BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Offshore drilling prevents environmentally-unfriendly effects

The proposition don't deny there are some environmentally friendly effects, but we do deny the suggestion that these are at all comparable to the environmental problems caused. It is farcical to say that seepage has"more long-term consequences" and that oil drilling is safer than natural seeps. While large amounts of oil do seep into the sea all the time, it is simply untrue to claim that this is particularly harmful. Because the seeps are natural, the surrounding environment is adapted to cope with the oil in a way it cannot for masses released by accidents with offshore drilling.[[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/01/000127082228.htm]] For example, the oil released through seepage is at such a rate that microbes are able to break it down at the rate of production and there is no build up[[http://www.eoearth.org/article/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill]], with only enough for a very thin layer ever able to reach the surface. This surface oil causes no problems and continues to be broken down or evaporated. By contrast, oil spills flood smaller areas with lots of oil over a shorter period and overwhelm microbial systems. We struggle to comprehend how the opposition can point out the minor issues of seepage with horror and yet be so blasé about the much greater issues resulting from offshore drilling.
The amount of oil in offshore deposits could easily be offset in other ways

Even if offshore deposits are limited, they are still immense. Offshore oil from the Gulf of Mexico, alone, is 30 percent of the US’s oil. But energy isn’t the only part of offshore oil drilling. By the latest report, in the US, 63,012 people are employed by the offshore oil industry. They are paid sufficiently, too. According to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, every job connected with offshore drilling earns above average wages. [[http://www.atr.org/maine-gain-million-offshore-drilling-a4822#ixzz0wGN6KkPJ]] That’s just sixty thousand in the US alone. Many other countries such as Angola, Norway, Nigeria, and Greenland are involved in offshore oil drilling Even if tar sands and shale oil deposits are more than conventional oil, tar sand extraction has many immediate environmental effects if not risks. Production of tar sands oil causes at least three times more global warming pollution than conventional oil. Also, two tons of tar sands are required to produce one barrel of oil. So, the difference of the amount of deposits isn’t much, in the end. It is more costly to produce tar sands than to produce conventional oil. [[http://www.nwf.org/Global-Warming/Policy-Solutions/Climate-and-Energy/Dirty-Fuels/Tar-Sands.aspx]] Geographical exploration hasn’t been done since 1990 for offshore oil drilling. Studies show that more drilling sites are highly probable to exist. So, if exploration is done, more potential places could be found and ultimately more jobs. [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offshore_oil_and_gas_in_the_United_States#Federal_restrictions]]
Oil spills are inevitable

We do not understand how the proposition can maintain that oil spills from offshore drilling facilities are “frequent and industry-wide” when out of 17000 wells drilled in the last five years [[http://ow.ly/2owOT]] only 2, as the table which the proposition has cited shows, had “notable accidents”. Furthermore, we still find the proposition using the same Deepwater Horizon accident (whose owner BP has a terrible safety record) against offshore drilling. It is also presently impossible to say that Transocean was “in many ways more responsible for the spill” because investigations are currently underway. [[http://ow.ly/2owQq]] We still say that the Deepwater Horizon accident singly does not prove that problems in the offshore drilling industry are “rampant”. Moreover, we would like to question the validity of the figures that were provided by the proposition’s table because between 1980 and 2010, 16 [[http://ow.ly/2owPF]] (and not 36) spills, most of whose severity is ambiguous, are listed. We also believe that Norway’s strict preventive measures do not demonstrate “the impossibility of eliminating risk”, but simply show how a well-regulated government acts. In addition, Gullfaks C (as all other platforms in Norway) has an advanced blowout preventer that was effectively used before in Norway [[http://ow.ly/2owSV]] , and that had not been installed in Deepwater Horizon. Norway has also temporarily banned only NEW offshore drilling. Regular drilling is normally operating [[http://bit.ly/cMtWbW]]. Finally, we understand the proposition’s deep concern, but if are to stop doing things because we can’t eliminate all possibilities of risk, we might as well stop doing everything including using computers because they can blow up (as shown by Dell’s battery hazards [[http://ow.ly/2owXC]]), drive (because there were Toyota car accidents [[http://ow.ly/2owYo]]), or eat fish because we can die choking on them. [[http://ow.ly/2ox0E]]
England Summary

