CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Remember when Democrats laughed at the GOP's statement "drill baby drill"?
Democrats laughed at the GOP. They told everyone that increased drilling for oil & Gas would not cut the high gasoline prices at the pump. What a shock, again the Democrats were completely wrong, lost in their fear of environmentalist campaign doners.
It worked!!!!!!! All the increased drilling on "private" land has put a huge fear in Opec nations and has caused a glut in oil which has reduced the price of Gas! What's so typical of Obama the liar & chief? He is using these lower gas prices and TAKING CREDIT! Can you imagine the hypocrisy of a phoney politician? They will NEVER admit when they are worng, which is most of the time. Drilling on Government land went down during his term and all the drilling increase was on private land. So INSPITE of the Democrat party, we were able to increase drilling and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
I always enjoy the lack of intelligence that comes from those that think Republicans are on the poor man's side. Just how much money did any of you make from them exporting fuel and wrecking the American economy with high gas prices? Drill baby drill made the oil people wealthy and the rest much poorer. Obama was right, not wrong.
As usual here on createdebate, facts are not important and ignorance runs rampant.
And exactly how is the democrats raising taxes on the poor helping them. Just curious. Please don't make me list the thousands of taxes that the federal and state governments have tried to push through on the poor and middle class.
What a joke you are. Every single news article about this oil price decline talks about how OPEC fears losing market share to the American drillers and is why the oil prices are going down. OPEC refuses to cut production to try and put American drillers out of business. DRILL BABY DRILL worked! Waste someone else time who is one of those low end voters who voted for Obama.
The oil supply in the market was not increased by anywhere near an amount sufficient for that price drop (at least from domestic oil production within the U.S.).
I've seen that report, it's called observation. One cannot produce enough oil as in my example to affect prices. It takes the purchasing of drilling rights, mineral rights, the purchasing of equipment, the hiring of crews, the setting up of drilling rigs, etc. and these things cannot be done in as little as 6 months to affect the price. No economic analysis required, just common sense.
The acquisition of means to increase production can cause speculation to drive prices ahead of actual supply. Another driver would be when the supply increase actually hit the market which could shift prices dramatically.
The point is that observation from the perspective of a consumer holds little value when considering all the variables.
EDIT: I'm sure you're right that one cannot produce enough...but a market is composed of more than one
Increasing the oil supply in the market SHOULD drop gas prices.
In theory the laws of supply and demand should affect prices, but we live in a world dominated by politics and speculators. The stock exchange doesn't sell actual commodities that can be delivered in the present time, the sale and purchase of commodities is usually carried out through futures contracts.
Speculation is a consideration of supply and demand models. If politics are affecting the price through manipulation a, then we would have a shortage of gas.
Governmental price manipulations affect real supplies. We can't manipulate in favor of price and quantity and just have everything for cheap. That kind of "in favor of" manipulation would be impossible. The trade off involved in what you implied hasn't been observed
What happens in governmental price manipulations is both cheap and higher prices due to production reports being released and the anticipation of such reports being released. Speculators gamble as to the results of these reports to maximize profits. This often drastically affects commodity prices without regard to the amount of real product being consumed.
Speculation based on production reports was something I mentioned and is different than gov price manipulations. If a firm produced false reports they would go under in short order. Therefore, production reports tend to reflect an actual estimate of future production rather than simply a desired price manipulation.
Watch the news and Saudi Arabia constantly tells you why it is happening. There is a glut of oil from economic slow downs around the world coupled to the added oil from America's drilling on private lands. The Saudi's do not want to lose market share so they refuse to cut production in an attempt to put American drillers out of business. Saudi's believe they can out last the smaller drillers.
If you don't like the facts, don't waste our time. The added drilling in America has created this competition and the price drop.
Give me a response to the price drop that I mentioned showing where the increase in drilling caused the price to drop. You cannot. Showing that a drastic price drop occurred without an increase in production, shows that other factors not related to drilling has occurred in the past and therefore rules out drilling as the cause of such a drop.
