Offshore oil drilling in the United States should be legalized

Debating always gives me much joy, and I feel increases everyone's knowledge within certain topics. Con gave a wonderful challenge and I enjoyed reading his responses. Although I didn't mean to offend in previous rounds, I will apologize for approaching his claims with incivility; it was not my intent nor my purpose to disrespect you. Being that this is the last round, I will give my final refutations without new sources or facts, and then my final focus on the debate. REFUTATIONS Contention A) Like I said before, it's the majority shareholder that makes the decisions with a public company, and Con even proved that the government of Brazil owns more than everyone else in all Petrobras stocks, amounting to roughly 29%. It's not like a committee or something; the government of Brazil owns the most, so the government of Brazil calls the shots. Con states that the Brazilian president, Dilma Rousseff, is cutting spending and reforming the tax system; this by no means guarantees that funds won't be siphoned for other uses, seeing as the GOB (government of Brazil) owns enough stocks to do so. Just because she is cutting spending, doesn't mean she won't take some of these funds for domestic use. In fact, it more than likely increases the chances of this happening. Just think, how easy would it be for the GOB to fill the monetary holes they are creating with some of Petrobras's funds. It's completely realistic and more than likely going to happen. My opponent cites the lend-lease act, back in WWII. I would like everyone to be aware how that act went down. We traded armored vehicles to Britain and other allies in exchange for all their western hemisphere military bases and territories. If Con is suggesting something similar to the lend-lease act, then we would give Brazil the right to drill in our waters, but we would desire something of theirs as well. I doubt Brazil is in a position to hand over some of their prized territories. Britain only did it because they were in desperate need of those tanks. Brazil is not in desperate need of our waters. Con wishes for me to actually refute his argument of Petrobras drilling in our lands, and I will. It's a known fact the the United States has strong international relations, and yes it makes sense that foreign nations would be drilling, but they would only be allowed to drill in international waters, 12 miles past our coasts. Even if we did give Petrobras a lease for drilling in our waters, it would make no difference as if we were to drill in our waters. My opponent argues that Petrobras has a time frame advantage over how long it would take us to drill, but what exactly is that time frame advantage? His only advantages that he claims are that Petrobras made new oil discoveries that allows them to produce more oil rigs. I'm glad for Petrobras, but that doesn't give them an advantage over anything. First off, all companies expand and plan on contingencies for their corporations. Petrobras is no different, yet my opponent believe that they are the solution. He cites that beginning in September, Petrobras will be able to start going forward with these 174 new rigs. How does this AT ALL affect the United States and OUR waters? These effects are not going to make an immediate impact on America, and they don't correlate with the debate topic, making it invalid. The timeframe argument is a standstill, seeing as Con has provided no source or otherwise stating how long it would take Petrobras to set up oil drilling in our waters. I, however, have given that number, and it is logical that Petrobras would take the same amount of time, if not LONGER, to establish drilling platforms and whatnot in our waters. My opponent tries to make them out to be a super oil company, but they can't build a drill and survey an area any faster than anyone else. In fact, a lot of dormant oil rigs off our coasts would be much faster to reopen rather then build new ones. Petrobras doesn't have this option, though we do, giving us an edge with the time frame argument. My opponent claims if he comes up with a better alternative, than he has negated the resolution properly. How is what he claims a better alternative? Let me lay it out simply. -PETROBRAS- (Alternative) 1. Time frame for setup: around 6-10 years 2. Monetary Gain: Not reliable, too many risk factors 3. Oil Seeps: Only handled in Gulf, where Con suggests Petrobras will drill - U. S. - (Original) 1. Time frame for setup: >6 years (pre-established oil rigs) 2. Monetary Gain: All profit for our companies and our economy as I have already proven. 3. Oil Seeps: All will be alleviated along coasts and in Gulf The time frame for Petrobras would take longer because they are located in Brazil, creating a distance; not a huge impact, but still time wasted. Also, Petrobras doesn't have the advantage of pre-established oil rigs, which is why the time frame argument goes to the U. S. , or me. The monetary gain argument I have already proved to be false on Con's part, through the stocks and other mediums that will have to be accounted, such as the portion of funds Petrobras as a company will take. Legalizing our shores for the United States to drill in, however, creates a stimulas in oil activity, and will be pure profit for us. Oil seepage. Con cited the Bush administration plan, saying that it will allow Petrobras to drill in the GULF of mexico, not our coasts. Legalizing all offshore drilling will allow for the United States to alleviate oil seepage where it matters; along the east and west coast, the most populated areas. I will leave it to the reader to decide the better option, the alternative (according to Con) or the original idea, but at this point I think it is very clear that there is NO advantage to allowing Petrobras to drill in our waters or increase investment with them, while there is nothing but advantages for opening up our shores for us to drill in. On a side note, my opponent misinterpreted the Sara Banaszak fact; it's not that we will only need oil and gas for 20 more years, but she was saying that at the very least, if we started trying to wean off oil and go to an alternative energy source, it would take 20 years. That fact was meant to show the reader that oil is here to stay. |Conclusion| In this debate, the reader must analyze, according to Con, whether or not his alternative is more suitable and beneficial to us then the United States doing the drilling. Not only have I proven Petrobras to be an unstable company to depend on for our oil needs, but I have given multiple reasons, all of which are standing at this point, as to why opening our shores for drilling is a good idea for our Country. There is no way that the United States would sit by and allow Petrobras to do the drilling for us while we have it illegal for us to do it. It is a very far-fetched idea and not a more suitable alternative. Therefore, I win the debate not just becase Con didn't offer a more suitable and beneficial alternative, but because all my points were not properly refuted, and they are as follows. 1. Cuts reliance on foreign oil 2. Increase in Economic Activity 3. Oil drilling lowers pressure of natural oil seepage I thank everyone for taking the time to read this, and urge a Pro vote. I also want to especially thank Mestari for being the Contender and making this debate a learning experience. Thank You.