The Instigator
1Historygenius
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
Citrakayah
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

The Keystone XL Pipeline Should Be Built

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
1Historygenius
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/20/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,530 times Debate No: 32720
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (20)
Votes (3)

 

1Historygenius

Pro

The Debate

In this debate, I will argue that the Keystone XL Pipeline should be built while my opponent must argue why it should not be built.

Rules

Round 1 is for acceptance only. No trolling or semantics.
Citrakayah

Con

I accept, and wish the best of luck to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1
1Historygenius

Pro

My Arguments

I. Job Creation

The Keystone pipeline should be created because of the job growth it would produce. According to Speaker of the House John Bohener:

"It's estimated that the Keystone XL project, which is funded entirely through private investment, would help create at least 20,000 new American jobs in manufacturing and construction. Analysis suggests it could create tens of thousands more, and could help address high gas prices as well. President Obama says he didn't have enough time to come to approve it - that he had no choice to reject the project. But as the Wall Street Journal editorial board put it, 'Keystone XL has been planned for years...'" [1]

With the economy the way it is, I can't see why anyone would not build this pipeline as it is necessarry to produce jobs. Mr Frank writes:

"For America's skilled craft construction professionals, any discussion of the Keystone XL project begins and ends with one word: JOBS," Mark Ayers, past head of the group, wrote in the Huffington Post last November. He noted that 'the Keystone pipeline represents the prospect for 20,000 immediate jobs...'" [2]

The creation of 20,000 jobs would no doubt help the economy today. That is why we need the pipeline.

II. GDP

The construction of the Keystone pipeline would be a major contribution to the nation's GDP. The Chicago Tribune reported that:

"Keystone should be approved. This is a good project. It will give us energy and give us jobs. You want stimulus? This is a $7 billion deal to be done with private-sector funding." [3]

And from Mr. Diebel:

The Keystone XL pipeline will cost USD 7 billion to construct and will carry nearly 800,000 barrels of oil a day into the U.S. from Canada." [4]

That money would greately help the Midwest's economy, which has suffered terribly from the recession.

III. Decreasing Gas Prices

There has been a lot of pain at the pump lately and the Keystone pipeline will help get rid of the high prices we see. This is because there will be less demand for foreign oil. Sanati writes that:

"They fear lots of Canadian crude could be shut in the ground with nowhere to go if this pipeline isn't built quickly. In addition, they say the few pipelines that do connect Canada's oil production region to the US currently flow where refining capacity is limited. This means less gasoline for your tank...The result would mean more supply for US consumers, and therefore, lower gasoline prices."

And from Diebel:

"A report published by The Economist stated that tar sands today account for nearly one and a half million barrels of oil produced every day, and by 2025 that number will rise to three and half million. Even though 70 percent of the world’s oil is controlled and produced by OPEC countries, half of the remaining global oil supply comes from tar sands. In other words, these “bituminous crudes” are here to stay." [4]

The exact amount of improvement that will be given to the gas prices might be rather small, but any action to reduce the current prices should be taken.

IV. Midwest Economy

As stated above, the pipeline will contribute to the creation of jobs, higher GDP, and lower gas prices. This pipeline will help the Midwest economy, which suffered the most from the recent recession. If this pipeline comes in, things will turn around. According to Breitbart.com:

"Costing $7 billion, the pipeline would create 20,000 well-paying construction jobs immediately. Midwest construction workers, one of the demographics hit hardest by the economic downturn, desperately need this project. While blue-collar workers would receive many of the direct benefits from Keystone's construction, thousands of businesses from nearly every state would have reaped indirect business were Obama to simply allow the Keystone project to be built. 2,400 American companies in 49 states are involved in the production of Canadian oil sands." [6]

V. Long-term Contributions

Even if the economic benefits of the pipeline are not felt immediately, it has great long-term effects. According to ZFacts:

