Allowing deep water offshore oil drilling is in the best interest of the United States

Let the rematch begin. Before I proceed, I'd just like to point out that my opponent's format is rather hard to follow, so excuse me if I incidentally look over an argument or two. Anyways, ==REFUTATION OF AFF CASE== Obs. 1- My opponent justifies all change based on short term interest simply because the "interest of the United States can change". That is a non-sequitur, and false. The environmental impacts of the BP spill are still rampant and will remain that way for years to come (see previous round for source). The long term impacts will in fact be the US burden to resolve. [Responses to Contention 1] 1- "If we are decreasing the amount of unemployment then it will be significant." If I hire my friend to cater me water in a cafeteria for the entirety of my stay at college, I have decreased unemployment, but it is still insignificant. Moreover, I did provide an alternative (see: Response to C1 #3, round 1) 2- "I am shortening the DWOSOD". I assume my opponent means "Deep Water Off Shore Oil Drilling"; that doesn't even make sense as a sentence, much less an argument. 3- I provided sources already (see: Response to C1 #3, round 1) [Responses to Contention 2] My opponent doesn't "see an attack" in my first and second responses. I'll rephrase them. 1- Offshore oil drilling =/= Deep Water Offshore oil drilling; his impact is non-unique and not a Pro stance in regards to the resolution. 2- My opponent wants us to compete with China; in the stats he provided, we see that China CONSUMES more oil than us. He has to resolve the problem himself, that being, the argument is non-resolutional. 3- A few questions require nothing more than a few answers. "How long can we use green energy?" As long as we have it. "How long will it take?" Define "it"; we already have green energy. "When can we start?" We already did. "How will this benefit the U.S?" (See: Response to C1 #3, round 1) [Responses to Contention 3] I didn't concede that it harms businesses; I conceded that one individual case that he provided has been harmed, and I provided an alternative that could easily resolve his problems. ==DEFENSE OF CON CASE== Contention 1: "What other sectors? This* contention lacks an impact" The other sectors have been provided several times; it seems my opponent reads my arguments independently of each other. Please re-read the argument regarding alternative/green energy. Contention 2: "Shallow drilling still has risks. Where will the jobs go? What will we do with the decrease still? How does this benefit the united states. My opponent has never touched on the solvency of the decrease in jobs" 1) No risks have been shown by my opponent. 2) The jobs will go to the on-land reserves and alternative energy. 3) "What will we do with the decrease still?"... Uhh, how will we have a bigger pancake wait WHAT? 4) See green energy/on-land reserves; I don't need to provide benefits to be in the best interest of the US. Avoiding harm is enough reason to VOTE CON ~~Summary~~ My opponent has made it difficult to debate given his strange copy-paste-attach format of debate; moreover, he has disconnected my arguments in an attempt to avoid refutation. His conduct is questionable. Spelling and grammar has made the round difficult to read, but I have done my best to be as lucid as possible. So far, I'm winning the S&G category. My opponent has yet to make any arguments; he has done nothing but ask questions. Sources? Meh. I urge a con vote.