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.
It is simple. We cannot lower gas prices if we do not have an increase in oil supply. Plus, wouldn't you rather get your oil from right here in the USA than the Middle East?
And don't listen to the liberals. It will not hurt the animals, that is their excuse.
Palin is a fool, and it's no surprise that she supports more drilling, since her state basically lives on oil revenues & money from the federal govt. to get by.
"We cannot lower gas prices if we do not have an increase in oil supply. Plus, wouldn't you rather get your oil from right here in the USA than the Middle East?"
Really?? Oil & gasoline prices went DOWN after the wild speculation of the recent past settled down, yet we saw ZERO real increase in oil drilling in the USA. The FACT is that the USA has NEVER been able to pump anywhere near enough oil out of the ground to satisfy the current level of demand here!
BTW, we don't get anywhere near a majority of our oil from the "Middle East".
Pailn is a fool, and anyone that would follow her lead to simply jack up the amount of money that oil companies take in in profit from oil drilling is just as big a fool IMHO.
Yea, I saw that debate, and I actually clicked on it. Then I remembered that I made a personal vow not to get involved in any more useless health care reform debates from now until the bill passes (and it will pass BTW). I've burned myself out on another debate site on this issue, so sorry.
Basically though, the public option is necessary in order to keep the private insurance companies honest in terms of them not raising their rates as they are forced to take on & keep more sick & poor people on their rolls. The idea that "government-run" health care doesn't work is silly given the success & popularity of programs like Medicare, Medicaid, veteran's care, and the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan (FEHBP).
Well..., if you're burned out I understand. I've been there. But if government-run health care programs work, why did the more abitious program in Hawaii failed?
"But if government-run health care programs work, why did the more abitious program in Hawaii failed?"
That plan wasn't "more ambitious", and the the plug was pulled on it too quickly by HI's GOP Governor before it was even given a chance to succeed. It had barely started when the Governor killed it! Only those in the GOP would have the sheer gall to be opposed to universal health care for children...ugh...
From your own link:
"'We're very disappointed in the state's decision, and it came as a complete surprise to us,' said Jennifer Diesman, a spokeswoman for HMSA, the state's largest health care provider. 'We believe the program is working, and given Hawaii's economic uncertainty, we don't think now is the time to cut all funding for this kind of program.'"
That's the private sector talking there BTW.
"'Most of them won't be eligible for Medicaid, and that's why they were enrolled in Keiki Care,' Diesman said. 'It's the gap group that we're trying to ensure has coverage.'"
Nice job GOP!
The so-called "public option" that is being pushed in D.C. right now will only cover less than 5% of Americans according to a truly independent analysis. It may help to take some of the profit & greed out of the way that health care payments are administered currently, but it's not going to give any poor health care & it's not going to end up costing the federal govt. a dime after it's initial setup.
The only way that I would go along with health care is if the government establishes an entity that is responsible for dealing with either the health care providers or the insurance companies and people without insurance would register with this entity and pay this entity. The entity would not be subsidized by the tax payers in any way shape or form. The entity would be able to negotiate better deals with insurance companies because they would have a large number of people looking to get a group rate.
Now, show me where this is the government's view of health care.
"The only way that I would go along with health care is if the government establishes an entity that is responsible for dealing with either the health care providers or the insurance companies and people without insurance would register with this entity and pay this entity. The entity would not be subsidized by the tax payers in any way shape or form. The entity would be able to negotiate better deals with insurance companies because they would have a large number of people looking to get a group rate."
Welcome to the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan (FEHBP)!! This is exactly what the millions of people that are in this plan, which is comprised solely of PRIVATE health insurance plans (PPOs, HMOs, MSAs/HSAs, etc.) from all over the country, get access to right this second. They pay their premiums through the FEHBP, and the feds deal with the private insurance plans to get the best rates & coverage for their millions of enrollees, which include all of Congress BTW. The plans in the FEHBP have no issues that I know of with pre-existing conditions & pre-approval for the vast majority of medical procedures & prescriptions, and they don't cost an arm & a leg. The FEHBP (like Medicare) is run at a very low administrative cost, especially when compared with the private sector.
Great! So we don't need another program. It's all covered and it's all good. I mean, we need another government run program like I need another hole in my head. ;)
Not so fast. Do YOU have access to the FEHBP? I sure don't. That's what the so-called national "exchange" is all about. Getting as large a pool as possible of people nationwide together so that private health insurance plans can compete for their business.
Also, we all know that right now many private health insurance companies will deny people coverage based on pre-existing conditions, and that some will even drop customers once the get sick! This needs to be outlawed, and it will when Obama's health care package passes...and it will mind you.