"According to the Department of Energy, this one project will "essentially eliminate" oil imports from the Middle East. It will create more than 100,000 jobs and strengthen our relationship with a close ally and trading partner. A project like this should be a no-brainer, and there's simply no good reason it has been stuck in the State Department's red tape for nearly three years." [7]

And from Pipeline News:

"An independent study estimates that during the life of the project, the Keystone XL project is expected to stimulate:
  • More than $20 billion in new spending for the U.S. economy;
  • More than 118,000 person-years of employment;
  • An increase of $6.5 billion in the personal income of Americans;
  • Increased gross output (product) of $9.6 billion; and
  • More than $585 million in state and local taxes in the states along the pipeline route.
'This project will also play an important role in linking a secure and growing supply of Canadian crude oil with the largest refining markets in the United States, significantly improving NorthAmerican energy security,'added Girling." [8]

As we can see here, there are massive economic benefits.

Conclusion

I have proven that there are many benefits to constructing the Keystone pipline. There are many economic short-term and long-term benefits from creating it that will bring economic growth to the Midwest.

Sources

1. Boehner, John. "Boehner Column: President Obama’s Pipeline Decision: Bad for Jobs, Bad for our Economy, Bad for Energy Security." John Boehner Website. N.p, 20 Jan. 2012. Web.

2. Frank, Stephen. "Obama Lies To Union That Supports Keystone XL Pipeline." Stephen Frank's California Political News and Views. N.p, 2 May 2012. Web.
3. Chicago Tribune. "Pipeline politics: Misguided Obama blocks Keystone pipeline: Obama's decision will cost the U.S. jobs." Chicago Tribune Website. N.p, 19 Jan. 2012. Web.
4. Diebel, Zac. "KeyStone Pipeline Capers present an Envrionmentalist's Nightmare for North America." The Cutting Edge News. N.p, 23 Sep, 2011. Web.
5. Sanati, Cyrus. "Will the Keystone Pipeline Decision Affect Prices at the Pump?" MintLife. N.p, 23 Jan. 2012. Web.
6. Breitbart. "Search: Keystone Pipeline." Breitbart. N.p, N.d. Web.
7. ZFacts. "Keystone Pipeline: Jobs? Energy Independence?" ZFacts. N.p, N.d. Web.
8. Pipeline News. "Labor Agreement For Keystone XL Pipeline To Create 13,000 American Jobs." Pipeline News. N.p, N.d. Web.
Citrakayah

Con

I. Job Creation

Firstly, that really isn't all that much. If all those jobs were added in one month, that would be a reduction in the unemployment by a grand total of about .07%. Worse, the twenty thousand figure isn't even substantiated. Instead, a better figure, which was erived from TransCanada's own numbers, put the number of jobs created at 2,500-4,650 direct construction jobs. As for manufacturing, about 50% of the pipe is being produced outside the United States. And significant amounts of pipe have already been produced[1].

II. GDP

There are several problems with Pro's argument. Firstly, he just states that it would help the Midwest without any evidence of it being helped in particular. I request that Pro back up this argument with something more substantial.

Leaving aside that not all of that $7 billion would go to the United States[1], we also have the problem of damages caused by spills. Tar sand oil is more caustic than normal oil--the Alberta pipeline (which carries tar sands) has had sixteen times more spills than US pipelines[2]. I'll expand on that later.

III. Gas Prices

Actually, tar sands are currently supplying the Midwest; the pipeline would divert those oil causing a significant increase in price[1]. Evidence suggests that TransCanada may well know this[3].

IV. Midwest Economy

See above for my refutations of Pro's points.

V. Long Term Impact

Mostly Pro restates his arguments here without real support, but in relationto energy independence, I would point out that the main refinery in Texas is half-owned by a state owned Saudi oil company[1].


Now, on to my arguments:

Risk goes hand in hand with pretty much anything we do. I won't deny that. The problem with some actions is that the risk outweighs the benefit. For instance, I do not walk up to random mountain lions and hug them, because no matter how adorable they may be, they might maul me, and the risk of getting killed outweighs the benefit of mountain lion hugging.

