args

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

I will adopt my opponents format and address his points with the appropriate numerals: 1) "As of 2004, the total world reserves were estimated to be 1.25 trillion barrels with a daily consumption of about 85 million barrels. With this we can make an estimation of when to experience the oil depletion, which it to be around the year 2057." I agree with my opponents assertion that fossil fuels are indeed finite in supply. Where I disagree with him however is in the amount he estimates the world to currently hold within its depths. Take for instance the recent discovery of the largest ever oil field found in the Gulf of Mexico by BP - a well containing 4 to 6 billion barrels of oil and natural gas (1). Indeed not only have huge oil deposits recently been discovered, there have also been vast numbers uncovered - 200 fields this year alone (1). With these recent discoveries, it would now appear that our estimations of world oil supplies are in need of serious revisions. For truly it seems scientifically dishonest to state that the world will run out of oil in 2057 when we have no idea how much oil the world actually holds. Therefore this point of contention you hold - that the supply of oil will run out sometime in the near future - is misleading in its assertions and rather invalid for the purposes of this debate. 2) "We are too dependent on other nations for our energy sources, which could hurt us in the future." As noted earlier, the oil reserves in the United States more than adequately meet our own consumption requirements - roughly 21 billion barrels (2). We also must keep in mind that this figure is from 2007 - discounting the monumental recent findings addressed in 1 - and that it also discounts "unproven" oil reserves such as shale deposits and deep ocean wells. Therefore, your point that the U.S. doesn't have enough oil and has to import it is rather a moot point - we have the oil necessary to meet our own demand, we have simply chosen not to use it. 3) "From an environmentalist's perspective, the obtaining, refining, and usage of fossil fuels are harmful to the environment." I find it curious that some environmentalists - for I consider myself an "environmentalist" too - always point to the "unhealthy" nature of drilling for oil, when in reality the damage it does pales in comparison to the damage done by "alternative" methods of energy production. Take for instance solar panels. If we were to produce these on a commercial scale we would need to mine extensively for silicon and phosphorus. One could easily argue that the environmental damage done by mining for these minerals greatly outweighs both the damage done by gases produced by the burning of fossil fuels and the established mining for ores necessary for coal production. Another common alternative energy source offered is hydrothermal dams. However the environmental impact of building a dam is inarguably worse than burning fossil fuels (3). Indeed the building of dams is the single greatest contributor of methane to the atmosphere, which traps heat 25x more effectively than CO2 - making dams less environmentally efficient than the burning of fossil fuels (3). Furthermore recent advances in fossil fuel technology have reduced that amount of C02 produced by modern coal plants by 40% (4). Therefore coal - despite all the connotations and taboos associated with it - is actually not a very "dirty" energy production method, negating your point. "Oil spills have been known to damage natural ecosystems. It is much more damaging at sea since it can spread for hundreds of nautical miles killing sea birds, mammals, shellfish and other organisms that it coats." This is problem with the shipping of oil, not its production. The problems of transporting oil have little to do with whether or not the United States should continue to use. Indeed, the prospects of transporting alternative energy sources - say nuclear waste - are much more environmentally dangerous than shipping oil. "Fossil Fuels also contain radioactive material (uranium and thorium), which are released into the atmosphere. The burning of coal in 1982 released 155 times as much radioactivity into the atmosphere as the Three Mile Island incident." This is the full quote from your source, since you decided not to show it: "Fossil fuels also contain radioactive materials, mainly uranium and thorium, which are released into the atmosphere. In 2000, about 12,000 tonnes of thorium and 5,000 tonnes of uranium were released worldwide from burning coal. It is estimated that during 1982, US coal burning released 155 times as much radioactivity into the atmosphere as the Three Mile Island incident. However, this radioactivity from coal burning is minuscule at each source and has not shown to have any adverse effect on human physiology." Plagiarizing Wikipedia and deliberately editing quotes is not acceptable in a debate. Furthermore, your own sources are contradicting your arguments which is usually not a strategy employed by people interested in being taken seriously. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'd also like to take some space to offer forth a point my opponent neglected to address: cost. The average cost of alternative energies is much higher when compared with fossil fuels - in the case of wind its close to a 50% increase in cost per kilowatt per hour (5). This is due mainly to the fact that alternative energies are as of now unproven, contain inefficiencies of design, and have no infrastructure which can harness the energy they create. Furthermore I'd like to state that I fully support developing alternative energy sources, but I am steadfastly against the sort of panic-driven hysteria that my opponent has offered as a reason to adopt alternative energy sources in their entirety. Because the truth is the sources we have now are rather infeasible and forcibly adopting them would do much more harm than good - the technology simply isn't ready. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Conclusion: My opponent offered relatively weak reasons for why the United States should change energy production sources. Furthermore I offered evidence that forcing an artificial movement towards alternative energy sources would be economically disastrous and infeasible as the technology is not ready for commercialization. (1) - http://www.nytimes.com... (2) - http://en.wikipedia.org... (3) - http://e360.yale.edu... (4) - http://www.worldcoal.org... (5) - http://www.nytimes.com...

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...

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.

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.