Dude, the super-vast majority of what is going to be passed by Congress IS health care reform. We're not getting a "new health care program". With or without a so-called "public option", there will be major reforms/improvements made to the way that health care insurance is done in the USA. That's the whole point...
Of course we should. We need as many ways to get independent on foreign oil, and any other option is necessary. Drilling, Nuclear, Solar, Biofuel, Hydro, etc. we need as many different sources.
"We need as many ways to get independent on foreign oil, and any other option is necessary. Drilling, Nuclear"
Drilling for more oil in the USA will not solve our oil supply problem because we simply don't have enough oil reserves in the USA to come anywhere near our current level of oil demand! It's a mathematical problem, not an ideological one.
Also, nuclear is not a real solution as the world's supply of readily-available uranium will be running out within about 70-80 years. Plus, nuclear leaves us with HUGE levels of radioactive waste that will remain harmful for around 100,000 years!
"All you posted were 'Turner' facts. Which are basically opinions that aren't supported by shit."
Oh really?? You & others on here are going to learn one way or another that when I say something, that I have the facts to back it up.
Drilling for more oil in the USA will not solve our oil supply problem because we simply don't have enough oil reserves in the USA to come anywhere near our current level of oil demand! It's a mathematical problem, not an ideological one.
Current U.S. oil reserves: 21,320,000,000 barrels (as of 2009)
I'll do the math for you, just so there's no confusion:
-the USA has NEVER been able to pump put even HALF of the amount of oil that we currently consume, and that was many decades ago!
-the USA has roughly less than 10 years worth of oil in its territory
Also, nuclear is not a real solution as the world's supply of readily-available uranium will be running out within about 70-80 years. Plus, nuclear leaves us with HUGE levels of radioactive waste that will remain harmful for around 100,000 years!
Facts:
-Current global uranium production meets only 58% of demand, with the shortfall made up largely from rapidly shrinking stockpiles.
-Eleven countries (Germany, the Czech Republic, France, DR Congo, Gabon,
Bulgaria, Tajikistan, Hungary, Romania, Spain, Portugal and Argentina) have already peaked their uranium production & exhausted their uranium resources and must rely on imports for their nuclear programs or abandon them. France, which the Right-wing constantly harps on when it comes to nuclear energy, ran out of uranium in 2002!
-Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen, an independent analyst with Ceedata
Consulting, contends that supplies of the high-grade uranium ore
required to fuel nuclear power generation will, at current levels
of consumption, last to about 2034. Afterwards, the cost of energy to extract the uranium will exceed the price the electric power provided.
-The Energy Watch Group has calculated that, even with steep uranium prices,
uranium production will have reached its peak by 2035 and that it will only be possible to satisfy the fuel demand of nuclear plants until then.
A graph showing the increasing production/dwindling supply requirements for uranium worldwide:
"Nuclear energy's fuel supply infrastructure should be able to meet world demand in the short term, but expansion will be needed across the entire fuel cycle beyond 2020, warns the latest WNA market report."
"none of this explains why we SHOULDN'T do it, anyway."
Ugh...spending more time, money, and effort exploring FINITE sources of energy will NOT get us to the point where the USA is totally self-sufficient. Only through devoting the vast majority of our resources towards clean, renewable, INFINITE sources of energy (like wind, hydro, solar, tidal & wave, and geothermal) which are completely ready RIGHT now to take over huge swaths of our energy portfolio will we reach this goal.
"Your numbers only explain why we need AS MUCH AS WE CAN GET."
No, they simply don't. They explain why the paths of oil & nuclear are DEAD ENDS, period. We can continue to develop these resources and end up with NO new sources of energy in just a matter of decades!
"like I said, I'm more Progressive than you."
LOL...please, two of the tenets of the progressive movement is efficiency in govt. & conservation of resources, and your path to nowhere with oil & nuclear is NOT in the progressive vein at all, period end of story. Just look at the people on Right that tout the kind of nonsense that you are touting here!
The corporations are spending their time and money on the finite resources. This is a free country where we have the right to choose, so there is nothing wrong with that. Which is why the government should not regulate the drilling for oil.
Nuclear power is clean and the waste can be handled with care. With the right environmental regulations, nuclear power can show to be one of our best sources of energy. To me, though, biofuel is the most efficient. But one can not live off of one source of energy alone. Why limit what the PEOPLE can have? it makes no sense. While wind, solar, tidal, and geothermal all have their benefits (and I highly support a government program to get that energy started) they do have their limits in how often we can use it. Biofuel is a renewable resource and Nuclear Power is a constant resource. Oil is a common resource but is non-renewable, of course. No reason to just stop using it though. If you believe use in one form of energy stops the use in another, than why are you saying multiple amounts of energy sources that we can use? By your logic, we can only EITHER use wind or hydro. solar or geothermal.
or, we can do it the American way and use it ALL.