Since production hasn't been a factor one can assume that politics has more to do with price than production, like OPEC nations wanting more USA's involvement in dealing with terrorist organizations. One has little chance of getting somebody to do their dirty work when one is raking them over the coals. The USA is dependent on oil and oil is a bargaining chip for OPEC nations. 1 and 1 is 2, ask Oliver North (it cost him his job).
Obama acts as though no one is paying attention to the statements he makes. He has been accused of acting as though there is no such thing as video tape.
These critics are missing the even darker truth that Obama is fully aware that he is free to say anything that will make him and his liberal cronies look good. He knows the media will hide his contradictions. He also knows that most democratic voters don't follow events closely enough to remember what's happening.
I agree and the key point you made is that the media will hide his lies. Obama has gotten away with lie after lie because other than Fox news his lies are a one day or no day event on the news networks.
Thankfully the GOP laughed in Obama's face and Drilled Baby drill! The other reason we did not have 5 dollar gas was because after six years of Obama's economy, there was never enough growth to use up the supply of oil.
Totally agree. They should spend more time laughing at statements from the GOP like:
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we"
Supply and demand. Learned in economics 101. The more oil flooding the markets the lower the price will be. The problem is most liberals want gas prices over 5 dollars a gallon. The reason the liberals don't want the Keystone Pipeline is for fear the price of gas will stay cheap. Cheaper gas means more money for people which means less reliance on the government for hand outs. Liberals need people poor and dependent on them otherwise they will vanquish.
You really do know EXCEPTIONALLY little about liberals, so why speak for them? First, only some liberals want high gas prices, and those that do want it so as to encourage long-term solutions to the inevitable fall in gas availability. Second, liberals oppose the Keystone XL because it has little benefit to the US whilst burdening us with possible environmental problems along its route, as we have seen from other pipelines within this country, and all for the benefit of a non-US company. Third, this has nothing to do with "hand outs" or reliance on government, and liberals do not need people to be poor. That claim is probably the most ridiculous of all, consider the number of liberals WELL above the poverty line. Then again, the right can't decide whether liberals are all poor, or all elitist, so I shouldn't be surprised about your confusion. Too busy spreading lies, after all :P
Oh please. Publicly liberals say one thing but privately they say another. Higher gas prices hurt the poor. Any liberal should want as much oil on the market as possible to help people who are struggling.
The Keystone Pipeline has a huge benefit to the US, who are you kidding. 42,000 temporary jobs that are good paying. A surplus of oil so we are not dependent on the Middle East for 25% of our oil. When was the last time we had an environmental catastrophe due to a pipeline break. Besides, a new pipeline will be more stable than ones built earlier on. Better technology will help prevent any problems.
All I here about is how oil is about to run out in the next 50 years. Nice try, but completely false. There are so many untapped oil reserves just waiting for us. Not to mention all the ones we haven't found yet.
Do you have any idea what percent of the people receiving hand outs voted for Obama? Of course the liberals need people reliant on the government to keep their votes. What do you think the whole Obama care was about. Free Medicaid for millions, even ones who could afford it. Liberals need poor people, deal with it.
Zico, you have no idea what liberals, or anyone other than yourself, says privately. You simply don't. Any argument you premise on what people say that you don't know about is worthless.
Do YOU have any idea what percent of the people who receive "hand outs" (a pathetic term) voted for Obama? Seriously, do you? Do you have any figures to bring to the table? Any at all?
Here are your figures. democratic number first in percentages
welfare 63-22
food stamps 67-20
medicaid 74-16
public housing 81-12
long term unemployed 72-21
This was from 2007. I am sure the numbers were even higher the last two elections since Obama openly discussed sharing the wealth.
Source 2007 Maxwell Poll and Campbell Public Affairs
I will tell you what is amazing. All you liberals who supported the stimulus package claiming those were high paying, permanent jobs . But when a Republican proposes those SAME types of jobs(Keystone Pipeline) you call them low paying temporary jobs. Fucking amazing how hypocritical liberals are. The unions of all people back the Keystone Pipeline, claiming high paying jobs. I got news for you, all construction jobs are temporary. Union jobs are high paying, that is why they support this project.
