You pick the topic. :D :D
Debate Rounds (5)
That's all I ask.
As this is a five round debate, I will keep my arguments short in the first round.
Reasons that we should continue using and even expand our mining and usage of coal and oil in the USA are actually pretty overwhelming.
First thing first, we should expand our current drilling of oil here in the US, rather then import oil. This will have several major benefits. A) Drilling in the US will us American workers and so provide jobs. B) This will also help keep money in the US, since we import over 9 million barrells of crude oil a day , and with oil flucuating around $80 a barrell , that is $720 million a day leaving this country (over $260 billion a year). If we could keep some of that in the US, that money would continue to circulate and stimluate throughout the economy. C) This would increase the total amount of oil and so raise Supply without effecting Demand. That means that the cost of oil would go down, meaning the cost at the pump would go down, which would help everyone in the US, individuals and businesses (costs less to ship materials around, costs less to commute to and from work, and so on). 
Second, we should continue and expand our mining and usage of coal. While I support using alternative energies, Coal currently powers 48% of this nation's electricity. And while the alternative energies may reduce our personal needs for coal, there is still a need throughout the world in developing nations that are too poor to be able to afford solar panels or wind turbines or nuclear power plants. Coal will greatly help those nations get out of the dark and to provide electricity for them. Once the nation is lit, that country can begin to go through the industrial revolution (which is extremely hard with no electricity) and make it more prosperous. Then, maybe once the nation is wealthier and its people have a level of living that they never dreamed possible, the country can move on to more advanced power sources. However, the move up from the dark will almost certainly be on the back of coal power.
My opponent begins by telling us that the continued usage of coal and oil will help boost our economy. That is what I get from this contention, and If I'm wrong, I pray that my opponent will correct me.
My opponent tells us how the usage is benefiting the United States monetarily. My opponent fails to show an impact. Would our economy severely decrease if we discontinue use? If my opponent cannot prove that it would lower our economic stance significantly to discontinue use of coal and oil, then we must see that there is no impact in my his argument.
Are we debating on a global aspect or US interest exclusively?
My opponent goes on to say that alternative sources of energy would reduce our personal need for coal and oil. So why don't we? Considering it'd be in our better interest not to use coal, as it harms our environment with pollution and such, which obviously lead to health issues.
I urge a negative vote.
My opponent questions "Would our economy severely decrease if we discontinue use?" Simple answer is yes. Coal power 48% of our electricity , and provides about 174,000 jobs in the US . Simply simply discontinuing the use of coal would put tens of thousands out of a job, and cut our electric grid almost in half. The blackouts would cripple most other businesses, since just about every business needs the lights on to work. Bringing in other energy sources (such as nuclear, solar, wind, and others) could minimize our personal use of coal, however the mining of coal for sale to other nations should still be allowed, since it will save 114,000 jobs (mining and transporting) and provide a massive amount of income for the US via exports, in upwards of $87 billion dollars . Which is over $760,000 per worker (so the economics for it providing good paying jobs are there at market value).
My opponent has brought up that coal harms our environment. I disagree with the word "harm." It doesn't "harm" the environment, it changes it. Some animals and plants are negatively impacted, some are positively impacted. The burning of coal releases CO2, which all plants need to survive, it is like their oxygen. So the burning of coal is basically giving plants "oxygen." The Ringtail cat, or Miners cat, is another animal that has benefited greatly from mines and miners.  Using the mines as safe spots from its predators and places to catch its prey with easy.
According to Associated Content, "it means devastation to one's home from nearby blasts. It means flooding of childhood homes possibly caused by valley fills. Environmentalists and Friends of Coal speak heatedly and it seems as if there will never be a compromise on the issue." It is also known that coal mining has led to many serious health problems. Coal mining and production has led to elevated hospitalization for chronic pulmonary disorders and hypertension. Rates of mortality, lung cancer, chronic heart disease, lung disease, and kidney diseases are also increased to to coal mining procedures, whether it be mountaintop removal, or otherwise. Coal mining also releases
hazardous amounts of methane and produce coal dust that gets inhaled by workers causing serious, life threatening health problems such as black lung, according to "Death By Coals." According to A recent study performed by the WVU Institute for Health Policy Research and Washington State University, "people merely living in coal mining communities with no direct contact with the mines themselves, were at higher risk for kidney disease and chronic lung and heart diseases. In fact they were found to be 70 times as likely to develop kidney disease and 64 times as likely to develop chronic lung diseases such as emphysema. Death rates in coal mining communities are higher than in other parts of the country, even among non-mine workers" And this is somehow beneficial? I think not.
My opponent makes the argument that through coal mining, many jobs are opened.
Every coal mining job creates another 5 to 8 jobs somewhere in the economy
However, to replace coal mining with other means of producing energy wouldn't lower job opportunities, because according to the Associated Press, it would be replaced with one of the alternative industries.
So, in the end, using other means of providing energy would be MUCH more beneficial.
Ore_Ele forfeited this round.
I hope to see an argument by him next round.
Ore_Ele forfeited this round.
Ore_Ele forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by wjmelements 6 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||2|
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.