The Instigator
djcheetah1
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Proving_a_Negative
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points

should we allow people to carry oil and drill for it on the ocean.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
Proving_a_Negative
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/9/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 480 times Debate No: 76356
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

djcheetah1

Con

No because million of animals are dying and possible drinking water is being destroyed.
Proving_a_Negative

Pro

Burden of Proof

My opponent takes the full burden of proof for claiming that drilling oil in ocean water and "carrying it" shouldn't be allowed.

Argument


Crude oil is used for a variety of incredibly useful things. Oil is converted to diesel fuel (petrodiesel), ethane (and other short-chain alkanes), fuel oils (heaviest of commercial fuels, used in ships/furnaces), gasoline (petrol), jet fuel, kerosene, benzene (historically), and liquefied petroleum gas according to this source: http://en.wikipedia.org...

The United States in particular relies on oil heavily. To make such a drastic decision and ban drilling oil on the ocean would lead to a large shortage. Gradual steps would need to be made even if we actually wanted to ban oil drilling on the ocean.

Rebuttal

"Possible drinking water is being destroyed."

Ocean water can't be drank in the first place. The salt concentration is too high. You would die of dehydration. http://oceanservice.noaa.gov... If you argue that we could use the water to drink after removing the salt, then yes you are correct. The problem is that oil spills only effect and incredibly tiny amount of ocean water. I was unable to find a source that included the surface area of every oil spill ever, however I was unable. I will instead use the Deepwater Horizon oil spill which is known as the largest oil spill ever. It has a surface area of 2,500 to 68,000 sq mi according to http://en.wikipedia.org.... Let's assume it is 68,000 square miles. Now let's compare this to the surface area of the Gulf of Mexico, the site in which the oil spill occurred. The area of this body of water is 600,000 sq mi according to http://en.wikipedia.org.... Another problem with this statement is that oil isn't soluble in water in any significant amount. Why? Oil is made up of nonpolar compounds while water is polar. The water remains there just underneath the oil layer.

"Million of animals are dying."

My opponent largely inflates this number. http://www.biologicaldiversity.org...
Debate Round No. 1
djcheetah1

Con

I said "possible" drinking water and if you have not watch news there are machines that filter out all the salt and parasites and makes drinking water but it does cost a lot of money. Water collects electricity so if lightning strikes the oil on a oil spill or drilled oil it will cause an explosion and a fire. I also looked this up "82,000 birds were harmed. dead birds 6,147, dead sea turtles 613, dead mammals 157. in 1 oil spill." that is not a million but it is a lot that is 88,917 dead and harmed animals in 1 oil spill so you have a good argument but how about this.
Proving_a_Negative

Pro

Rebuttal

"I said "possible" drinking water and if you have not watch news there are machines that filter out all the salt and parasites and makes drinking water but it does cost a lot of money."

Yes, I am aware. My rebuttal still holds true.

"Water collects electricity so if lightning strikes [an] oil spill or drilled oil it will cause an explosion and a fire."

First, I will discuss oil that isn't spilled. Lightning strikes can be prevented. Instead of banning the drilling of oil, we could just put slightly more money towards lightning prevention, which would have a much better result at less the cost to society. "What it comes down to largely is risk tolerance. For example, in 2008 a storage tank holding 1.2 million gallons of unleaded gasoline was struck by lightning in Kansas City. The tank, either unprotected or ineffectively protected, caught fire, resulting in hard cost losses estimated at $12 million once accounting for the lost product in the tank, the tank itself, extinguishing the fire, and facility downtime. No one had thought, or their risk tolerance wasn't low enough, to completely protect the tank from lightning, a solution that would have cost less than $30,000 in total – on a one-time basis." I got this quote from this source: http://www.ogfj.com... Therefore, stored oil can be kept safe from lightning strikes.

Now let's talk about lightning igniting spilled oil. I looked for examples of this in real life, but as far as I know, it doesn't occur often. It isn't a prevalent problem. I would like Con to give as many real life examples recorded in history of lightning causing an oil spill to catch fire/explode. The only thing I was able to find was lightning causing an oil spill, and not actually exploding/igniting an oil spill.

Please explain the benefits of not allowing people to carry oil and drill it on the ocean and do a cross comparison with the losses of said action. You must prove that the benefits outweigh the loss.

Thank you and good luck.
Debate Round No. 2
djcheetah1

Con

Well 1 good thing that may happen is it may stop the risk of pollution and million of animals dying. And ocean water and other water is used for electricity so polluted water could have a bad effect. And just because an explosion never happened it actually might. And even though it is safer what if it hits a rock the oil can then come out .

So try on that and good luck.

P.S. people who are reading these like it if you agree that we should not allow it and people who think we should dislike it.
Proving_a_Negative

Pro

Rebuttal

"Well 1 good thing that may happen is it may stop the risk of pollution and million of animals dying"

Keep in mind the massive negatives. We would have a shortage of this list of 144 items alone: http://www.ranken-energy.com...;

"And ocean water and other water is used for electricity so polluted water could have a bad effect."

Polluted water works just as well as pure water in hydroelectric dams.

"And just because an explosion never happened it actually might."

While data extrapolation isn't necessarily flawless, It is safe to say that the risk (considering it hasn't happened yet) is too low to even worry about.

Argument





Hydroelectric power is a relatively small portion of total energy production for the U.S. compared to Oil. Removing a large source of our energy is too harmful to justify saving "million[s] of animals."

I rest my case. Good luck to Con in the voting phase.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by GIDHIR 1 year ago
GIDHIR
Geez, no need to be a dick about it.
Posted by Proving_a_Negative 1 year ago
Proving_a_Negative
#sniped
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
djcheetah1Proving_a_NegativeTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro showed with states the usefulness of crude oil, they also refuted Con's initial arguments that drinking water is being destroyed, by showing how salt ocean water isn't drinkable in the first place. Pro also refuted the "millions of dead animals" statement. Showing that number to be largely exaggerated. Con refutes none of these arguments successfully. They say that salt ocean water is "possible drinking water" due to desalination machines, however Con admits that these machines are unreasonably expensive. Con's main arguments were just hypothetical risks, and Con never showed that the risk was large enough to be taken seriously, whereas Pro showed successfully that the US benefits greatly from crude oil drilling. Sources were only used by Pro.
Vote Placed by NothingSpecial99 1 year ago
NothingSpecial99
djcheetah1Proving_a_NegativeTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had no sources while pro did. Pro actually brought up data to support his/her claims