Wow, 3 million gallons of oil spill spread out across this vast country of ours that uses 294 BILLION gallons a year. I would say that is a tiny fraction. Every industry has miscues, deal with it. I would much rather have some oil spills and have very low gas prices than the reverse.
Who gives a fuck if the oil is Canadian? The oil all goes on the world market anyway. The more oil being put out lowers the price. It doesn't matter who is doing it. If Obama would have let us drill the past 6 years the price of oil would be much lower now than the 45 dollars a barrel. But I am sure you don't want that now, do you?
I agree. There is no other possible reason for the insane things Democrats have been doing with making it so easy for lazy people to make welfare a career.
The more oil flooding the markets the lower the price will be.
Challenging the denying of lower oil prices =/= denying the law of supply and demand.
Both sides are using supply and demand to demonstrate the effects of their policies and other's policies. Some are arguing that the pipeline will encourage the exportation of crude oil, and thus raise US petrol prices. How the supply will be affected is being debating, it's relationship to demand and vice-versa are not.
The problem is most liberals want gas prices over 5 dollars a gallon.
Who would want that? Are there any Democrat states or counties that are approaching this number anytime soon?
The reason the liberals don't want the Keystone Pipeline is for fear the price of gas will stay cheap.
Nah, most liberals see it as an environmental hazard, and an overall hazard for the safety of people (which would include both terrorism and spills). I'm not saying that I agree with this, in fact, to me a pipeline sounds safer, cheaper, more environmentally friendly, and easier on our infrastructure than trucks and trains moving all that petrol around.
That being said, I don't see too many Republicans and Libertarians acknowledging these things as much as they should, they seem to be focused on the jobs. I suppose that the "jobs" part is just more in line with Republican priorities than the other benefits, so they aren't discussed.
Cheaper gas means more money for people which means less reliance on the government for hand outs.
Erm, by how much do expect the pipeline to drop the cost of crude oil in the US? People can't even seem to agree on what impact it'll have on oil prices, and I simply don't have the interest to look into it myself.
Liberals need people poor and dependent on them otherwise they will vanquish.
Ugh, why would I want to deal with having a poor person dependent on me? That sounds like it wouldn't be very fun.
To be fair, it's fairly self evident that increasing the supply of oil (or really anything that I can think of) will lower the prices, but another factor of the drop in oil prices was to economic damage.
The point of the argument is that Democrats are clinical liars as are most politicians and will say anything to stop more drilling of oil even if it lowers the price of Gas and makes us not so dependent on foreign oil. Most Democrat politicians actually like high gas prices because they think it will force people to buy smaller cars. Things they support are about their agendas and getting their rich liberal environmental doner's to give give give to their campaigns.
Wooooo. Partisan bickering without even scratching the surface of an intelligent discussion. You seemed calmer, but I should have known better than to expect more than that out of you
I'm not going to, and did not initially intend to take a stance on whether or not Democrats are "clinical liars" (perhaps you meant "pathological"?).
Petty arguments and ranting should not fly here, they simply are not conducive forms of debating. That's just creating a fuss, and if anything we'd be better off just trying to have a legitimate discussion on how to gear our energy policy, and how to learn from past experiences.
The point of the argument is that Democrats are clinical liars
LOL
That's the point of most of your arguments!
How many "clinical liars" do you know? How many Democrats do you know?
as are most politicians
Are you going to cite this? I hear this a lot.
and will say anything to stop more drilling of oil even if it lowers the price of Gas and makes us not so dependent on foreign oil.
Anything? Are you seriously suggesting that Democrats (under the rather dodgy assumption that most Democrats are against more domestic drilling, and assuming that "most" means no less than three quarters) are that vehemently against additional drilling?
Most Democrat politicians actually like high gas prices because they think it will force people to buy smaller cars.