Most people would call this a reasonable decision.

So, in relation to the XL pipe, we must ask ourselves what the benefit is and what the risk is. I've already established tha that the benefit isn't that much, now I'll establish the risk.

C1. Environmental Damages

Environmental damages are part of oil extraction. The question, as always, is one of degree. The degree here is probably something like 80 Celsius.

We know that lakes are affected, and that they enter different ecosystem states[4]. We know that oil sands development causes heavy metals and various elements toxic at low concentrations to leak into water systems, and that they reach concentrations that are past the set guidelines for the protection of aquatic life[5]. We know that the ponds that are supposed to contain polluted, toxic water leak, and were in fact leaking 1600 cubic meters a day in 1997[6]. We know that these 'tailing ponds' are so toxic that birds die after landing on them, like 500 ducks did after the sonar devices intended to scare them away failed[6].

C2. Deceptive and Improper Government Oversight

Knowledge of the risks of the more difficult because the government isn't doing its job--oil money is putting the people supposed to make sure the pipe is safe in a conflict of interest. For instance, the State Department impact statement was written by a private company contracted by TransCanada to write the statement[7]! It also completely ignored the fact that the pipeline would encourage further production and exploitation of tar sand oil[8].



1. http://www.ilr.cornell.edu...
2. http://www.nwf.org...
3. http://blog.nwf.org...
4. http://www.pnas.org...
5. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2941314
6. http://briarpatchmagazine.com...
7. http://grist.org...
8. http://www.guardian.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 2
1Historygenius

Pro

My Argument

I. Job Creation

My opponent as admitted that jobs will be created for the economy, but his numbers just simply don't add up:

"Other estimates advanced by supporters of the pipeline have been even more optimistic, with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce claiming it could create 250,000 permanent U.S. jobs." [1]

"The Keystone XL Pipeline project is estimated to bring in $20 billion of private sector investment into the American economy, create 20,000 direct jobs, spur the creation of 118,000 spin-off jobs and pay out $5 billion in taxes to local counties over the project's lifetime." [2]

However, because we both acknowledge the growth in American jobs, I win this argument.

II. GDP

Read here:

"private sector investment of more than $20 billion in the U.S. economy." [3]

And here:

"The study further concluded that once the pipeline is operational, the states along the pipeline route are expected to receive an additional $5.2 billion in property taxes during the estimated operating life of the pipeline. The $7 billion pipeline project is expected to directly create more than 15,000 high-wage manufacturing jobs and construction jobs in 2011-2012 across the US." [4]

III. Midwest Oil Prices

My opponent is ignoring the laws of supply and demand. More supply without an increase in demand means lower prices, so that means prices will lower. It will only lower the prices by several cents, but every increase is good. [5]

Also:

"The NRDC findings contradict a report last year from IHS CERA, which provides business advice and analysis to energy companies, that said the pipeline would help lower fuel prices." [6]

IV. Midwest Economy

Look at the above arguments.

V. Long-term Contributions

False. I gave sources for my arguments here. That little bit of irrelevant information of the Texas refinery is nice, but it dosen't talk about creating any jobs or growth in GDP.

My Refutations

I. Damaging the Environment

My opponent has explained the costs of how the world environment will be damaged if the pipeline is built, but he ignores one this. The construction of the pipeline is inevitable and if the US does not want it then China will. As said here:

"Canada has signaled it would re-route the pipeline to the West Coast and sell oil to China, which has already invested heavily in the tar sands." [7]

There is no way to prevent the construction of the pipeline, but if its built here we get tens of thousands of jobs, possibly hundreds of thousands of jobs.

My opponent talks about these oil (or tar) sands. According to this article:

"Oil from tar sands is very similar to oil already transported throughout the United States. The process of refining tar sands oil is verifiable, and exploration, production, and exportation of such oil has already begun. Indeed, Canada is already America's largest supplier of oil and natural gas, and this oil can be made into many useful items like asphalt, gasoline, and jet fuel." [8]

These tar sands aren't at all that bad.

