primary bias is towards profit, why would they choose not to support it? Because it WOULD NOT BE PROFITABLE. It would take at least 10 years to start distributing this gas. The groups supporting this drilling are smaller refiners, biased lobby groups, and a group of politicians looking for something which will gain them support.

3) "They are set for life" is utter superbole.

4) My opponent has used no facts or hard logic, aside from saying that if we drilled in these areas, we would make/save billions. Is there any real economic basis for his arguments?

There are three points my opponent needed to address:

1) Is lack of drilling the major reason oil prices are high?

2) Would drilling in these areas actually provide economic benefit (meaning do the benefits outweigh the costs?)?

3) Are the democrats/liberals actually at fault for preventing (2)?

My opponent has failed on all three front.
He failed to address the fact that although more oil could translate into slightly lower prices, that there are other items that played a much bigger role in the current price environment.
He failed to address the fact that drilling in these areas is not profitable.
He failed to prove that the liberals were the only groups in opposition to drilling, and that opposition prevented drilling.

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
I have to agree with you about the nuclear energy Shwayze.
Don't know why Congress blocked it.
I think you're right about Democrats and ideology and Republicans for profit too.
Posted by shwayze 8 years ago
shwayze
I agree completely. Bush has tried to pass nuclear energy but Congress has blocked it Why? That is a brilliant question. Nuclear energy is expensive, but it is by far the most efficient energy in the world. It's more than just ANWAR, its off the coast of California, in the Atlantic Ocean, the Great Lakes, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Northern Plains of the United States. Our government has completely sold us out on energy. Democrats for ideology, Rebulicans for profit.
Posted by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
There are many different energy sources available, but plastics, pharmaceuticals, paints, and many other things require hydrocarbons.
Quite apart from the problems with global warming, burning oil seems to be an incredible waste.
If ANWAR is tapped into now, it will just go into driving people back and forth in their SUVs.
Much better it is saved for when we've moved to electric cars.
Posted by shwayze 8 years ago
shwayze
I'm not saying to use up every last bit of the US's oil, im saying to USE IT! We're sitting under billions and billions of oils of barrel yet our government is blocking access to it. It doesnt make sense.
Posted by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
Why would you want to use up every last bit of the US's oil?
Heck, I'd be trying to make it last as long as possible.
Posted by shwayze 8 years ago
shwayze
both parties have sold out the American people on energy, but why are the liberals still blocking drilling in ANWAR?
Posted by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
Currently the world is extracting ~84,000,000 barrels of oil a day.
As I understand it, there are less than 12 billion barrels of oil there.

In other words, if the world started using it now, it would all be gone before the end of the year. Alaska would of course be a mess for centuries.
Posted by attrition 8 years ago
attrition
Ahhh, Schwayze, another debate another lost!! LOL!! HAHAHA..Loser
Posted by left_wing_mormon 8 years ago
left_wing_mormon
The fact that a good majority of Bush's friends are in the Oil Industry, and the Vice President, has nothing to do with the rise in gas prices...just a coincidence I guess, that all of Bush's little buddies at the Oil Industry are making record profits at the same time a war in the middle east is raging...
18 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Arnaud 8 years ago
Arnaud
shwayzethe-mad-onesTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Mattowander 8 years ago
Mattowander
shwayzethe-mad-onesTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by BeatTheDevil89 8 years ago
BeatTheDevil89
shwayzethe-mad-onesTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by cooljpk 8 years ago
cooljpk
shwayzethe-mad-onesTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by attrition 8 years ago
attrition
shwayzethe-mad-onesTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by griffinisright 8 years ago
griffinisright
shwayzethe-mad-onesTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Darkstar425 8 years ago
Darkstar425
shwayzethe-mad-onesTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Korezaan 8 years ago
Korezaan
shwayzethe-mad-onesTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by MatterOfFact 8 years ago
MatterOfFact
shwayzethe-mad-onesTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Oddlogic 8 years ago
Oddlogic
shwayzethe-mad-onesTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03