I'm pretty sure that most Democrat politicians are aware that global warming doesn't boil down to "car size".
Things they support are about their agendas and getting their rich liberal environmental doner's to give give give to their campaigns.
As opposed to having petrol producers and vendors in their back pockets? Is this some kind of bizarre joke at my expense? Are you high?
I'm pretty sure I'm wasting my time with another lost in their ideology Liberal and there is NOTHING I could ever say that could possibly get you to admit anything wrong with your Democrat party. Have a nice life living in your Big Government world. Time to ignore once again. I've got better things to do then banter words with an indoctrinated Liberal.
For the sake of simplicity, you can call me a liberal, but I'm not a Democrat. I personally disagree with the Democrat party on affirmative action, gun control, most of their environmental policies, and most of their trade policies to name a few. I'm also appalled by the liberal reaction to the Trayvon Martin case (but seriously, it might not seem like a big deal, but I'm a Florida resident and people were always talking about the Trayvon Martin case here). The only ideology that I consider myself to follow is utilitarianism, and happen to believe that, in general, liberal policies promote net happiness for society.
I would not call you a radical Liberal after what you just clarified. I would call you quite naive or indoctrinated by the media to actually look at where our nation has come in the past 50 years and actually believe our society is a happier place. Happy for who? The children with no mothers or fathers at home? All the families living after divorce? Those living on the demeaning welfare roles? All those addicted to something? Is it a happier place to be 18 trillion in debt, or with so many Americans living day to day with huge pressures from debt.
I think our ideals of "happiness" are quite different.
Please spare me the slavery argument. I agree our nation has improved in areas such as this but that was never a Conservative Liberal debate. Christians and Republicans wanted to end slavery hundreds of years ago.
I would not call you a radical Liberal after what you just clarified. I would call you quite naive or indoctrinated by the media to actually look at where our nation has come in the past 50 years and actually believe our society is a happier place.
And I would call you a victim of naive realism for discrediting me as deluded or otherwise wrong for disagreeing with you.
Happy for who?
Anyone who isn't loaded?
The children with no mothers or fathers at home?
These didn't exist 50 years ago?
All the families living after divorce?
Do you want to know what sucks more? Being forced into staying in relationship unwillingly due to social pressures, provincial personal philosophies, financial barriers, etc
Those living on the demeaning welfare roles?
Are you suggesting that taxes for welfare are demeaning? Or are you saying that staying on welfare is demeaning?
All those addicted to something?
And this is the result of our government's actions?
Is it a happier place to be 18 trillion in debt
Our debt has reached a comparable rate in proportion to our GDP before, and that was well over 50 years ago.
or with so many Americans living day to day with huge pressures from debt.
This is isn't the result of privately owned companies exploiting the public? Many are in debt due to student loan debt being non-dischargeable. The bubble is going to keep getting bigger, and it's been about time for quite a while that our gov't allows citizens to abandon their debts. Provided, student grants funded by uncle sam are probably exacerbating this, but it's private schools (and various other private institutions) that charge exorbitant prices because they have the gov't to pay it for the citizens.
I think our ideals of "happiness" are quite different.
Well, this is better than calling me naive.
Please spare me the slavery argument. I agree our nation has improved in areas such as this but that was never a Conservative Liberal debate.
What, you were actually expecting me to relate politics regarding slavery to the socio-political climate of today? I understand that it was not a conservative/liberal debate.
Christians and Republicans wanted to end slavery hundreds of years ago.
Except not all Christians are Republicans, or wanted to end slavery. Not all Republicans were, or are Christians, and many Republicans did not have qualms against slavery predicated on religious beliefs. Rather, many relied on a sense of empathy and compassion, which keeps individuals like myself within roughly accurate accordance of most people's moral philosophies, your's included.
This is my problem debating people on the Left. When I state the obvious facts of increasing broken homes, (over 70% of black children have no mother or father at home) (for whites it is well over 50%) people such as yourself make the mindless statement "These didn't exist 50 years ago?"
