The Instigator
jovivalarao
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
izzyg0410
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The United States Federal Government should approve Keystone XL 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: 4/24/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 692 times Debate No: 53311
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

jovivalarao

Pro

I argue the resolution The United States Federal Government should approve Keystone XL pipeline.

-First round is acceptance

- No rebuttals will be made until the final round. You will make your arguments in R2

A one paragraph closing will go into R4. The debate can be extended to R4 on the condition the my opponent and I agree to in the comment section of this debate.
By accepting this debate, my opponent agrees to all rules and definitions in the debate.

Further definitions

approve: to officially agree and accept satisfactory.

Keystone XL pipeline: The pipeline system in Canada and the United States.

Debate Voting Rules

This is a practice round for my classmate and I who both are very new to DDO.
Please vote for whomever can provide the best arguments
izzyg0410

Con

I accept the challenge of this debate! Thanks to all who will be spectators of it!

As the opposition I'll be arguing/opposing the resolution.

Like my opponent has stated, please vote for whomever can present the best arguments and upholds the resolution.

Good luck to my partner!!
Debate Round No. 1
jovivalarao

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate

I argue the resolution that The USFG should approve the Keystone XL pipeline. The U.S is known as the worlds biggest oil importer demanding 9 to 12 millions of barrels daily. Canada is currently U.S" biggest trade partner with oil trading about 1,900,000 barrels daily through the means of railroad systems and tankers.

Definitions:

USFG: The United States Federal Government

Should: To act upon

Approve: To officially agree and accept satisfactory.

Keystone XL pipeline: The pipeline system in Canada and the United States.

The criteria of this debate is Net benefits, whomever can best outweigh the advantages and disadvantages of the given plan will win this debate.

Contention 1: Harms in the Status Quo.

Sub point A) Unemployment

The nation's unemployment rate is 6.7% leaving millions of Americans depending on Government support.

Sub point B) Energy security

The U.S consumes more oil than any other country, importing 18.7 millions barrels of oil per day. The U.S currently relies on countries such as Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and Iraq to import oil to meet the U.S nation's high crude demand. Losing any of these partners at any time would put us in a great Energy security problem.

Contention 2: Inherency

The plan to extend this pipeline originated in 2008 and had yet to be approved by President Obama and his administration. The EPA has already given a report "concluding that the Keystone Xl pipeline would not substantially worsen carbon pollution." [1] The administration is doing a great job in delaying the plan.

Contention 3: The Plan

Sub point A) planks

Agent of action: The United States Federal Government

Mandate: The United States Federal Government should approve Keystone Xl pipeline.

Funding: Through Normal Means

Enforcement: Through Normal Means

Advantage 1: Job opportunities

Unfortunately, the U.S has 6.7% [2] of its total population unemployed and 4.1% [3] relying on welfare. . If approved by the administration, Keystone XL pipeline "could put 9,000 hard-working American men and women directly to work...During construction, the project is expected to create over seven million hours of labor and over 13,000 new jobs for American workers." [4]

Advantage 2: More reliable source of Energy

If built, the Keystone XL pipeline would be about to transport 830,000 barrels of oil a day from Canada to the gulf. This would reduce the need to transport oil with tankers that travel thousands of miles to go from country to country also reducing the risk of oil spill in the ocean.

"Energy security is about safe, reliable access to diverse and abundant energy resources. It"s also about having the choice of how those resources will be procured, used and distributed." [5]


[1]http://www.nytimes.com...

[2]http://data.bls.gov...

[3]http://www.statisticbrain.com...

[4]http://keystone-xl.com...

[5]http://keystone-xl.com...
izzyg0410

Con

I'd like to give thanks to my opponent for proposing this interesting debate.

I'd also like to repeat the resolution, The U.S. Federal Government should approve the Keystone XL pipeline, and remind the voters the Criteria is whoever can best outweigh the advantages and disadvantages of the debate would win the debate.

>In Contention 1: Harms in the Status Quo, Subpoint A) Unemployment. My opponent states the unemployment rate in the U.S. is at 6.7% and suggests the Keystone XL Pipeline would decrease this statistic.

-----My response to this is simply a reminder of logic. Last year the unemployment rate was at 7.9% and the year before it was at 8.2%, thus the unemployment rate has been decreasing on it's own by other job opportunities arising and with no help from the Keystone XL pipeline project. So logically should the pipeline never open, this statistic will continue to decrease steadily just as it has for the past 4 years. [1]
---------------------

>In Contention 1, Subpoint B) Energy Security: My opponent states the U.S. relies heavily on other countries to import oil and losing one of these partners would cause a major dent in the U.S.'s high demand of oil.

