Amerca should use its oil reserves and give it to only two companies.

"I'm willing among with probably the vast masjority of Americans to see the smaller oil companies pack their bags in an effort to put more money in America's economy and loosen our dependence on foreign oil. I understand what you're saying and I've thought about it a lot. But the American who has lost his job and is getting foreclosed on would benefit." So, in your first refutation you state that you'd be willing to see many small oil companies get overrun or shutout by larger ones, however later on you say "Are you kidding me!? Unemployment is at a huge high. The lowering of gas prices will bring more oil companies, more trucking companies, etc. Bringing more jobs. The big oil companies can take the hit. They've been hitting the American taxpayer for a little less than a decade. It's their turn." This is completely contradictory to the point you made in your first refutation. You say that America would be willing to spike unemployment, but then you recognize that unemployment is a giant problem. This doesn't make any sense, you're saying that unemployment is bad, but making more unemployment is good. Bigger companies would NOT take the hit, because there'd be two large companies - much like pepsi and coke - who completely dominate the industry. Oil is different than pepsi and coke though, because oil tastes the same no matter what company's behind it. You won't see small, store brands of cola, you'll only see the giant ones dominating the industry. Large companies will benefit, hitting the average american harder by: A) Laying him off, causing him to lose his job. As you've already recognized, unemployment is a giant problem. Why spike it even higher? B) You brought up, "Taxpayer", with unemployment rates spiking it's only going to hit the taxpayer even harder because he'll need to put more and more of his money into the social welfare programs. "These companies can either innovate for benefit of the American taxpayer or pack up." You keep using taxpayer as a term to reach out the general conservative audience, however you haven't shown how there would be any beneficial effect on taxes. In fact, there's only a highly detrimental one. Oil prices lowering are good for a small amount of time, however the way to go about lowering oil prices is NOT the way you're suggesting. You're suggesting that we give two companies a giant upperhand over every other one, completely dominating the market and forcing all smaller companies to change their business or die. This is NOT going to be beneficial at all, and you haven't shown any instance in which this would be beneficial besides the fact that the general populace would be happy for a month or two with their gas prices lowering by thirty cents. " So far just this year: 5 airlines have been run out of business, companies are laying off people by the thousands, the lay offs in march were in the hundreds of thousands, airline lay offs are huge, delta just cut their work force in half, car companies are feeling the burn, any company that ships anything anywhere has tremendous loss, causing lay offs, boating companies are feeling the burn, every American feels the burn. " Is this really an argument for your case? A prevalent theme throughout your arguments seems to be that unemployment is bad, and you go on to say that: "the millions of people this recession will hit globally " which means it's only going to get worse. You've accepted the fact that unemployment is a giant detrimental issue, yet you want to institute a plan that would only cause MORE unemployment, MORE of a strain on our taxpayer's pockets and overall an even worse recession than before. "Those few convenient store workers, gas station owners, and evil corporate bigwigs can take the punch for the millions of Americans effected by this recession and millions globally effected by a recession of the leading superpower." Okay - this is where you're wrong. There is no benefit to this plan. More jobs are not being created, jobs are being eliminated. Also, there's an effect you haven't realized. With only two companies dominating the market, in the long term prices are going to spike up. Without many different companies to keep the prices low we're going to see gas prices inflate in the future. So basically, you should change that refutation to the following: "Those convenience store owners, gas station owners, oil drillers, oil manufacturers, oil warehouse workers, oil company owners and American who drives a car that uses gasoline can take the punch for a nonexistant crowd of people." Your plan is going to effect every American, it's going to drive our economy down deeper than it will already go now, I don't see how there's any logic in your debate at all. "Please consider the average person or average company. If we give oil to two companies we can lower the price significantly instead of in just a small way. This can literally save our economy." I don't think you understand my argument at all. Lowering gas prices enables Americans to drive longer, however it also causes them to lose massive amounts of jobs. You say, "Consider the average american..." however, I think you need to stop and do that yourself. Your entire case is ludicrous, based off of a faulty plan which will only create massive unemployment, end up spiking the price of gas even higher, and create a giant governmental and domestic strain to help pay for social programs such as unemployment and welfare. Finally - by wording of resolution, we see that the United States would be GIVING away their oil. World Oil prices are at an all time high, so if the United States is to give away such a hot commodity, versus selling it to American companies (more than two), or saving it for when we really need the oil boost to help pull us out of the moderate recession we face, the United States economy would only suffer. Why give a man a gold brick when you can sell it to him? I'd like you, the judges, to take my opponent's words and apply them. Consider the average american. What's better, a massive recession that will be driven deeper and deeper by gas price inflation, unemployment, and spiked taxes? Or - the moderate recession we're facing now? At this point in the debate, it seems incredibly silly to consider voting Pro, as you can see I have shown that giving away our oil to only two american companies would create such a large-scale impact that our recession would hit much harder, and much closer to home than it would without this action. I urge you to vote in a Con ballot. Thanks ;D ~HQ