Can you see why I truly hate debating those on the Left? OF COURSE THERE WERE BROKEN HOMES 50 YEARS AGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You know that broken homes are much worse today but rather than concede to my point, you make that ludicrous statement. This is why I usually resort to ignoring people such as yourself.
Instead of acknowledging other parts of the discussion, you've stretched out your entire comment into multiple responses against a strawman of one of my arguments.
You didn't mention the increasing rate, just the broken homes that we have now. However, you need to define what you mean "broken homes", and accurately, because it's for the most part a buzzword, empty rhetoric, and carries the potential of seriously offending people when used in the wrong context.
Perhaps by US standards I'm left wing? I know that, in other countries, the whole political paradigm is "leftist" by (our) standards. You've basically left yourself only arguing that broken homes are on the rise, and that somehow liberals like myself are to blame. I didn't even exist 20 years ago, and have, if anything, benefited from the removal of the huge social stigma against divorce and single parenting.
I don't mean what I'm about to say about you in a snarky way, but you don't actually hate debating liberals, you just tend to assume that "those who disagrees with me" are "liberals", and seem to get very upset and offended over disagreement. Does this sound like I'm accusing you of fitting the liberal stereotype? Truth is, literally anyone is capable of being ignorant, stubborn, or an ideologue. It's not an isolated case in political parties, much less with individuals.
The explanation point gets little respect. I like pointing out that it is still an important part of our language :)
I have numerous times watched news shows (not just Fox news before you waste our time telling us that only Fox puts those numbers out) that have given the same statistics of how over 70% of black children are not living with their mother or father or both. It was over 50% with white families. I have even heard statistics of over 80% black families. Whatever the exact numbers are, they are UNBELIEVABLY MUCH WORSE THAN 50 YEARS AGO!
This has happened while our nation has been moving in the so called progressive direction where traditional values are made fun of on our media outlets. Put two & two together. But of course you will say it has nothing to do with it, blah blah blah blah.
The explanation point gets little respect. I like pointing out that it is still an important part of our language :)
Okay, then. Most of the time when someone on the opposite side of the spectrum argues with you, they're not trying to antagonize you, but are trying to defend their views.
I have numerous times watched news shows (not just Fox news before you waste our time telling us that only Fox puts those numbers out) that have given the same statistics of how over 70% of black children are not living with their mother or father or both. It was over 50% with white families. I have even heard statistics of over 80% black families. Whatever the exact numbers are, they are UNBELIEVABLY MUCH WORSE THAN 50 YEARS AGO!
It really seems that divorce and other less formal modes of separation are symptoms of the problem, and not the problem itself. Who is to say that the separation wouldn't have been the lesser of two evils 50 years ago?
The claims of news channels are usually forgotten before they are questioned, and if the events presented in the news are recalled, the new channels wind up being the trusted source of information because they are the only memory associated with the events themselves. It doesn't help that there is a constraint on available news channels.
This has happened while our nation has been moving in the so called progressive direction where traditional values are made fun of on our media outlets. Put two & two together. But of course you will say it has nothing to do with it, blah blah blah blah.
Our planet was cooler hundreds of years ago, and the percentage of pirates in our society seemed to have declined over this time, but of course you will say that this has nothing to do with it.
In all seriousness, our nation has pretty much been "moving" in the "progressive" direction since it's birth. That is, if you consider the expansion of gov't size, decreasing influence of religion, and increased federal control over state power "progressive". Are we not reaping what the boomers sowed? They seem to have the greatest amount of money, political power, and did a lot of the rearing of our present society.
The progressive movement has existed for 100 or so years, so the 60's (50 years ago) had also reaped what the movement had sowed before then. Are you going address my individual arguments, or just going to continue to strawman one of them and completely ignore the rest of what I've said?
It's so hard for you to admit these obvious facts isn't it. This is why I hate debating Liberals. It's like pulling teeth to get them to admit the most obvious things if it hurts their argument.
