The Instigator
ILoveCheese
Pro (for)
Losing
24 Points
The Contender
Rezzealaux
Con (against)
Winning
72 Points

We will never run out of oil

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: 6/28/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,876 times Debate No: 4531
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (29)

 

ILoveCheese

Pro

There will always be oil. As oil depletes, alternative sources of fuel will become more economically viable. A switch from one fuel to another will occur before all the oil is depleted.
Rezzealaux

Con

I define "Oil" as "Petroleum".

My opponent's R1 proves that we will never run out of energy, as alternative sources will always be either found or created, but this does not in any way prove the resolution true. He has not shown how we will never run out of oil.

Burden of proof dictates that you default CON at this point.
Debate Round No. 1
ILoveCheese

Pro

As quantity of oil decreases, prices increase. As prices increase, the profitablity of alternative sources of fuel increase. This means biofuels at some price point will match the price of oil.

It must be noted also that even with today's technology only 40-60% of any oil in current fields are recoverable.
Rezzealaux

Con

He assumes that rising prices will mean that, at some point, people will just stop buying petroleum altogether. However, just because there's a cheaper alternative doesn't mean that everybody will switch over. If "cheapness" was the main principle driving everybody, then all we'd see on the road would be bicycles, and all restaurants other than McDonalds would be closed due to bankruptcy, the only clothes you'd see would be rags, and the only toys children would be playing with would be wooden horses and some pieces of chalk.

Or maybe even less than the above scenario.

But obviously that's not the case.

On top of that, there are probably some qualities of oil that are required for certain machinery to run on that biofuel cannot replace, and even if those are replaceable, there are always going to be people that want petroleum just because they feel that their car/machine/whatever can only run on petroleum, instead of some "replacement fuel". People will do that for oil for the same reason why people buy products only of a certain brand, or of a certain look - vanity.

Until he proves that for some reason rising gas prices will lead to zero demand for petroleum, or until he proves that we have an endless supply of petroleum, you default CON due to Burden of Proof.
Debate Round No. 2
ILoveCheese

Pro

Hrm well i'm not sure my burden is all that and such. I was sorta hoping for a peak oil guy or someone who was going to throw out a lot of links, data theory etc. like the guy that's clobbering me on the global warming bit. Buy you're being tricksome.

Ok, so I have this burden. I can catagorically say that there will always be oil because the process that made the oil that's around still occurs. Sure it's gonna take some time, but there will always be oil. So there :D

Additionally, you need to prove that somehow technology will allow us to tap the other 60% of the oil that we can't seem to get out of existing wells. That oil is just sitting there because we can't get it out of the ground. So even if technology stays the same there will again always be oil. You're burden is to prove we can.

On top of that we can make our own oil:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Thermal depolymerization (TDP) is a process using hydrous pyrolysis for the reduction of complex organic materials (usually waste products of various sorts, often known as biomass and plastic) into light crude oil. It mimics the natural geological processes thought to be involved in the production of fossil fuels. Under pressure and heat, long chain polymers of hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon decompose into short-chain petroleum hydrocarbons with a maximum length of around 18 carbons."

But I think instead that we'll see oil increase in price, tar sands become profitable, then shale, then bio-fuels. It's a question of price. At some point (and we're there now at 140/barrel), these substitute products become profitable. You're examples above have product diferrentiation. In a competitive market place with commdodities, price 'wins'.
Rezzealaux

Con

RE: Every debater has his/her own set of tricks.
_________

"You're examples above have product diferrentiation."

---"Product differentiation" is just a convenient term that my opponent uses in order to say that my example is specifying the wrong things. However, I was simply basing off of his idea that consumers look to things that are cheapest. From my point of view, "car" is synonymous to "vehicles that travel on roads", which includes everything from the Thrust SSC to my old bicycle. Your point of view may be different, and my opponent's point of view is definitely different. "Product differentiation" does not disprove my example though, as everything is inevitably different at some level. However, he gives no reason as to why his point of view is true, so you can't buy that point.

