Pro vs. con view
1038 arguments retrieved in 3.0 ms

PRO

CON

  • CON

    You have acknowledged the validity of my statement by...

    The United States should change towards the use of alternative fuel and away from fossil fuels.

    1) "I did not argue that the world would run out of oil at the year 2057. I argued that there would be an oil depletion at the year 2057 based off of the Hubbert Peak Theory." I understand the point you think you're making here, but my original contention still holds and you did not refute it simply by restating your argument from Round 2: we have no idea the magnitude of the "Hubbert Peak", nor can we even estimate when we might reach that peak with any degree of accuracy, which you yourself note here by writing: " It is true that we have no true idea of how much crude oil the world holds". Therefore it would seem to most people that you have conceded this particular argument based on your own admission that you actually have no idea the magnitude of our oil reserves and can no more make an accurate prediction of when we might run out of oil than a homeless man on a street corner - because you both are simply guessing. Another interesting tidbit for you, Hubbert using his model in 1974 predicted that the world would run out of oil by 1995, which I think both you and I can agree was wildly inaccurate, much like the predictions you are making now (1). Indeed, this entire argument assumes we actually reach the Hubbert Peak, as both you and Hubbert himself have neglected to mention artificial ways of producing oil (liquid hydrocarbons) from kerogen rich oil shale (2). Either way, your point has been refuted regardless of whether or not you have chosen to acknowledge it. 2) "With enough oil reserves to meet our demands, we would still be dependent on other nations through the refining process." False. We have upgraded existing refineries' capacities by up to 300,000 barrels per year - the equivalent of adding one new, modern refinery per year (3). Naturally assuming this trend is accelerated by increases in supply, your point is fallacious and misleading. Furthermore, you did not refute my original contention. Therefore, you have conceded this point. 3) "If we are once again cut off from a source of fuel like we were in the 1973 oil crisis, the preparation and drilling of these reserves would take a lot of time and money. Assuming the reserves were not set up for the commercial pumping of oil." We are not assuming anything. I am arguing that we have enough oil within the regions of the United States to meet our current and future demands. I have provided more than enough evidence to support this. You have acknowledged the validity of my statement by instead changing your argument to state that it would "take too long" to get the oil. Most would consider this improper conduct in a debate as you are changing the frame of your argument in the last round - you need remember that we are simply arguing quantities of oil. Therefore, you have conceded this point by nature of changing the frame of your argument to an irrelevant position. 4) "One example was the solar panels and that "we would need to mine extensively for silicon and phosphorus". There is a problem with this statement because silicon is not mined, but manufactured from silica, wood, charcoal, and coal. Silica on the other hand one of the most abundant mineral found on the Earth's crust. It is commonly found as sand or quartz. Coal on the other hand is mined, but is a fossil fuel. We earlier defined; "Alternative fuels are fuels that are other substances other than the conventional fossil fuels". Coal which is an ingredient of silicone used to make solar panels is a conventional fossil fuel and therefore this example does not apply." Your argument for the environmental positives of solar panels is that we can mine silica (indeed it must be mined as it is most often found in ores, not in "sand"), cut down forests (wood too must be harvested commercially), and obtain silica from coal with little to no damage to environment relative to burning fossil fuels. This is an absolutely absurd argument to make. You also completely ignored that point that we still would need to mine for phosphorus, which is one of the most volatile minerals found on Earth in terms of potential for environmental damage. 5) "Though it is impossible to remove all vegetation within the dam's path, this methane by product can be decreased by better planning of the water flow path and clearing of flood areas." You completely missed the point here. "Clearing" flood areas still removes vast areas of vegetation, which then decays, which then releases Methane - the most potent greenhouse gas man is capable of emitting on a large scale. Therefore my original point still stands, alternative fuels are no more environmentally conscientious than fossil fuels - they're simply portrayed that way because it's commercially beneficial for corporations to convince you that progress has been made. 6) "Diesel powered cars tend to have a better fuel economy by 20-40% and produce less greenhouse gases." Of the most fuel efficient cars in the world, the top 6 rely on gasoline (read fossil fuels). Diesel comes in at number 7 (4). Indeed, of the Top 10 most fuel efficient cars in the world, only 2 are diesel. I would say you need to work on your facts. 7) "Bio diesel average $0.28 per gallon with the assumption that the used oil was free." Not only do biofuels emit much more greenhouse gases than traditional fossil fuels (5), they also cost significantly more than any fuel made from crude oil (6). It would seem your either willfully citing made up "facts" that you have no sources for, or your simply ignorant of the true cost behind much of what you seem to be promoting. Either way, your facts have completely decimated your own argument by removing any credibility you might have had. ----------------------------- Conclusion: My opponent initially offered the common and popular arguments supporting a change to alternative fuels. However, when confronted with the facts he changed the frame of his arguments and proceeded to straw man. Finally when that didn't work, he resorted to simply making up facts for which he has no sources. In conclusion, my opponent failed to effectively refute my contentions, failed to provide evidence affirming the resolution as was his duty, and failed to address his opponents arguments. For these reasons I urge a vote for the Pro. http://en.wikipedia.org... (1) http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) http://www.politifact.com... (3) http://www.thedailygreen.com... (4) http://www.nature.org... (5) http://www.usnews.com...

  • CON

    I accept the terms and now await my opponent opening...

    DDO should change the "global warming exists" big issue to "Man-made global warming exists"

    I accept the terms and now await my opponent opening arguments.

  • CON

    The proposition's naive claim on energy dependence defies...

    We believe that the export of nuclear reactor technology results in an imbalanced economic and political dependence that is both harmful for the importer country and the global political climate

    The proposition's naive claim on energy dependence defies the basis of our current international trade system. Nearly all industries present the very feature of which the proposition accuses energy, yet, we don't ban export of technology to cut royalty revenue. For example, Mexico is a major importer of corn from the US and Brazil. While the US corn price may sway the Mexican economy, should the export be banned when Mexicans can't produce enough to feed themselves? Even if a risk may exist, an importer shall make the choice, not the UN. But the risk is not even substantial. The level of market specialization in international trade makes dependence for a variety of, often essential, products and resources inevitable. The same would apply to any of the other alternative energy sources (like solar energy or biomass). Some nations will simply be more competitive for any technology or resource, especially when it is in its early stages. In an international system of inter-dependence, drastic attempts at energy independence is folly. As for the concern regarding oligopolization of nuclear technology, this is not something to be worried about. Unlike oil, where natural geographic limitations centralize control, technology, even nuclear reactor technology, is open to developed and developing countries in the long run. Contrary to the affirmative's point, already there were actually six countries exporting the technology in 2009, including the US, Russia, China, France, Japan and S. Korea, [[http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/business/2009/12/27/34/0501000000AEN20091227001800320F.HTML]] and is continuing to expand into countries like India. As with any technology goes, not every nation will be producing this technology, but it can be expected that nuclear reactor technology will not be exclusive and will expand parallel to the growth of the industry.