The Instigator
ResilientKeii
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
m93samman
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

allowing deep water offshore oil drilling

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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 4 votes the winner is...
m93samman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/26/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,509 times Debate No: 13227
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (4)

 

ResilientKeii

Pro

We the pro agree with the resolution
Resolved: Allowing deep water offshore oil drilling is in the best interest of the United States.
We offer the following definitions
Allowing-to permit From Merriam Webster dictionary
Best Interest- Authority delegated for taking any action or step the delegate thinks to be the most advantageous to the organization, under the circumstances. From business dictionary
Deep water offshore oil drilling- Drilling in an oil rig of below 1000 meters. From Offshore-Mag
We offer the following observations
Observation 1: The best interest of the United States doesn't have to deal with the long term effects of offshore oil drilling due to the fact that the best interest of the U.S can change later on.
Observation 2: According to CBS News there are only 79 deep water offshore oil wells.
Contention 1: Deep water offshore oil drilling increases job opportunities. The 6 month moratorium does not benefit the increase in jobs. Offshore oil drilling increases the amount of jobs immensely which leads to less unemployment. Each oil rig employs hundreds of people. By 2011 there is expected to be a 30% increase in the number of offshore oil field workers. With 79 oil wells offshore the unemployment rate will drop tremendously. With the moratorium put in place it will increase unemployment rate drastically. Banning offshore oil drilling will force a lot of rigs to close, forcing oil companies to fire a lot of workers. Unemployment will rise, forcing the government to pay millions of dollars more for unemployment life lines. Millions of dollars that could be better spent on bettering American society. We ought not ban these oil wells due to the fact that an increase in jobs is in the best interest of the United States.
Contention 2: Deep water offshore oil drilling decreases our dependency on foreign oil. According to Huffington Post, President Obama proposed a plan in March to increase domestic offshore oil drilling. The main reason was to decrease the dependency on foreign oil. With less reliance on foreign oil the U.S wouldn't have to worry about the prices of oil increasing or a country refusing to sell an adequate amount of oil. Less reliance on foreign oil also allows us less competition with countries such as China. According to MSNBC "China has become one of the biggest oil consumers in the world, and economists expected it would burn even more fuel this year." Buying from OPEC will make competition harder for the U.S. By drilling in deep water offshore the U.S doesn't have to rely on depleting oil supplies, and that our oil companies don't have to compete with foreign oil companies, especially the oil companies that belong to the country that own the oil fields. Constantly buying from companies such as OPEC won't benefit the U.S as much as drilling offshore.
Contention 3:. By banning deep water offshore oil drilling, it damages United States businesses. According to USA Today in Galveston, Texas Craig Marston, general manager of the 80-employee Malin International Ship Repair, didn't have any oil-related clients scheduled to come in. Instead, he's bracing for a 30% to 40% drop in business in the next few weeks as the full impact of the moratorium, in its third month, sets in. Less drilling means less business for hundreds of companies from Texas to Alabama, including shipbuilders, repair shops and those that supply boats to service the rigs. With the constant amount of jobs loss by the moratorium our country will suffer severely. After the BP oil spill problems only worsened due to the job losses. Even now the government may lift the moratorium due to the countless job losses. This simply does not benefit Americans. It is in our best interest to continue to drill.
m93samman

Con

I thank my opponent for this debate and look forward to an interesting exchange of ideas.

I accept all of my opponents definitions, emphasizing the definition of Deep water offshore oil drilling; the important part being the defining factor of "below 1000 meters". Now, let's begin with the top of the affirmative case.

[REBUTTAL OF PRO CASE]

Obs. 1: My opponent claims that we don't have to deal with the long term effects because the US can change; this is a ridiculous claim, it's like saying I can take any action I want and not worry about the impacts because I can fix it later. If I launch a nuclear weapon, I doubt that I can solve it; if I choose to run a communist government (e.g. Russia, China) I will feel the impacts long after I change.

Obs. 2: I'm perfectly fine with that; this will be critical in the round.

Now, to the beef of the case.

Contention 1: My opponent seeks to solve for economic problems by saving the jobs in the deepwater-offshore-oil-drilling sector. He then provides stats that by 2011, the number of workers will increase by 30% in offshore oil fields. Consider the following responses.