II. Improper Government Oversight

As explained before, tar sand oil is not that bad. Its likely that the Chinese will give just as much improper oversight according to my opponent. The difference is that we can either have economic growth in the homeland or across the Pacific Ocean.

Conclusion

I have made my arguments that the Keystone Pipeline will create jobs and lower prices. The pipeline will bring us great economic growth. The benefits far outweigh the costs.

Sources

1. http://www.cbsnews.com...
2. http://www.chron.com...
3. http://www.transcanada.com...
4. http://www.keystonexlnebraska.com...
5. http://en.wikipedia.org...
6. http://www.ibtimes.com...
7. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...
8. http://tucsoncitizen.com...
Citrakayah

Con

I. Job Creation

Yes, the Chamber of Commerce says that. But they are hardly independent--remember, they are an industry lobbying group[1]. Meanwhile, the Cron article doesn't actually cite any sources and just makes bald assertions. Hardly convincing. For that matter, I can't find their actual document where they say that.

Pro then goes on to say that he wins because I agree that it would add jobs. That's ridiculous. Hiring people to pour oil into rivers would create jobs. It would also be freaking stupid. 'It creates jobs' isn't a blanket justification for things. Again: We must look at the risk as well as the benefit, or we run a high chance of doing something really stupid.

II. GDP

Pro's sources make a bunch of assertions not backed up by much evidence; since they have a vested interest in making the project look good I think I'll be rather suspicious of it.

Oh, and the fourth source link doesn't work.

III. Midwest Oil Prices

Again, the problem is that the oil is actually being diverted away from the Midwest as the pipeline is built.

IV. Midwest Economy

This part has been integrated into our matters.

V. Long Term Contributions

You quote something that is itself unsupported, then. It just says 'an independent study'. What independent study? I see no link and I see no title.

And honestly, I fail to see how bringing up the fact that the refinery is owned by the people we're trying to not rely on is irrelevant. You say that the pipe will help us be independent, regarding energy, from the Middle East. Yet a key Middle East power owns the refinery.



C1. Environmental Costs

The Keystone XL still shouldn't be built. Neither should a pipeline to China. Leaving aside the fact that we don't know for sure the pipeline will be built (environmental groups based in the United States could work with ones based in Canada to block the pipe), if we're particularly concerned with the United States, wouldn't it be best not to have the pollution affect our aquifers?

Furthermore, we can reasonably conclude that blocking the pipe here will at least delay it. And buying time could be very useful, if in the interim renewable sources of energy and such continue to develop and become more economical than things like the tar sands.

And I fail to see how my opponent manages to argue that tar sands aren't all that bad from what he's said.

C2. Improper Oversight

And we'll fight it in China too.




1. https://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
1Historygenius

Pro

I. Job Creation

My opponent cites Wikipedia and says that the Chamber of Commerce is biased through lobbying, but it does not say anything about the Keystone Pipeline. There is simply nothing in the source that links it to the Pipeline. This argument fails.

My opponent talks about pouring water into a river, but that does not talk about the economic effects of the pipeline. With more jobs, the economy will grow much better because unemployment will be down and more people will purchase stuff. My opponent ignored many of the other sources I had on jobs. In fact, I even have another one. [1]

II. GDP

My opponent claims that my sources have no evidence, but does not bring any sources to back him up. I have further information here:

"The study further concluded that once the pipeline is operational, the states along the pipeline route are expected to receive an additional $5.2 billion in property taxes during the estimated operating life of the pipeline. The $7 billion pipeline project is expected to directly create more than 15,000 high-wage manufacturing jobs and construction jobs in 2011-2012 across the US."[6] This is within one year of construction."

The fourth link worked for me.

