The Instigator
lin0913
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Oromagi
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The US should authorize the construction of the Keystone XL crude oil pipeline.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/27/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 531 times Debate No: 43021
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

lin0913

Pro

First round is acceptance.
Second round is constructive only (no rebuttals).
Third round is constructive and rebuttals.
Fourth round is rebuttals only (no new arguments).
Fifth round is summary and impact weighing.

Please keep content organized, appropriate, and respectful. Use correct grammar and spelling. Ad hominem will not be tolerated. A forfeit means a win for the other side. I will define in the second round and set up framework.

Thanks, and good luck!

-Lulu

P.S. Feel free to leave constructive criticism in the comments. Voters, give reasons for your decision.
Oromagi

Con

I'll accept that challenge and thank Pro for the opportunity.
Debate Round No. 1
lin0913

Pro

Thanks to my opponent for accepting. I'm looking forward to an interesting debate!

My two main contentions are--
1. The Keystone XL poses serious environmental threats.
2. The small benefits it provides are not worth the risk.

Definitions:
Keystone XL Pipeline = a tar sands oil pipeline running from Alberta, Canada to multiple destinations in the U.S.
It is an extension of the Keystone pipeline which has already been constructed.

1. The Keystone XL poses serious environmental threats.
So what is Tar Sands Oil? It is heavy crude oil mixed with Sand, Clay & Bitumen. It is worst type of oil for the environment & produces 3 times more more greenhouse gas emissions when compared to conventional oil. Getting the oil out of this region will mean destroying an area as large as the state of Florida!
According to the National Wildlife Federation:
It takes up to 4 gallons of water to clean every gallon of Tar Sands Oil. By the time it is done, we could end up with a toxic lake of the size that will be visible even from space.
According to the New York Times:
Environmental groups have long contended that crude oil is more corrosive to pipelines than conventional oil.
In a Press Conference on January 2013, TransCanada, Perryman, Group, Cornell University, & the State Dept. met & the XL was rerouted. However, it will still slice through America's agricultural heartland, the Missouri, Platte, Niobrara Rivers, but most importantly the Great Plains Aquifer & the Ogallala Aquifer. Because tar sands is 16 times more corrosive & produces 3 times more greenhouse gases than conventional oil, the chances of a leak are a lot worse, & in the event that it does leak the effect will be devastating.
According to Nebraska Dept. of Environmental Quality:
The Ogallala Aquifer is the source for 30% of the entire US groundwater for irrigation.
Do we really want to pollute 30% of the U.S water source? Sure, the pipeline will help with a few thousand temporary jobs but even a minor oil spill in or near the Aquifer would have jeopardized hundreds of thousands of jobs, not to mention the health & safety of millions. Also, my opponent may bring up that new technology will decrease the chances of leaks, but this is not true.
According to the State Dept.:
In 1 year of construction, the XL already has 16 leaks total, with all the "new technology", & only 5% of the construction has been complete.
If only 5% has been completed, & 16 leaks have occurred, by the time the XL is finished CONSTRUCTING it will be at an estimated 320 leaks!
According to CNN:
In 2010, the largest tar sands spill in U.S. history devastated the Kalamazoo River with over 800,000 gallons of oil at a price tag of over $700 million, and we"re STILL cleaning it up, 3 years later & counting.

2. The small benefits it provides are not worth the risk.
According to TransCanada:
The U.S. will be paying $13 billion for the Keystone XL, while TransCanada itself will only be paying $7 billion.
America already has a huge debt to pay. Do we really need another debt raiser that won"t even provide PERMANENT jobs, but rather TEMPORARY?
According to a State Dept. report to Congress:
The XL Pipeline would only create between 4,000 & 5,000 construction jobs for two years. These are only temporary jobs.
The price of oil is determined by the global marketplace. The marginal contribution of Keystone Pipeline oil will hardly make a dent to the total global oil supply & therefore will result in no real benefit to the American consumer.
According to OPEC:
Oil from the Keystone XL Pipeline will reduce global oil by less than a cent.
According to Philip Verlegar, a noted Oil economist:
Overall, the pipeline will have no impact on the global oil market.
As I said before this won"t make an impact on the price of global oil, so gas prices won"t drop whatsoever. The environmental risks are high, we are drastically cutting down our oil dependency & there is nothing that can justify the entry of this dirty, corrosive crude oil into our environment.

My proposal to this situation will benefit us much more. Instead of spending all this time, money & effort on this project, we should continue to invest in improving fuel efficiency. 90% of all crude oil is used to move our cars, trucks & planes. In 2000, cars averaged 17 miles per gallon, or mpg. Today, they average 24 mpg & by 2016 it will be 35 mpg. True, we are still importing 60% of our oil but our consumption is rapidly falling thanks to all these advances we have made in fuel efficiency & eco-friendly fuels. The oil from the Pipeline is not necessary for us because our oil consumption has gone down by 40% in the last 10 years. If we enable this pipeline then all these achievements in fuel efficiency & alternative fuels will come to be forgotten.

Thank you. The spotlight is now on my opponent, to whom I wish the best of luck. :)
Oromagi

Con

By mutual agreement we are disengaging from this debate and request no voting, please.
Debate Round No. 2
lin0913

Pro

Yes, we have agreed to disengage and request no voting. Thanks.
Oromagi

Con

By mutual agreement we are disengaging from this debate and request no voting, please.
Debate Round No. 3
lin0913

Pro

If anyone wants to see the new debate between me and Oromagi, here's the link:
http://www.debate.org...
Thanks everyone!
Oromagi

Con

By mutual agreement we are disengaging from this debate and request no voting, please.
Debate Round No. 4
lin0913

Pro

Please don't vote on this debate, thanks.
Oromagi

Con


By mutual agreement we are disengaging from this debate and request no voting, please.

Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by lin0913 3 years ago
lin0913
I'll send you a new debate. I don't think I can cancel this one so I guess we'll just request no voting.

Thanks for your understanding.
Posted by Oromagi 3 years ago
Oromagi
I'd prefer to be Con (against the proposed Phase4 pipeline), although I think there are good arguments on both sides. I'm not sure whether you can cancel after first round acceptance, but cancel this debate if you can. If we can't cancel, we'll both update our arguments to request "no voting by mutual consent" and let this debate time out to a draw. If you send me a new debate, I'll accept. If that proves fun, we might reverse positions later on.
Posted by lin0913 3 years ago
lin0913
Oh wow, me. You must think I'm an idiot. I'm so sorry -- I in fact did post an argument in your favor. How very humiliating. My apologies for wasting your time... what would you like to do? Shall I create a new debate, and you can accept? You see, I had both sides prepared, but I used the wrong side. If I create a new debate, I will be able to have the correct side posted quickly. Or do you want to "switch sides" so you can be Pro and I'll continue as Con?
Again, sorry for your trouble.
Posted by Oromagi 3 years ago
Oromagi
Lulu- You instigated using the Pro position. That is, you advertised that you would be arguing in favor of the pipeline, but your arguments support the Con position.
No votes have been placed for this debate.