1- He says that the rigs employ hundreds; given 79 rigs, a 30% increase would only add several thousand jobs to the economy that is millions of jobs deficient. [3] The impact is not significant enough to look to in the round.
2- The 30% increase is in "offshore oil"; notice how his lack-of-a-source doesn't specify that it is in DEEPWATER offshore oil. The impact isn't even applicable to my opponents advocacy.
3- His claim that unemployment will increase "drastically" is unwarranted; rather, I contend that offshore oil drilling would NOT produce any new jobs, and advocate the following: we should take the money used on deepwater offshore oil drilling and spend it on green energy and traditional fuels [1]

Looking to his second contention, we go foreign. His argument is contingent upon a very shaky link- that is, the allowance of deepwater offshore oil drilling will decrease our dependency on foreign oil noticeably. The problem is, or rather, the problems are, numerous and rampant in this argument.

1- The Huffington Post article is not unique to DEEPWATER offshore oil drilling. He can't claim the impacts of the argument.
2- The "competition" with China seems to be a negative impact... My opponent doesn't clarify what we are competing with China in. The from MSNBC says that China is a monstrous oil consumer, so I would rationally assume that my opponent wants us to compete with China's oil consumption. Unfortunately, deepwater offshore oil drilling won't provide much- like he said, we only have 79 rigs. Moreover, if we allowed offshore oil drilling (again, not unique to deepwater) we would only decrease our dependence by 2.5%. With only the deepwater rigs, the number is even LESS. [1]
3- Our reliance on foreign oil can only be solved either by reverting to alternative energy OR tapping into our largest reserves- which are on land. 200 billion barrels of oil we sit upon, untapped, in the Northwest US. [2] This would far outweigh the impacts of deepwater drilling.

My opponents 3rd contention is unstable. He makes a claim, that "banning deep water drilling... damages US businesses." Then he provides a testimony from a whiny old man who had no clients. Poor Mr. Marston. Meanwhile, US businesses are in no way affected given my opponents data/source. The link is unstable, and given that my opponent has the burden of proof in his third contention, I can safely drop it from the debate.

To provide a few arguments against the resolution.

[CON CASE]

Contention 1: Deepwater offshore oil drilling is insignificant.

As my opponent provided, we only have 79 deepwater rigs. The millions of dollars that go into maintaining a rig could, like mentioned before, be used much more efficiently in other sectors.

Contention 2: We can rely on shallow water drilling and on land drilling. Deepwater is unnecessary and has significant potential problems. [4] The environmental problems outweight the economic potential benefits, which my opponent has scarcely provided for. We can look to the BP spill and see that, as my opponent claimed in his Obs. 1, the US cannot make changes that easily. The environmental impacts will plague us for years, and we can't do anything about it; and just that one blast has cost dozens of billions of dollars [5]. We don't need to look far to see that deepwater offshore oil drilling is NOT in the best interest of the United States.

The resolution is negated.

[SOURCES]
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Sorry they were presented in a random order in the round :P

[1] http://na.oceana.org...

[2] http://www.nextenergynews.com...

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

[4] http://www.environmentflorida.org...

[5] http://news.yahoo.com...
Debate Round No. 1
ResilientKeii

Pro

ResilientKeii forfeited this round.
m93samman

Con

What a shame. Extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
ResilientKeii

Pro

ResilientKeii forfeited this round.
m93samman

Con

I'm gonna have a lot of difficulty refuting that... because I can't.
Debate Round No. 3
ResilientKeii

Pro

ResilientKeii forfeited this round.
m93samman

Con

Offshore drilling causes nuclear warfare and will lead to the extinction of humanity. Vote con.
Debate Round No. 4
ResilientKeii

Pro

ResilientKeii forfeited this round.
m93samman

Con

My opponent has conceded that deep water offshore oil drilling will be our apocalypse. Vote con
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by m93samman 4 years ago
m93samman
Thanks for making me waste my time on this debate
Posted by ResilientKeii 4 years ago
ResilientKeii
oh thanks for the comments and then friend requesting me.
Posted by m93samman 4 years ago
m93samman
easy win
Posted by m93samman 4 years ago
m93samman
You clearly copy-pasted this from your PF case. This is a bad case btw; so many inherent contradictions. I'm thinking of taking this, but I don't wanna do research.
Posted by FREEDO 4 years ago
FREEDO
"We the Pro"

Who is we? Is more than one person using the account?
Posted by annhasle 4 years ago
annhasle
Here's a tip - USE THE ENTER KEY. If you put spaces between your paragraphs, it makes it 10X easier to read. And you'll get A LOT more views.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by bluesteel 4 years ago
bluesteel
ResilientKeiim93sammanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by LaissezFaire 4 years ago
LaissezFaire
ResilientKeiim93sammanTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Koopin 4 years ago
Koopin
ResilientKeiim93sammanTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by m93samman 4 years ago
m93samman
ResilientKeiim93sammanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01