The Instigator
WillClayton
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
Dragon_12dk
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The U.S. Should Restrict Fracking

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 2 votes the winner is...
WillClayton
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/13/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 618 times Debate No: 80760
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

WillClayton

Pro

The U.S. Should Restrict Fracking.
Dragon_12dk

Con

Fracking is a fairly new and efficient way to obtain natural gas and oil. Not only is it efficient, but it is also green, and more environmentally friendly than traditional drilling.
Fracking is the process of drilling down into the earth before a high-pressure water mixture is directed at the rock to release the gas inside. 97% of this liquid is simply water and sand, few chemicals are actually used.
Fracking gives the United States a chance at finally becoming independent in energy, we use this gas for everything, from powering your home to getting from one destination to the next. So wouldn't it make sense to strive to the goal of becoming independent in this thing we rely so much on? Rather than being dependent on the middle east for our energy needs.
Not only that, but Fracking is actually more environmentally friendly than traditional drilling, Fracking happens at a mile or more underground, this is far below the water table, so it is not possible for your water to get contaminated based directly off of fracking. In fact the EPA has yet to find an area where fracking has contaminated the drinking water in the area. Fracking also requires a much smaller amount of drills, allowing for a smaller footprint on the earth, because less trees need to be removed in order to have a drill.
Fracking has the ability to make America independent in energy, while simultaneously allowing for more efficiency, and a smaller footprint on the environment.
Debate Round No. 1
WillClayton

Pro

The U.S. Should Restrict Fracking.

1. Fracking should be restricted as it is bad for the environment.

“The environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing include air emissions and climate change, high water consumption, water contamination, land use, risk of earthquakes, noise pollution, and health effects on humans. Air emissions are primarily methane that escapes from wells, along with industrial emissions from equipment used in the extraction process.”

(https://en.wikipedia.org...)

2. Fracking should be restricted as it produces health risks.

“A 2013 review on shale gas production in the United States stated, "with increasing numbers of drilling sites, more people are at risk from accidents and exposure to harmful substances used at fractured wells." A 2011 hazard assessment recommended full disclosure of chemicals used for hydraulic fracturing and drilling as many have immediate health effects, and many may have long-term health effects.”

(https://en.wikipedia.org...)

Conclusion:

Due to the negative effect on the environment as well as the health risks it is reasonable to “Restrict” Fracking.

Dragon_12dk

Con

1.) Fracking should not be restricted as it is not harmful to the environment, and it is much more friendly to the earth than traditional drilling.

Energy is necessary for life. Therefore it is important to get this energy efficiently and with minimal environmental impacts, currently fracking is the answer to that. It allows for a small footprint, and minimized negative effects of the earth.
Studies performed by scientists and seismologists have proven multiple times that fracking does not cause earthquakes and never has, The cause found by researchers was that it is from wastewater injection wells, not fracking itself. So the question should not be "we should stop fracking because it causes earthquakes" but rather it should be "how can we most safetly dispose of our wastewater injection fluids?"
Drinking water is also not contaminated by fracking, as previously stated, fracking happens well below the water table, more than a mile underground.
Fracking does not cause the climate to change, climate change is simply used as a scare factor to promote political agendas. More scientists disagree with man made climate change than agree, here are 31,000 of them. http://www.petitionproject.org...
2.) Fracking gives us the opertunity to be self sufficient in energy.

For years we have allowed our "friends" across the globe to supply us with the energy we need. We no longer need to be dependent on foreign soil, Innovasion and technology is allowing us to become self sufficient in energy, and this is not an oppertunity we can afford to pass up.

Debate Round No. 2
WillClayton

Pro

Con’s case seems to be mostly mitigation. He has argued that fracking is not “as” harmful, or that there is opportunity in fracking. Even if those were true, they do not directly show why fracking should not be restricted. Understand, Restricting fracking is not the same as banning it. We could reasonably restrict fracking without eliminating it as a source.

I have argued that Fracking should be restricted for 2 reasons.

1. Fracking should be restricted as it is bad for the environment.

Con does not really contend my point here. He merely argues that Fracking is “more friendly to the earth than traditional drilling.” Con even states of Fracking “It allows for a small footprint.” Thus, Con concedes that Fracking has a negative impact on the environment. It matters not if it is as not as bad, as bad, or worse than traditional drilling as the point made is that fracking does damage the environment.

On a side note, Con claims that “More scientists disagree with man made climate change than agree,” this is blatantly false. Consider,

“Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.” (http://climate.nasa.gov...)


2. Fracking should be restricted as it produces health risks.

Con does not contend this point and thus it stands.