No, it really isn't hard for me to admit the obvious.
It was tough for me to admit that the conservative ideology and the religion that I was brought up to believe in is badly flawed, in fact I initially joined the site as a conservative. What else would I have to lose in conceding to allegedly "obvious facts"? You state your viewpoints like canon, and naively believe that two intelligent individuals simply cannot come across two completely different solutions without one having lost a bit of their mind somewhere along the road. It's bad enough that you're being intellectually lazy, but you have to go about and talk down to me.
Instead of addressing my individual arguments, you've basically left me with a very lazy reply that puts the debate in a dead end (which you would probably want). The debate begins to fall apart when one of us stops giving effort.
Intellectually lazy? Hmmmm you said that the religion you were brought up with was badly flawed. Talk about a lame remark with no explanation. Tell me what parts of your religion was flawed. You are proving my points brought up in the past where Man's humanism is the arrogance of mankind knowing better than God. In the past 60 years of Liberalism, the score board is God 1 million, man nothing!
Intellectually lazy? Hmmmm you said that the religion you were brought up with was badly flawed. Talk about a lame remark with no explanation.
Was I asked to elaborate on this earlier in the discussion? Am I not the one who is replying to all arguments made? I can't read your mind, if you want me to explain something, wait until I decline to do it before you start making allegations of laziness.
Tell me what parts of your religion was flawed.
Do you want to know why? There is no, absolutely no reason for me to believe in Christianity over an endless number of other conceivable supernatural tales. People are simply taught to believe in god because the bible says that he exists, and that the bible is correct because god wrote it. The entire concept of being "moral" is doing so at something makes gunpoint look like cake. Your god seems fine with putting billions of people in a burning pit for eternity out of principle. The bible seems to insinuate that the human race was originally proliferated by a heavy amount of incest. There are more, but if you don't get it now, you most likely never will. If you actually believe that, out of all the religions on Earth, that the one in particular that you were raised to believe in is correct, then I honestly feel sorry for you.
You are proving my points brought up in the past where Man's humanism is the arrogance of mankind knowing better than God.
I do not have a moral philosophy or code to speak of, but humanism sounds a lot more appealing than Christianity, Judaism, and (especially) Islam. And, for your information, humanism has existed a lot longer than 50 years ago.
In the past 60 years of Liberalism, the score board is God 1 million, man nothing!
That's probably true, but I don't claim to have all of the answers, maybe a few (at most).
You have no more proof of God's non existence than proof of God's existence.
Again with making a strawman out of a single argument and ignoring the rest of what I've said.
I have not claimed that god doesn't exist. Neither you nor I have proof of god's non existence. We also don't have proof that there isn't an invisible teapot orbiting the planet Mars, but no one needs evidence to have a lack of belief in something, and just as a lack of evidence isn't evidence of lacking, a non-existence of belief isn't tantamount to a belief of non existence. You don't need evidence to feel that dogmatically believing in an invisible teapot orbiting Mars is silly, and you also do not need to prove that it doesn't exist to lack a belief in it.
There is also no proof of a big tea pot orbiting Mars that spewed forth life from no life. But don't that stop you from preaching the evolutionary God in our school rooms. Just a theory taught as fact to our captive children in school.
There is no inherit contradiction between creationism and evolution, except the part of creationism that claims its only been going on for a few thousand years.
If you are going by what the Bible says, there is a huge contradiction between evolution and creationism. God said he made woman from the man. Hence the name womb an.
There is also no proof of a big tea pot orbiting Mars that spewed forth life from no life.
Okay, you didn't understand the analogy. You just seemed to regurgitate it in the form empty rhetoric. Maybe next time.
But don't that stop you from preaching the evolutionary God in our school rooms.
Since when is evolution taught as being a single, all knowing being?
Just a theory taught as fact to our captive children in school.
Yeah, we should let the kiddies roam freely in the streets instead.
You do realize that something is called a theory when there is a large body of evidence to support it, right? Do you also consider Atomic Theory to be dogma?