III. Gas Prices

"Recently, for example, oil that is imported and sold on the U.S. Gulf Coast is trading around $90U.S. per barrel. Western Canadian oil is currently trading for $70 U.S. per barrel."[2] In addition, "Currently, over 20 percent of our imported oil comes from Canada... Once the pipeline is completed, over
33 percent of our imported oil will come from Canada."[3]

Again, my opponent has not contested that higher supply means lower prices.

IV. Midwest Economy

Other matters.

V. Long-term Contributions

My opponent does not need a link or a title. All he had to do was refute the source and that he failed to do. My opponent has failed to explaine how the Middle East refinery (which is only partly Middle East) is bad.

C1.

My opponent argues that delaying the pipeline is better so new resources can develop and become more avalible. However, he fails to show any sources.

C2.

My opponent has not properly refuted me.

Conclusion

I have successfully argued the great economic benefits of then pipeline that my opponent has failed to refute. My opponent has failed to support his arguments. I strongly urge the voters to vote Pro.

Sources

1. http://news.investors.com...
2. http://www.transcanada.com...
3. http://www.nam.org...
Citrakayah

Con

I. Job Creation

Well, I'd like to say that I could go and look at their donors, but they keep their donor identities secret, so that would be pretty damn difficult, wouldn't it[1]?

II. GDP

I do have sources to back up that your sources have no sources--your sources. I suggest that those reading this debate read them.

TransCanada is making a sales pitch. They aren't paid to give unattractive estimates of the results of building the pipeline, they won't want to believe that the pipeline would do harm, and they're fighting a PR battle to get it built so they can make money off it. That's their interest: money.

So they aren't going to give out facts that make people less willing to support it, and they're probably going to give the most optimistic value possible for the benefits, rather than the most realistic one. Conflicts of interest like these are why we independent surveyors and evaluators. And the only independent study that has been cited here (as opposed to simply stated as existing without so much as a title or group) doesn't give the pipe much ammunition.

III. Midwest Oil Pipelines

The problem is that supply will decrease in the Midwest. That is what I have been arguing all along, and my opponent seems to have missed this.

V. Long-Term Contributions

Well, then, I refuted the source! I prevented an independent study that disagreed with it, and we actually know what that study is, as opposed to your link, which just claims that an independent study said it without any back-up at all!

And I'm not saying it's bad, just that it isn't energy independence.


C1. Environmental Damages

Here are some instances of renewable energy sectors growing:
  1. Texas oilman Pickens came up with a plan to supply 20% of the nation's power through wind[2]
  2. Wind power grew by 45% in a single year[3]
  3. Wind power in general is pretty much growing along an exponential curve[4]
  4. Despite setbacks, solar power has continued to grow, and is providing more and more power[5]

C2. Improper Oversight

Pro is basically arguing that we should resign ourselves to corruption, that we should simply say 'Oh, well, at least we get a few jobs out of it'.

I say that we should fight it wherever it manifests.

1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

2. www.pickensplan.com/wind/
3. http://www.worldwatch.org...
4. http://www.gwec.net...
5. http://www.cleanedge.com...
Debate Round No. 4
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Subutai 1 year ago
Subutai
Greenhouse gases create smog. The kind of smog in industrial areas is composed of soot particles containing smoke (from CO2 emissions), sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and other man-made components.
Posted by Citrakayah 1 year ago
Citrakayah
Okay, that's not greenhouse gases, though. Mostly it's smog. Which is bad and all, but different than saying more CO2 would be emitted.
Posted by Subutai 1 year ago
Subutai
Citrakayah, it's common knowledge. Beijing's air quality was recently rated worse than an airport's smoking lounge. The air quality of Beijing is 16 times worse than New York City. A study done by the World Health Organization (WHO) estimated that the amount of airborne suspended particulates in northern China are almost 20 times what WHO considers a safe level. More infromation about China's lax environmental standards can be found here: http://factsanddetails.com....
Posted by Citrakayah 1 year ago
Citrakayah
My point is that if we're talking should, then the argument can be made that no pipeline /should/ be built. Shouldn't be built in Canada (China would not be doing any oversight if it was constructed entirely in Canada). Shouldn't be built here.