We have outlined the problems offshore drilling can pose, both environmental and economic, arguing why safety measures are insufficient to prevent oil spills and how the huge problems oil spills can cause mean that the risks are too great to be acceptable. We are not convinced that the 'acoustic switch' the opposition suggest would prevent Norway from suffering any oil spills - their own source highlights that it is unknown whether such a device would work outside models.[[http://ow.ly/2owSV]] We continued by outlining practical alternatives to offshore drilling, such as other sources of oil in the medium term but particularly renewable energy sources for the long term. Finally, we re-emphasised why it is important to ban offshore drilling now rather than simply wait until offshore deposits run out and find replacements then. We believe that together, these points for a convincing argument in favour of a ban on offshore drilling. Unfortunately, we were unable to reasonably debate, within the motion, whether the pleasure of eating fish is sufficient to outweigh the risk of choking. We hope that there can be further debate to solve that issue! Some of our arguments depend on the claim that banning offshore drilling will increase investment in renewable energy sources, something which the opposition deny. We believe the profit from offshore drilling for the most part remains as profit, rather than being invested in renewable sources, while a ban on offshore drilling would make developing new energy sources unavoidable. It would force oil companies to invest in alternative sources. While some of this investment would invariably be spent simply on producing other forms of oil, we maintain that more would go to developing renewable supplies than oil companies would spend if the simply had higher profits. Renewable supplies would therefore be developed sooner than if offshore drilling was not banned, making it more likely that a solution would be found before the energy apocalypse. New ways of making the most out of renewable sources are already being developed[[http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/new-solar-method-080210.html]] - with solar power now cheaper than nuclear power and rapidly approaching oil in terms of price per unit[[http://www.ncwarn.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/NCW-SolarReport_final1.pdf]] - and increased investment would speed this technological development. We therefore believe that, as well a being desirable, a ban on offshore drilling is very feasible and should therefore be implemented.
Well-regulated, local offshore drilling has environmentally friendly effects

To further counter the point made by the proposition, the opposition would also say that local offshore drilling can potentially have environmentally friendly effects. World's major consumers of oil buy their oil from distant countries and the shipping produces vast amounts of pollution. This pollution would be significantly reduced with locally drilled oil for whose transportation little resources are needed. Furthermore, strictly regulated offshore drilling that could be implemented in highly developed countries will produce less greenhouse gases compared to onshore drilling facilities in LEDCs from which major oil consumers buy their oil. This would reduce the demand for oil that was produced in an environmentally-unfriendly way.
Offshore drilling poses environmental risks

The environmental risk taken by offshore drilling is very topical, made evident by oil spills such as the recent BP oil spill and the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989 off the coast of Alaska. In the case of the Exxon Valdez spill up to 250,000 sea birds died, over 2,800 sea otters and thousands of other animals[[http://www.evostc.state.ak.us/facts/qanda.cfm]], (figures from the BP oil spill are not yet complete), having had a massive impact on the local wildlife and leading to a ban on all offshore drilling in America, until George Bush overturned it in 2008 - the recent oil spill suggests this repeal was a mistake. In this way, offshore drilling destroys ecosystems and fish stocks. These resources are vital for humanity to feed its population, and wasteland like much of the coast of southern USA is of no use until cleaned. There is also a long term effect because the remaining species will have a lower heterozygosity index (the amount of allele variation within a species). This is important because if there is a change in selection pressure, such as a new disease, this could leave the remainder of the species vulnerable as they are less likely to survive because they are less likely to have a dormant allele that becomes advantageous. The potential environmental risk is massive and thus offshore drilling should not be allowed because it can have such an effect on the environment, both in the short term and long term. Offshore drilling could lead to the extinction of various species, and a ban would be a sure way to help preserve biodiversity.
Offshore drilling prevents environmentally-unfriendly effects

It is farcical to say that offshore oil drilling hasn't any environmental friendly effects. Which it does-offshore oil drilling is beneficial to the cleaning of areas where oil naturally seeps into the ocean. It is estimated that on average, 86000 gallons seep each year.The US NAS says, “Natural oil seeps contribute the highest amount of oil to the marine environment. Although entirely natural, these seeps significantly alter the nature of nearby marine environments.” In areas where the oil deposits are drilled, the seeps have been reduced because drilling reduces the pressure where the seeps occur.According to studies by the University of California Energy Institute and the U.S. Minerals Management Service, the area around Platform Holly, an offshore oil rig 2 miles from Coal Oil Point, has seen natural oil seepage decreased by 50 percent over the last 22 years. Researchers say that if natural seepage around platform holly was reduced by half, this would reduce nonmethane hydrocarbon emission and remove 25 barrels of oil per day.Also, a worldwide decrease in natural hydrocarbon seepage related to onshore and offshore oil production may be causing a global reduction in natural methane emission rates. Unlike sudden oil spill accidents, natural oil seeps continue for a very long time.If oil naturally seeps into the ocean and pollutes the environment, why shouldn’t the oil be drilled and removed?There are NO benefits to oil seeps and it is harmful to the environment to let it continue. Oil spills caused by offshore drilling, which occur VERY rarely, should be weighed less than natural oil seeps which have not only absolute but also more harmful long-term consequences.The general public is ignorant of natural oil seeps and exaggerates the risks of offshore oil drilling, which when compared to oil seeps are safer. The consequences of natural oil seeps are inevitable while offshore oil drilling accidents can be prevented by responsible supervision.
The amount of oil in offshore deposits could easily be offset in other ways

