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

For this round, I will post my second speech and crossfire. Second speech: In response to my first contention my opponent said that achieving energy independence is feasible without drilling offshore, reliance on oil does not encourage "clean" energy development, and competition is inherently good for the (US) economy. I won't dispute the fact that the United States sits on top of a 200 billion barrel oil field. My opponent's source is from February 2008. It's the year 2010, and behold, we have an oil spill on our hands. If there was such a large oil deposit ripe for exploitation, why would oil companies risk getting sued over ecological damage to drill offshore? It doesn't make sense. I've also got sources that say that there really isn't that much oil in the Bakken formation. Whether clean energy helps the environment is a different debate. But regardless of whether clean energy helps the environment, there is no reason to believe that a reliance on oil will slow our progress towards clean energy. There are new, "clean" vehicles being developed, and they will soon be mass produced. Everyone knows that oil is a finite resource and that we will soon need to find a new fuel. The sooner the better. Competition is inherently good for the United States, when the United States is the seller. My argument has nothing to o with domestic capitalism. In my first contention, I wrote about competition on the international scale. When several countries compete for a resource, the producer of that resource always benefits. Unfortunately for the United States, in the competition for oil, it is the consumer, not the producer. The supply of oil is going down while demand for it is going up. The increasing demand is the result of rising populations and competition between world powers. If you apply the rules of supply and demand, oil prices will increase dramatically. More competition only lowers oil prices when oil companies compete. That means only competition on a domestic scale is beneficial to a country. International competition is bad for all competing countries. In response to my second contention, my opponent refers to the fact that there is a massive oil field under North Dakota. This doesn't mean that offshore drilling doesn't increase the supply of usable oil. In response to my 3rd contention, my opponent suggests another way to supply the unemployed with jobs. I agree that Ipod production provides jobs. I also agree that offshore drilling has harmed the public. But with economics, and everything else, we need to look at the long-term. Would allowing offshore drilling benefit society in the long-term? I believe it will. The ultra-deep depths at which the oil companies are now forced to drill provide a very difficult engineering challenge. This engineering challenge will be difficult to surpass, but once surpassed, a lot of new things are possible. Underwater exploration by humans (instead of robots) will be that much closer. Body armor will be made much more durable. The day that man first sets foot on Mars will draw nearer. These are just a few of the things that would happen when ultra-deep depths are conquered, but it could never happen if offshore drilling is prohibited. Any advancement in technology is beneficial to society. Sources: http://jacksonville.com... Crossfire: 1. You said that because we have that massive oil field under North Dakota, we don't need to drill offshore. What do we do when that oil field produces no more? 2. If oil is so damaging to the environment, why do we use oil? What alternative to oil do you suggest? Factor in cost and universal availability. 3. What evidence do you have to prove that the US economy was driven by competition since the birth of the US? 4. Yes, lots of oil have been wasted and is tragically on the loose in the Gulf. How many gallons have been produced offshore without accidents? Why has the Deep Water Horizon well exploded while all other wells remain intact? 5. Coastal states rely on the ocean for their economies. What does the Ipod have to do with the ocean? How is it going to benefit the coastal states in any way? 6. We can force BP and other oil companies to lay off thousands of American workers. Should we? I'll let the voters decide.