Subutai, where'd you get that figure? Seems to me that since the burning of fossil fuels is a basic chemical reaction, it should emit the same amount of CO2 no matter where it is burned. Unless China's power plants have lousy filters?
Posted by Raisor 1 year ago
Raisor
This debate is basically just economy vs environment, it would be nice if either side had given some argument as to how to weigh these two concerns. If both sides win that Keystone is great for the economy but also terrible for the environment, how do I decide which is more important? Some sort of argument on this front is important.

Economy:
Con concedes keystone helps economy and jobs, just disputes magnitude of impact. Pro has a bunch of sources (albeit from decidedly partisan authors), while con just sits back and says Pro's sources aren't good. If con wants to win that I should ignore Pro's sources, he needs to throw up a wall of contradictory evidence. Just saying "Pro's evidence is biased" doesn't prove Pro wrong without contradictory evidence to weigh the claim of bias against. So yeah Pro wins full force of economy impact.

Environment:
The key point on the environment is Pro's non-unique claim: Pipeline will be built no matter what so the environmental damage is inevitable. The China turn that US govt oversight of the project is better than Chinese oversight is a great way to make the environment issue run in Pro's favor. Con's arguments were pretty feeble here, he just says "we will fight it in China" (what does that even mean?) and says maybe green energy will make the pipeline unneeded. I think Pro wins that we ought to authorize Keystone to ensure that a responsible govt oversees the project to minimize environmental damage.

Clear Pro win.
Posted by Subutai 1 year ago
Subutai
@Citrakayah: I don't think you understand what I am trying to say. Let's assume that greenhouse gases are a significant contributor to global warming. The same barrel of oil in China, will, on average, emit more greenhouse fumes than one barrel in the US. The more oil in China, at least from the environmentalist's standpoint, is bad. In addition, Canada is somewhat more lax to pipelines than we are - that is where the tar sands originate in the first place.

Btw, I don't care if you question my vote; in fact, I encourage it. I'm not one of those douches who flips out over debating in the comments. I joined this site to debate, and the comments are a treasure box for debating.
Posted by Kwhite7298 1 year ago
Kwhite7298
I think you're fine Citrakayah, but I believe with the environment part you should defend China's standards as the environmental effects are felt globally, not just here in the USA
Posted by Citrakayah 1 year ago
Citrakayah
Hopefully I'm not slipping towards being out of line to a voter...
Posted by Citrakayah 1 year ago
Citrakayah
I disagree.

If the pipeline is staying in Canada, it doesn't matter how lousy China's pipeline laws are. The Keystone XL simply wouldn't be affected. China could let them hold it together with scotch tape and it wouldn't affect the Keystone XL's quality, because it stays in Canada and has to obey Canada law.
Posted by Subutai 1 year ago
Subutai
No. The pipeline would be rerouted to the West Coast of Canada, and the oil shipped to China. My point was that China's environmental standards are worse than the US's, meaning it would be preferable to have the pipeline in the US than in Canada, and ergo to China.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Raisor 1 year ago
Raisor
1HistorygeniusCitrakayahTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by Subutai 1 year ago
Subutai
1HistorygeniusCitrakayahTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Kwhite7298 1 year ago
Kwhite7298
1HistorygeniusCitrakayahTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct and S&G -- tied...well done, both of you. Arguments is tied because I only saw one strong argument on each side -- Pro only argued for economic effects, whereas con only argued for environmental effects. Pro -- next time, argue for the increase in relations with Canada. Con -- argue that we need to maintain relations with Saudi Arabia, etc... There were more points that should have been brought up but weren't. It was a one-point debate. Sources to con...although pro quoted the sources in the speech, they tended to be uninformative an biased (USAToday, transcanada). Both of you quoted wikipedia....why why why why why???? Should have kept it to relevant sources such as NY Times, CSM, LA Times, WSJ, etc. Nice debate...pretty close one!