From the first two points it is clear that mining offshore oil deposits is, at least in some ways, undesirable. It is also unnecessary. The energy offshore deposits can provide pales in comparison to other options. The energy loss entailed by ending offshore drilling in the USA could, for example, be offset simply by wasting less food[[http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727712.700-us-food-waste-worth-more-than-offshore-drilling.html]] Investing in ways of reducing wasted energy - advertising campaigns to discourage food waste, government funding to aid insulation and so on - would be much more effective at helping countries to meet their energy needs. Even in the provision of oil, offshore deposits are very limited. For example, tar sands and shale oil deposits total around double the amount in reserves of conventional oil (on land as well as offshore).[[http://www.abelard.org/briefings/tar_sands_shale_oil.php]]. As well as lasting us much longer, the result of using this oil would be almost the opposite of oil spills - taking oil-loaded sand and returning it to a cleaner state. So offshore oil deposits do not really offer even a good medium term solution. Therefore, we do not need offshore oil drilling in order to provide our energy even in the medium term, and should look to option which are more sustainable (such as reducing waste) or at least provide a longer stop-gap to the eventual depletion of oil (tar sands and shale oil).
Oil spills are inevitable

Far from having '30-year intervals', and resulting from 'irresponsible companies', blowouts and other oil spills are frequent and industry-wide. The same website used to prove that BP was abnormally unsafe has another article proclaiming the exact opposite, that "BP was not behaving very differently from everyone else."[[http://bit.ly/agmpAn]] In fact, Transocean (the contractor who operated the Deepwater Horizon rig) are in many ways more responsible for the spill: Transocean had been carrying out the drilling, owned the rig and a crucial piece of safety equipment - the 450-ton blowout preventer - which failed to stop the accident.[[http://bit.ly/cvD93I]] Far from being 'irresponsible', Transocean recently received an award for its abnormally good safety.[[http://bit.ly/9eOSZ2]] This shows the problem is not limited to a few companies, but is rampant through offshore drilling as an industry. Oil spills from offshore drilling are far more frequent than the opposition was willing to accept - a table of blowouts lists 36 notable spills in the period in which the opposition claimed only one would occur.[[http://bit.ly/bsMNAf]] Norway, far from demonstrating the safety of drilling with suitable precautions, shows instead the impossibility of eliminating risk. Gullfaks C is "out of control" and there is a real risk of a blowout.[[http://bit.ly/b7gbRi]] On top of this, the Norwegian government, realising that they are simply lucky not to have suffered an event similar to the Deepwater Horizon spill, have banned offshore drilling while they review regulations[[http://bit.ly/cMtWbW]]. Deepwater drilling acts at the forefront of the technological boundary, so risks can never be eliminated.[[http://bit.ly/cO5VdO]] Oil spills are therefore inevitably going to occur if offshore drilling continues, and the devastating impacts of oil spills which have already been outlined, coupled with this invariable risk, mean that offshore drilling should be banned.
Banning drilling is unfair to nations and responsible companies

As outlined in other points, we the proposition strongly feel that BP is not a single irresponsible company, but representative of the industry as a whole. We also feel that, while it is politically tough to challenge oil companies due to the high profitability, the great risks outweigh the benefits. Nations' use of their own resources is already voluntarily limited in the developed world in areas where the environmental risk is thought to outweigh the benefits - for example London has a greenbelt on which development is banned in order to preserve the environment - and far from protecting nations' rights, allowing unfettered access to oil resources is a means by which MECs exploit LEDCs, with multinational corporations pocketing most of the profit. While not all oil producers are exploited - Saudi Arabia for example does benefit greatly from its oil - often the Western world is ready to accept lower prices resulting from corrupt governments pocketing the income, which in turn cements their grip on power and disbenefits the majority of that nations' population. The opposition claim the fairness of this legislation is a black and white issue. However, as with almost all issues, it is far less clear cut than that. Environmental legislation is invariably going to be unfair to some. It is crucial, for example, to limit CO2 emissions in order not to unfairly cover Bangladesh in ocean through global warming. However, limiting CO2 emissions is unfair on oil producers and on developing nations yet to get beyond the stage Western economies went through in the industrial revolution - either choice is unfair to some. Similarly, banning offshore drilling is vital to preserve the environment and encourage sustainable development, both of which are necessary for a fairer future. Therefore, fairness can just as easily be used as an argument in favour of a ban as it can for an argument against a ban.
'Survival' corruption, practised by public servants, is usually the result of small salaries, perhap...