"Additionally, you need to prove that somehow technology will allow us to tap the other 60% of the oil that we can't seem to get out of existing wells. That oil is just sitting there because we can't get it out of the ground. So even if technology stays the same there will again always be oil. You're burden is to prove we can."

---I just ran out of my favorite tea. I don't really care if there's a couple million more bags of my favorite tea at the Wal-Mart three miles down-somewhere-that-a-way; I've ran out of tea!

It doesn't matter if 60% of the oil in the ground is unrecoverable. We can't get to it.

We are using petroleum at a rate much faster than it is being produced. Although he is correct in saying that the process that naturally produces petroleum takes place and that we can now make some oil for ourselves, our usage rate still heavily outweighs our and nature's production rates. It took much of Earth's history to create the amount of oil that we have been using in the last two hundred years.

There's no conceivable way that our synthetic petroleum creation can even close in on the amount of oil that we use around the world per day.

Because our consumption of oil far exceeds our production of it, we will inevitably run out of oil. The "60%" or so of oil that my opponent claims to be unrecoverable is irrelevant to us because it's unrecoverable - we can't use it, so it doesn't matter in this equation. That, and since PRO has not shown how our usage of oil will lessen,

You vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by OrangeFizz 8 years ago
OrangeFizz
The wording of the resolution was stupid. It should have been "We will never run out of energy" or something. Of course we'll run out of oil eventually. It is a nonrenewable resource. There is a finite amount of oil left in the earth. All evidence and common sense points us towards running out of oil.

What a stupid debate.
Posted by jason_hendirx 8 years ago
jason_hendirx
Ilovecheese doesn't want to say anything about himself on his profile because he doesn't want to be outed as a conservative.

Conservatives are the most hated group on this forum, and that is just.
Posted by Harlan 9 years ago
Harlan
Petroleum is also used to make plastics- not only for fuel, and were not likely going to stop using plastics.

Petroleum is useful. Whether or not it is in this era, the human race will eventually, in the long run, it will deplete.
Posted by olivertheexpando 9 years ago
olivertheexpando
well the arg that would have won the pro the debate was that there will always be oil because we cant get every last drop there will always be one drop left no matter what. Thats what i wanted to hear since he didnt say it i vote con
Posted by Derek.Gunn 9 years ago
Derek.Gunn
A classic example of the shortcomings of debate.
There must be deposits of oil that are not energy viable to recover.
If it takes more energy to recover it than it would take to make the same stuff, one is never going to bother (even if one were somehow able to detect these minute, deep deposits).
In debating however, common sense doesn't count.
Posted by djexcelsior 9 years ago
djexcelsior
exactly, if we switch to an alternative than nobody will use oil and then it will remain.
Posted by DucoNihilum 9 years ago
DucoNihilum
Voted Con, PRO proves himself wrong in his own statement, and never backs up the fact that we will never run out of oil, only that it will be replaced by something else.
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
Not the most retarded debate, although I do gotta say that "ILoveCheese" is probably a masochist.
Posted by alvinthegreat 9 years ago
alvinthegreat
This is the most retarded debate ever
29 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Zapurdead 8 years ago
Zapurdead
ILoveCheeseRezzealauxTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Vote Placed by DiablosChaosBroker 8 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
ILoveCheeseRezzealauxTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Vote Placed by knick-knack 9 years ago
knick-knack
ILoveCheeseRezzealauxTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by JBlake 9 years ago
JBlake
ILoveCheeseRezzealauxTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Grimmly 9 years ago
Grimmly
ILoveCheeseRezzealauxTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Labrat228 9 years ago
Labrat228
ILoveCheeseRezzealauxTied
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 vyomesingh_genius 9 years ago
vyomesingh_genius
ILoveCheeseRezzealauxTied
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 padfo0t 9 years ago
padfo0t
ILoveCheeseRezzealauxTied
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 JakeRoss 9 years ago
JakeRoss
ILoveCheeseRezzealauxTied
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 emmccarty214 9 years ago
emmccarty214
ILoveCheeseRezzealauxTied
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