The Instigator
mph360
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
IlaRN
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points

fracking

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 1 vote the winner is...
IlaRN
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/18/2016 Category: Health
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 142 times Debate No: 96221
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

mph360

Con

Fracking is detrimental rather than beneficial to the environment and populations in the areas (s) surrounding due to the risks posed to drinking water for those living near to fracking sites.
IlaRN

Pro

For this debate, I will be addressing the environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing (fracking), is our best method of obtaining energy. In an effort to find alternative sources of energy a new drilling technology, hydraulic fracturing (fracking), has become popular in many states. Fracking is a technique in which water, chemicals and sand are shot laterally to free oil or gas from rock. In the U. S. hydraulic fracturing for natural gas has not caused widespread harm to the public"s health or drinking water. I agree with the studies conducted by the EPA have determined that fracking is safe as long as strong controls are in place and industry best practices are followed and accept the debate.
Debate Round No. 1
mph360

Con

In response, I can agree that there are standards in place that are helpful, but they are not a solution to the issue at hand. There are too many unknowns associated, risks, and possibilities with the what ifs that can be present with fracking. Most especially areas in and around sources of water. We must look at the way that fracking has managed to avoid additional regulations The use of these tactics hurts those most directly impacted by fracking; not necessarily reaping the economic benefits that fracking may be seen to bring. Fracking, specifically, is exempted from the Safe Drinking Water Act.
IlaRN

Pro

Global warming is a serious issue that fracking can help to alleviate. Fracking is important to global economic stability until a renewable energy source becomes practical . As the earth attempts so support nine billion people we will require a large array of energy resources, with breakthroughs such as fracking. Replacing coal with natural gas in power plants can reduce these plants" greenhouse emissions by up to 50% (Howarth, Ingraffea, & Engelder, 2011). Today, in the United States, fracking accounts for 50% of produced natural gas and 33% of petroleum (Howarth et al., 2011). The gas industry in America accounts for US$385 billion in direct economic activity and nearly 3 million jobs (Howarth et al., 2011). There are environmental risks, but these can be managed through existing, and rapidly improving, technologies and regulations.
References
Howarth, R. W., Ingraffea, A., & Engelder, T. (2011). Natural gas: Should fracking stop?. Nature, 477(7364), 271-275. doi:10.1038/477271a
Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by theobjectiveobjective 1 month ago
theobjectiveobjective
mph360IlaRNTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments did not describe any real, specific negative effects, only known effects which were not mentioned. Pro made more arguments, that it can reduce greenhouse emissions, provide economic benefits and the opportunity to manage the risks of fracking. Further, Pro cited sources to support their claim and Con did not.