From my case and even if you buy con’s case, we see clearly that Fracking is bad for the environment and produces health risks. Due to these negative effects we can conclude that fracking should be restricted.

The resolution is affirmed


Thanks Con for participating in this debate.

Vote Pro!
Dragon_12dk

Con

Unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world where energy, power, and fossil fuels can be obtained from thin air. Many may argue that solar panels and wind power will do the trick, but they simply wont. A solar panel requires many precious resources to be created, and the creation of such panels often result in a lot of toxic waste in order to complete the product, Not only this but largest issue with solar and wind power is simply that it can not meet the demands and it is very very costly. During the average day we see two main demands, one in the morning when people are preparing to go to work or school, and the second in the evening when they return home, cook dinner, and turn on the television. Solar and Wind power are simply unable to meet these demands. So how are you going to get the energy you need to make the nation run? how are you going to obtain the oil and gas required to get you to work? There is no cap on what you may think of "regulation" as this regulation could go so far as to make the effort it takes to get a drill down, up and running not worth it. Already in the U.S.A we see plenty of regulation, just to put up a well you would need boatloads of paperwork, and at least half a dozen licenses and permits. So back to my main point, how are you going to get the energy we need to operate our everyday lives? Are you going to continue relying on foreign soil in the middle east to provide us with the energy we need? or are we going to take a step forward and take the opportunity we have at becoming independent in energy.
And I do believe that most scientists disagree with man made climate change, politicians are not scientists, and using global warming as a scare factor is not going to do anything but push a political agenda against an America with independent energy and a thriving economy. Since 2012 Arctic ice has increased by almost 50% in volume, global warming argues that these caps are melting, they are not. A recent achievement by NASA was a satellite that can measure CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and you may be surprised to know that the spike of CO2 are not coming from our cities like politicians would have us believe, but rather from the rainforest. Any increase in overall climate temp. is believed to be a natural shift amongst most scientists.
The EPA has shown us multiple times that Fracking wont contaminate your water, and it has also concluded that it is not a risk for residents who are near the well.

I stand by my position, and I thank you pro for this debating opportunity.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Bosoxfaninla// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments), 2 point to Pro (Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Con overall provided a stronger argument, although it was very close. Both of you seemed to miss out on multiple points. Pro for instance what these restriction would include and why they should be put in place, your argument seemed to be more for overall banning rather than restriction which was not the topic as you stated in round 3. Also you should have made this clear in your opening argument not your closing. Also don't end the debate with a plead for votes. Pro did however provide sources. Con seemed to again drift away from the topic and argued as if the debate was for an overall ban on fracking. Also in the future provide sources, many of your point I had to disregard due to the fact there was no evidence to back them up.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Simply having sources is not a basis for a source point allocation. The voter must explain how those sources bolstered Pro"s argument, and not simply state that they had them. (2) The voter is extremely unclear on where the actual decision comes from. His only explanation is the statement that "Con overall provided a stronger argument", but that"s insufficient. The voter needs to explain which arguments contributed to his decision, and not simply point to flaws in both debater"s arguments. The voter must also point to actual arguments made by both sides rather than just giving nebulous analysis on the general issue of what each side was upholding.
************************************************************************
Posted by WillClayton 1 year ago
WillClayton
Thanks for voting.
Posted by Death23 1 year ago
Death23
Query: "Restrict" is vague - There are already restrictions - No reasonable person would dispute that fracking should be restricted to some degree; That's a truism. To what degree fracking should be restricted is what should be debated.
Posted by khalder 1 year ago
khalder
Fracking is a method for increasing oil production. I can understand US imposing safety regulations, but not stopping the method altogether.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
WillClaytonDragon_12dkTied
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 forum post, link follows (if questions, please ask): http://www.debate.org/forums/miscellaneous/topic/75770/
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
WillClaytonDragon_12dkTied
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: Con has two negative impacts: more environmental damage from other means for oil acquisition, and no energy independence. Pro has two positive impacts: uncertain environmental harms reduced, and fewer human health harms. I don't know what the harms of drilling look like beyond Con's assertions. Sure, Pro's argument that fracking does substantive environmental harms might be counterbalanced by the reality that fracking would just be replaced with more drilling, but Con's not giving me any sources to back up his claims, so at best I'm giving him a wash on the environmental impact. All that leaves me with is energy independence vs. human health, and even if I'm giving Con impact analysis here, I'd still have to side with Pro because I don't see us becoming energy independent in a system where we're actively fracking. Human health costs win the day. Sources to Pro for presenting some, since they were integral to his points being successful in this debate.