Offshore oil drilling in the United States should be legalized

I. ResolutionExtend the burden I established for myself in round 2. My opponent does not make any arguments against this in the debate, therefore if I provide a better alternative to the United States legalizing offshore oil drilling, I win.My opponent argues that my case affirms the resolution by allowing Petrobras to drill in American waters. This interpretation, however, is misguided. Here is why: Extend my argument under B. 1. "The Bush Administration's five-year plan (2007-2012) to open the outer continental shelf to oil exploration included new lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico[.]" You see, by accepting the Negative advocacy we are not legalizing offshore oil drilling, but leasing the rights to the water. To conceptualize this let's look at the lend-lease act of WWII. We were able to lend tanks to the European forces to be used in a war without actually declaring war. In the same way we can allow Petrobras to drill in American waters without legalizing the activity for American companies.II. CaseI'm going to first start off with the extremely rude overview he made to my case and then precede to line-by-line his refutations of my arguments before extending my own.A. Opponent's refutations1. OverviewLet's take a few of my opponent's statements and put them into perspective:"The only way to access said oil is by offshore drilling; not Petrobras drilling along our coasts, a notion that is complete lunacy, but us drilling along the coast."Instead of responding to my advocacy my opponent would rather insult me by claiming that my ideas are "complete lunacy[.]" However, in hopes to having a respectful debate, I will simply state that my opponent has no warrant and move on."Is Con advocating for foreign companies to drill in OUR lands? That makes NO sense whatsoever."Again my opponent chooses to offend me instead of actually formulating answers to my arguments. But enough of this nonsense, to answer my opponent's question: Yes, that is precisely what I am advocating. Got a problem? Then refute it."Do you really think we would make it illegal to drill in these areas, then let Petrobras come in and do it, then reap the rewards? The idea is ridiculous"Once again my opponent asserts that my ideas are "ridiculous" instead of properly refuting them. Yes, I do think that this is what we would do, hence the Bush administration's 5-year plan that allows for precisely this action to occur.Now that I am thoroughly appalled by my opponent's behaviour, let's move on to the more specific arguments he made in the round.2. .A) Let's start off with my opponent blatantly lying to mischaracterize my evidence. Brazil owns 50.7% of the common shares, sure, but owns NONE of the preferred shares. If we look back at the evidence provided (1) we can clearly see that Brazil only owns 28.9% of the capital stock, or the total shares when combining common and preferred. Without this clear misrepresentation of the facts, my opponent's arguments for unilateral control of the company cease to matter, because they simply are not true. But even if my opponent wants to press that they have more shares than anybody else, let's look back at America's capital stock, which equates to 24.5% of the company when totalled. This is only 5.4% less than Brazil. It is quite evident that America will have a roughly equal voice in company actions. There is absolutely no risk of money being siphoned for other uses. But let's just pretend these lies are true, just for a moment. According to a CRS report (2) on pages 5 and 6, the new Brazilian President, Dilma Rousseff "has also pledged to hold down—or even cut—government spending, and pursue reform of what many analysts consider to be an overly burdensome tax system." There is no reason why the government would need to suddenly dilute funds from Petrobras (which it doesn't have the power to do regardless) for increased State spending if the President is CUTTING spending.B) All of the arguments about internal spending were addressed in the above paragraph. I will cover the specification of countries when I extend my own arguments. All that leaves is my opponent's assertion that my idea "sounds too outlandish, and because of Petrobras's unstable situation, not a feasible suggestion either." Before I answer this, I have a question for my opponent: Is it suddenly cool to be rude and insult your opponent's arguments instead of responding to them? As for the actual argument being made, there is no warrant as to why Petrobras is unstable, I'll expand upon this when I extend my case.B. ExtensionsB) Timing: My opponent fails to realize the exponential being undertaken by Petrobras. No company has ever had a larger IPO, and Petrobras put the money they earned towards a $224 billion exploration plan for the 2010-2014 period. This places Petrobras in position to be the world's largest oil exporter. Also consider that due to the exploration plan, in April 2011 Petrobras made new oil discoveries that will allow them to produce 174 more rigs than previously expected, beginning in September of this year. The time frame for the advantages coming out of the negative advocacy are clear and immediate, as opposed to my opponent's "6 years." I'll be kind and correct him as his evidence states it will happen in 2015. But alas, my opponent is once again misrepresenting evidence. Even if oil hits the market in 4 years, his evidence also claims than it will fail to alter prices until 2030, 19 years. This means he is not actually accessing the economic impacts he claims for a much longer period of time. Even so, this estimate was made in 2008, under the assumption that the oil ban is lifted. As it hasn't been repealed, we must assume that the 3 years between it's publishing and now have seen no progress and the targeted date 2015 will not be met. Petrobras is developing now, in the status quo.C) Economic Advantages: We already have money invested in Petrobras, and own 24.5% of the company. While I recommend continuing investment at current rates, we could also leave our investments stagnant and still reap the benefits claimed in my impacts, without spending another penny. My opponent has no possible way to match this return on investment. Remember that Petrobras already has the necessary equipment to drill for oil, while American companies do not, as the activity is currently illegal. You see, my opponent claims that we could "end up broke" if we invest in Petrobras, but the truth is we will have to spend much more on uncertain American development in addition to the extreme start-up costs required.It's quite clear that the most important factor in the debate is the economic, so I'll kick international relations.III. AC1. My opponent argues that Petrobras would not be able to supply America with all of its oil needs. My advocacy gives Petrobras access to American reserves in the Gulf of Mexico. This means my advocacy has access to ALL of the oil the AC does in addition to the oil coming from other rigs. Even if other countries are buying oil from Petrobras, there is an exponentially larger supply coming from this company than we would see from American reserves alone. Cross-apply my time frame argument, we aren't seeing his impacts until 2030 at the soonest. Mine start in September. Also extend his Sara Banaszak evidence that states we will only need more oil and gas for "20 years[.]" My opponent's impacts happens when they are no longer needed.2. Again, we start seeing returns from my advocacy in September, while his promises returns in 19 years, after start-up costs. Only my advocacy has immediate and significant impacts.3. Again my opponent insults me by calling my argument "complete lunacy." I make it clear throughout the debate why my advocacy with Petrobras negates the resolution because leases do not require the legalization of drilling. Even if we aren't drilling in American water, my opponent doesn't state why the location of drilling is vital to decrease seepage.