WODC Round Two - Energy

This is done out of a sense of fairness. It is unfair for me to make rebuttals in R2, because my opponent can't make rebuttals in R2. (having not seen my argumens yet) On the same token, it is unfair to restrict my space for opening arguments, by forcing me to offer my rebuttals also in R2. This is not just a DDO thing either. Typically in live debates, both sides make an opening statement, that doesn't address their opponent. Concerning BOP. It's silly that my opponent brought this up to start with or continues down that path. (maybe to force me to eat up character space). I merely explained why challenging the status quo means assuming BOP, and since this is a debate where he proposes an action "should nationalize, and join Opec" not comparing worlds "better off with nationaliztion and being in OPEC", he has BOP. (notice "join" and "nationalize" are actions") I'll continue to argue as much as I can according to the fair structure mentioned in paragraph 1, please note that no arguments have been dropped and my opponent is attempting to win by unfair means. Also note that I use HTML in my debates. I'm poor and have to use my cellphone to debate at the moment, creating some formatting disadvantages that HTML helps overcome. He saw 2,000 extra characters, but as a result of the HTML, I really only had a few hundred extra characters at most. Moral Framework "Therefore, under my framework, the USFG should take the action that is within their own self-regarding ends. Whether those actions are beneficial to others or affect others are irrelevant to normative egoism: so long as it's within the USFG's interest to nationalize, my framework is sufficient to affirm. " I don't really think much of a response is needed here. This is probably what everybody assumed, before actualy reading the debate. The United States should do what's in it's interests. Maybe my opponent felt the need to include this portion, because most normal people think of the world as a whole when forming their arguments, but I'm not a normal person. I'm an American. I think the U. S. is the center of the universe. So anything I argue, will be in referance to what I believe is in the U. S. 's best interest. It's important to keep in mind what the USFG is. The USFG isn't some entity that acts on it's own. It's a representative of the people. It's not a true democracy either. (the democratic part is a check on power) The USFG is there to protect the rights of the people, as well as their physical security. Some balance needs to remain between the two. (security and rights). The best balance is to use their power to protect the rights of the people, from threats foreign and domestic. (see round 2 for an explanation of people's rights). What you should take away from this section, is that what's in the best interest of the USFG (defined as a representative of the people), is to protect the rights of it's citizens. (rights defined by NAP, in R2) It's because the USFG is a tool of the people, and not it's own separate beast. (and shouldn't be) Substance "To start off with, the economic benefit towards the USFG were they to nationalize would be immense. In 2013 oil companies were said to generate more than $1 trillion per year in revenue[2], which would be a massive boom towards our economy and solving back for the national debt. With an increase in domestic production since then with the discovery of shale oil, those numbers are only going to rise. " There are a few problems with this. It ignores the USFG's role, which is to protect the rights of the people. (NAP) The other problem, is that it assumes the national debt is a bad thing. Before I go into the national debt, let me just address the 1 trillion dollars. My opponent is either for putting it into the economy or towards the national debt. if it goes toward the national debt, it's not really going towards the economy. It actually takes that money out of circulation. The other problem, is that these are American companies, so the money is already going into the U. S. economy. Not all of it granted, because we do have free trade, but the government also wouldn't spend all that money domestically, and the little that they do spend, will be at their discretion and not at the discretion of individuals who they represent. The other assumption given here, is that national debt is bad. National debt isn't inherantly bad, and my opponent hasn't shown there to be any harms associated with a large debt. It's merely a tool, and debt can be useful. Anne Mayhew from the University of Tennessee explains; "Debt is just one side of a transaction. "Credit" is the same thing by a slightly nicer name, and credit has long been an everyday tool in both the private and public sectors. Every dollar of debt creates an asset of equal value. As headlines often remind us, each U. S. citizen owes a share of our currently $16 trillion public debt. But Americans also own approximately $11 trillion of that debt " as participants in Social Security, insurance policyholders, participants in pension funds, stockholders, or, more directly, by virtue of having purchased Treasury notes. "Treasuries" are very secure, and those not owned by Americans are held by foreign banks and governments that are glad for the chance to lend money, securely, to the United States. " . http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.org... "This means that a) the USFG makes more money from nationalizing the oil, and b) they will be better able to use it to best serve the citizens of the US rather than to make money for private companies and corporations, which is in the best interest of the USFG. " The USFG is made up of and represents the people, and their rights. The nationalizing of the industry is bad. It's theft. The company would be taken from the people without compensation. (My opponent views national debt as a boogie man, so he can't argue for compensation, as it would increase debt). Even if compensation was give to investors, it would be pennies on the dollar. With these companies representing such a large percentage of the S&P 500, we'd certainly see, almost everyone's retirement portfolio drop significantly, forcing even more reliance on government subsidies. (which cause debt) My opponent, doesn't state how investors are to be compensated or how to deal with the inevitable effects of nationalizing several corporations, wich play such a large effect in the S&P 500, and it's too late to do so now. "OPEC controls the prices and supplies of a massive amount of oil in the world" Most of the oil in the United states comes from, non OPEC countries, and cooperation with them, merely mitigates the problem. . http://www.eia.gov... My opponent is also using the fact that the United States would have more access to oil at a cheaper prices as a premise. Clearly cheaper prices on oil lead to higher amounts of purchasing of oil. My opponent's plan, makes it easier for the U. S. to get oil, and to get oil at a cheaper price. More oil and cheaper oil, clearly leads to more consumption of oil, it's the law of supply and demand. . http://www.investopedia.com... More oil consumption has negative impacts on the environment, which is bad for us. (My opponent aadmits or drops this, earlier this round). With oil being more expensive, it will force people to seek and use alternative energies, it wil have a good impact on the environment, and on the rewards of innovation. Underview "Ethical theories that rely on the maximization of happiness and aggregation of impacts are nonsensical because the universe we exist in is spacially infinite. " None of my arguments have had these underlying assumptions. I haven't argued for any form of utilitarianism. This argument, doesn't effect my arguments or rebuttals at all, not to mention, my opponent has offered no evidence that the universe is infinite, and though we can't know for sure (exactly the reason, this argument should be ignored), there's a lot of evidence to suggest the universe is finite. According to National Geographic reporting on a popular study: "Now a new study of astronomical data only recently available hints at a possible answer: The universe is finite and bears a rough resemblance to a soccer ball or, more accurately, a dodecahedron, a 12-sided volume bounded by pentagons. " . http://news.nationalgeographic.cm... Stephen Hawkings also discusses that the universe could be finite; "no-boundary universe is one in which the universe does not start with a singularity. .. .Hawking and Hartle then wedded this idea to general relativity s view that gravity is just a consequence of curved space-time. Under classical general relativity, the universe either has to be infinitely old or had to have started at a singularity. But Hawking and Hartle s proposal raises a third possibility that the universe is finite but had no initial singularity to produce a boundary (thus the name). " . http://www.pbs.org... Pro's underview rests entirely on the assumption of an infinite universe (something undetermined), and that entire argument, must be thrown out. Counterplan I think we should use the CFR's plan to reduce oil dependance. ( cfr. org/oil. /reducing-us-oil-consumption/p22413 ) 1. eliminate liability limit for spills 2. Incorporate well safety recommendations(see site) 3. 45 MPG fuel economy standards 4. implement ALt. fuel cars 5. Nat gas for bus and truck 6. import fee