'Survival' corruption, practised by public servants, is usually the result of small salaries, perhaps in highly inflationary economies, which do not allow them to make a living. Without bribery, public administration would collapse altogether as no one would have any incentive to get anything done. Thus the level of corruption is determined by the poor economic situation of the country as well as by the policy of the government.
The bribery of foreign officials cannot be fought by international means efficiently if the level of...

The bribery of foreign officials cannot be fought by international means efficiently if the level of corruption at the national level is high. It depends on the political will of national governments, the activities of civil society and other social conditions that exists inside the state. This explains why only a few cases are investigated under the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials. In most OECD countries the political will to prosecute major bribery cases is lacking. This explains why international efforts to combat corruption are inefficient.
Foreign companies simply adapt to the political and economic conditions that exist in different coun...

Foreign companies simply adapt to the political and economic conditions that exist in different countries. You cannot blame them for high level of corruption, which is the inner problem of the state. Involvement of business representatives in anti-corruption actions may contradict their interests by providing access to commercially sensitive information. If bribery was banned, companies would be unable to operate, resulting in less investment and so less development in some countries.
Norms and values differ between countries. In many non-western societies gift taking and giving in ...

Norms and values differ between countries. In many non-western societies gift taking and giving in the public realm is a matter of traditions and customs. Moreover, gift giving is a part of negotiations and relationship building in some parts of the world. It is hypocritical for the west to target developing countries for this as many so-called democracies are hopelessly compromised by business interests through political funding and lobbying.
People are often made to give bribes to officials because of unfavourable economic, social or bureau...

The position of civil society plays a key role in reducing corruption. Its action in taking a moral stand against corrupted officials is an important precondition for effective anticorruption policy. Hence, citizens who put up with the necessity to give a bribe become a part of the problem. It is not just the case of public officials abusing their positions, but of people who are tempted to choose the easiest way out. Recent developments in Kenya show how quickly expectations can change once people begin to make a stand.
'Survival' corruption, practised by public servants, is usually the result of small salaries, perhap...

In every society there will be those who try to 'beat the system' and if the society has moral or political vulnerabilities, there will be more of them. Bribery cannot be justified because it is a serious crime, which undermines the principles of democracy and leads to economic harm as well as social tension by keeping the poor poor. Many officials practice corruption to recoup the cost of buying their position, which perpetuates corruption and puts their interests ahead of those of society.
Bribery is often inevitable for foreign companies that invest in those countries, where corruption i...

The North also carries part of responsibility for the situation in the South due to its role as the bribe-payer. After all, it is largely Northern corporate interests that supply the bribe payments. They defraud the citizens of developing countries who get a less good deal as a result, as well as the interests of shareholders at home whose money is diverted into the pockets of foreign officials. This shows the necessity of treating the bribing of foreign officials as a criminal offence in companies’ home countries. It also requires the publication of all payments relating to foreign deals.
The bribery of foreign officials cannot be fought by international means efficiently if the level of...

International standards on prosecution of companies who bribe foreign officials may encourage positive changes in national legislation as well, thus eliminating legal flaws to combat corruption. Different national rules and standards for combating corruption are not sufficient in the era of global investments and international business transactions. Variation between national standards enables corruption to spread. Companies wishing to hide illicit transactions may attempt to take advantage of weaker standards, wherever they are found. That is why international efforts to ensure the prosecution of the companies that bribe foreign officials are necessary in the current situation.
Foreign companies simply adapt to the political and economic conditions that exist in different coun...

The risk of corruption demand greater transparency from business. Companies have a big impact on the social environment and they have a responsibility to address it. Co-operative actions between the business sector and state institutions are essential for effective anti-corruption policy. These actions are possible only because of whistleblowers, who are brave enough to expose cases of corruption. In turn they need a legislative environment that protects their interests. The OECD convention is an important step forward in this sphere.
Skilled individuals carry the underskilled individuals who have been appointed due to their colour

I am working longer and longer hours and part of the reason is because there are fewer skilled poeple in my industry which needs skilled people. A large portion of the workforce have been appointed in postions which require certain skills and knowledge. MOst of those who have been affirmatively appointed are not able to meet thew requirements of the job without constant supervision and assistance in even the most basic areas. This means that I end up doing not only my work which is demanding and time-consuming but a large part of their work. The most frustrating part of this is that high salaries are paid to these "previously disadvantaged" but incompetent individuals and we are creating a false sense of their worth which simply will not be sustainable. Our economy is being carried by the minority and yet there are thousands who are getting a free lunch out of this. It never ceases to amaze me the number of luxury cars on the road driven by individuals who were apparently kept suppressed when it came to education.