Resolved: Allowing deep-water offshore oil drilling is in the best interest of the United States.

Thanks to Imabench! In this round, I will rebuild my case, rebut Pro's case, and close with some reasons vote Con. CON's CASEC1: Environmental HarmPro asserts that pipelines must be built regardless of whether its offshore or on-land drilling. Yet, pipelines winding their way through the mainland are not going to cause the types of coastal erosion that would expose people to hurricanes and flooding. Most of America's offshore oil reserves are in the Gulf. [1] The gulf is a hurricane-prone region, and so laying down pipelines there is going to magnify the effects of hurricanes to make them even more lethal and devastating. So, if we wanted to harvest oil from the most abundant oil areas, we would build oil wells in the gulf. By doing so, we would erode the coastline, and endanger millions of people in the process. The second-most oil rich areas (Alaska and the Arctic), also are dangerous areas to drill in. As I noted earlier, "experts believe that oil companies have been unable to show that they have the proper safety procedures and technology to cope with the conditions" in those regions. So, what this shows, is that the two most oil-rich areas are two of the most dangerous places to drill. And, if we chose not to drill here, we'd have access to so little offshore oil we might as well scrap the idea. Pro attempts to downplay the harms of the BP spill. But lets realize that 8,000 dead animals is still a HUGE loss of life and of biodiversity, even if the loss wasn't as great as with Valdez. Basically, just because the death toll wasn't as disastrous, doesn't mean it wasn't disastrous. Consider also the loss to local economies. The website Pro cited also describes the losses in the travel, seafood, hotel, and restaurant industries in the gulf. There was also damage done to the real estate industry. [2, 3] In fact, Pro source says the long-term impacts of BP are still to be determined, and some experts believe the economic harms could exceed that of the Exxon-Valdez. [4]Pro also DROPPED that the process of drilling itself was harmful: "when oil is brought up from beneath the ocean floor, other things are, too. Chemicals and toxic substances such as mercury and lead can be discharged back into the ocean. The water pumped up along with the oil may contain benzene, arsenic and other pollutants. Even the exploration. .. can harm sea mammals. " Pro's only comment here was that we can just not drill. Yet, I am not arguing for no drilling; I am arguing for no offshore drilling. Therein lies a key distinction. C2: Human SafetyIt is hard to deny the oil spills pose at least some risk to human physical wellbeing. Pro never disputed that hundreds of people (around 400) were impacted health-wise by the spill and the chemicals used to clean it up. It may be a small impact, but it still flows Con, because Pro does DROP it (insofar as Pro never contests its veracity or accuracy. )C3: The EconomyI argued that offshore oil accounts for only 2-2.5% of America's oil reserves. Pro attempts to rebut this by saying that it accounted fro 25% of production last year. In fact, Pro is making a non-argument here. If I have $100 dollars stored in room A, and $4000 stored in room B, and then I take $25 from room A, and $75 from room B, I will get the following result:Room A has 2.5 % of the total money reserves, but accounted for 25% of the profits. Room B has 97.5% of the total money reserves, but accounted for 75% of the profits. This examples shows that just because we're extracting more proportionally from room A, that doesn't mean that room A has more to be extracted than room B. We're just taking more money out of a smaller cache. In other words, just because offshore oil accounted for 25% of production last year, offshore oil reserves are still only 2.5% of the total oil reserves in the U. S. We're just taking more oil out of a smaller cache. Therefore, Pro's evidence utterly fails to disprove my multiple credible sources, and so we can extend the fact that offshore oil accounts for only around 2.5% of our total reserves. Pro then says diversifying takes a long time. Yet, why waster money developing risky offshore oil, when we could do safer, on-land drilling and diversify as we go? If offshore oil accounts for such a small fraction of our oil, it seems like a smarter investment to develop on-land drilling instead. Finally, Solyndra is just once example, and is hardly indicative of the green economy as a whole. PRO's CASEI will address the main points of clash as I go down Pro's points.1. Energy IndependenceFirstly, it is relatively clear that 2.5% of our total oil reserves are only going to have a microscopic impact on our energy independence. Green energy, coupled with drilling on land, will be able to keep us energy independent and better improve our economy. This makes sense for several reasons: (1) we have more oil to tap into on land, (2) we can divert money we would have spent policing and developing offshore oil into diversifying our energy sector, and (3) we don't risk local, coastal economies in the process. This plan will not only reduce our dependence on foreign oil--something we both agree is vital--but it will shield us from some of the harms of offshore oil drilling. Ultimately, oil will run out, and so we should have that green economy waiting to take over. Regardless of how suddenly oil fields dry up, I can still win this debate by pure cost-benefit analysis. Keep in mind, Pro DROPPED that offshore oil would barely impact gas prices. So much for offshore oil helping our energy economy and bringing down prices.2. JobsPro's first source based it's findings on a report that "was paid for by the Gulf Economic Survival Team, a Louisiana-based group pushing for more drilling. " The second source cited "James V. Koch. .. hired by Virginia Natural Gas. " Moreover, the second source notes that the study was "cursory" and that "estimates vary widely. " Another study cited by this source was from a group with "ties to the oil industry. " Clearly, both of these sources are biased and untrustworthy. Also, Pro DROPS my evidence that green energy actually creates more jobs.3. The EnvironmentRegardless of how large the gulf ecosystem is, it still has an ecosystem which could be obliterated leading to billions of dollars in losses to the economy. Consider also, why does a spill necessarily have to occur in the gulf? It could take place up in a key ecosystem in Alaska, for instance. Finally, protocols may be enforced rigidly in the immediate aftermath of BP, but as time marches on, people will grow lax. Years after Exxon-Valdez, regulators were relaxed enough, and BP was crafty enough, to allow the BP tragedy to occur. This risk of an enormous disaster due to poor oversight is real, tangible, and empirically evidenced. VOTING ISSUESPro argues that offshore oil drilling will help the economy. He fails to:Provide unbiased evidence of how it would help jobsShow that it would have any benefits for gas pricesShow that it could help us become energy independent because offshore reserves are relatively so miniscule. I argue that there a clear harms to the environment and the economy. I show:That the process of oil extraction itself is harmfulThat it is too dangerous to drill in the Gulf and Alaska/Arctic--if we can't drill here we, we might as well scrap the notionThat an oil spill can devastate local economies. Ultimately, a combination of land drilling and green energy is better than offshore oil. Therefore, I strongly urge a Con ballot. SOURCES1 - . http://www.oilempire.us...2 - . https://www.nwf.org...3 - . http://www.ask.com...4 - . http://useconomy.about.com...Thanks!