------I agree the U.S. definitely has a high demand and losing any one of our partners would devastate the U.S. So we do need to increase trade with our neighbor partner, Canada. But there are other means of increasing oil imports that don't have to be the Keystone XL Pipeline, I'll point out these other methods in my off case.
-----------------------

>My opponents Inherency for the pipeline states "The administration is doing a good job in delaying the plan"

-------I would really like to know what he means by this, what is the administration doing during this delay that is good?
--------------------

>Moving on to my opponents Advantages, Advantage 1 is Job Opportunities. He states the pipeline would put 9,000 men and women directly to work, and during construction it would provide 13,000 jobs.

------Well in response to that I'd like to point out a study done by the Cornell University Global Labor Institute [2], I'll list the different points by number.

Point 1) The report concludes that the job estimates put forward by TransCanada (the company responsible for the Keystone XL Pipeline) are unsubstantiated and the project will not only create fewer jobs than industry states, but that the project could actually kill more jobs than it creates.

Point 2) 50% or more of the steel pipe, the main material input used for Keystone XL, will be manufactured outside of the U.S. So the American workers that were predicted to be making the steel piping actually won't lay a finger on the pipes until they come from an off-site location where non-American workers are building the piping.

Point 3) Also these jobs during the construction of the pipeline will be temporary and between 85-90% of the people hired to do the permanent work of the Keystone XL Pipeline will be non-local or from out of state. So again, where are these "American" workers coming from? Certainly not America.

Point 4) So all in all, The Perryman study, which estimates around 119,000 (direct, indirect and induced) jobs is a poorly documented study commissioned by TransCanada. The estimated work force of Americans will in fact be much MUCH lower. Almost insignificant since the work force will include those from outside the United States.
-------------------------------

---My opponents second Advantage is 'More reliable source of energy' : stating if the Keystone XL were built it would transport 830,000 barrels of oil a day, and it would reduce the need to transport oil in tankers and reduce risk of oil spills in the ocean.

------Although that is a good point, the Keystone XL would reduce oil spills in the ocean, but is it worth building solely on that face? It has already caused so much controversy and opposition that it's projected working date has been delayed until further notice for more testing. Why not just try another method? Like transporting the oil by railroads. I'll list my own points by number.

Point 1) Rail Transportation could transport a combined capacity of 350,000 barrels a day " equivalent to roughly 40 percent of the capacity of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. And over the next few years the capacity can grow to as much as 900,000 barrels a day. Which is 70,000 more barrels a day than the Keystone XL would be able
to transport should it open. [3]

Point 2) Also Rail Transportation wouldn't risk spills in the ocean! It wouldn't even go near the ocean. Another plus!

So with Rail Transport in mind, I'd like to move on to my Off-Case
------------------------------
OFF-CASE
> Inherency :

--Time is wasting! The Keystone XL Pipeline was planned to open in 2015 but President Obama has pushed it back indefinitely. It's unclear when it will open, so action needs to be taken now since the U.S. has such a high demand for oil

> New Plan Of Action:

Agent of Action : United States Federal Government

Mandate : USFG should use already built railways to transport oil

Funding : Through Normal Means

Enforce : Through Normal Means

>Advantages

Subpoint A) Increase Imports

---Canada will potentially increase its exports of oil to the United States by more than 20 percent even if Keystone XL is never built. So reliance on other countries for oil will still not be such a great threat to the Unites States. Thus solving one of my opponents stated harms. [4]

Subpoint B) Environmental Footprint

---The oil wouldn't be transported by tankers thus eliminating the risk of oil spills in the ocean. Should Rail Transportation be adopted the Keystone XL Pipeline wouldn't need to continue being built, thus the environmental footprint that could possibly be left by the Pipeline will be brought down to ZERO.

Subpoint C) More Oil by Rail

----As stated before Rail Transport would transport roughly 40 percent of the capacity of the proposed Keystone XL. And over the next few years the capacity can grow to as much as 900,000 barrels a day. Which is 70,000 more barrels a day than the Keystone XL would be able to transport should it open. Which means getting more oil through a less opposed method. [5]

Once again, I'd like to thank my opponent for this debate. Best of luck to him, I'm eagerly awaiting a response.

[1] http://data.bls.gov...
[2]http://www.ilr.cornell.edu...
[3]http://www.nytimes.com...
[4]http://www.nytimes.com...
[5]http://www.nytimes.com...
Debate Round No. 2
jovivalarao

Pro

jovivalarao forfeited this round.
izzyg0410

Con

izzyg0410 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
jovivalarao

Pro

jovivalarao forfeited this round.
izzyg0410

Con

izzyg0410 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.