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...
Debate.org
Pro vs. con view
Topic space view