Being Progressive these days is more about being libertarian. Let's face it, they are the party with the LEAST amount of legislation in their favor. Government controls practically everything. Sure, maybe progressiveness was the expansion of government back in the day, but now a days it's more about going back to the roots of the Constitution. Limited government and the protection of the rights of the people.
"The corporations are spending their time and money on the finite resources."
No, they are using a massive amount of public monies (through direct grants & tax cuts) to further their own finite gains.
"Which is why the government should not regulate the drilling for oil."
Who really owns all the oil that buried deep under the ground??
"Nuclear power is clean and the waste can be handled with care."
LOL...anyone that called nuclear power "clean" doesn't know what the meaning of clean is.
"But one can not live off of one source of energy alone."
Who is advocating for the USA to live off of one "source of energy alone"?? Not I.
"While wind, solar, tidal, and geothermal all have their benefits (and I highly support a government program to get that energy started) they do have their limits in how often we can use it."
No, they really don't have any significant, scientific obstacles to their use in the USA right now. All that is needed is leadership to get things going faster.
"Nuclear Power is a constant resource"
...until we run out of readily-available uranium within about 70-80 years that is.
"Oil is a common resource"
...which is set to tun out even before uranium does!
"No reason to just stop using it though"
...in much smaller numbers though.
"If you believe use in one form of energy stops the use in another"
I'm not...I'm saying that the path we've been on in the USA for much too long now is a path that has subsidized finite sources of energy much, much more than infinite sources of energy. We really shouldn't be surprised at the poor predicament that we are in now, since it is of our own making.
"By your logic, we can only EITHER use wind or hydro. solar or geothermal."
Wrong again.
"Being Progressive these days is more about being libertarian"
...in your opinion that is. Honestly, I admire your devotion to the Libertarian Party, but their support in the USA will basically never be more than 20% or so of the voting public. You need to own up to that.
1. Obviously grants are bad. So just eliminate grants, and not rights. As for tax cuts. Tax cuts are always good. The government should focus more on tax cuts and less on spending.
2. Who ever gets to the oil first, obviously.
3. Lack of dirtiness.
4. You wish to limit the amount of energy resources we can use...
5. Wind isn't always windy. Solar only works during the day. Geothermal depends on the location. Same with Tidal. Really, the conditions have to be right for these energy sources to work. Biofuel, on the other hand, is something we all have (garbage, basically).
6. Only that we know of. That's a figure based on the amount of Uranium we know exists so far. We've found plenty of shit that we didn't know existed by just LOOKING for it.
7. Common Resource in that all of us know exactly how to use it. and, same response as 6.
8. Still, no reason to stop using any of it.
9. So... you ARE saying that using oil and nuclear automatically stops us from using others... if you're not, what is your reason for us to stop using it?
Here's the problem. Why should we stop using oil? You say at first because it's limited... and? Then you respond with it stops us from using other energy resources. Do you actually believe that or not? If so, too bad. If not, than why should we stop using oil?
...even when they encourage behavior that is not in the country's best interest?? I think not.
"3. Lack of dirtiness."
LOL...nice try, but, in this context, nuclear energy is far from being "clean", as the mining for the necessary uranium is far from a "clean" process & nuclear power generation leaves behind a massive amount of radioactive material that needs to be managed for roughly 100,000 years.
"4. You wish to limit the amount of energy resources we can use"
...to ones that are infinite, and not finite, since that is the direction that is most favorable for our nation IMO.
"5. Wind isn't always windy. Solar only works during the day. Geothermal depends on the location. Same with Tidal. Really, the conditions have to be right for these energy sources to work."
LOL...once again, I just LOVE when opponents of alternative energy try & point out the oversimplified "facts". The FACT is that the USA is basically the Saudi Arabia of wind...that's a lot of wind BTW. Also, there are such a thing as batteries to store energy when it happens to not be so windy or sunny yanno. The tides & geothermal processes NEVER stop, and their power can be routed to other parts of the country through an improvement electrical infrastructure (which we need regardless of where our power will come from in the future).
"That's a figure based on the amount of Uranium we know exists so far. We've found plenty of shit that we didn't know existed by just LOOKING for it."
LOL...like there aren't a whole lot of countries that have already run out of their own sources of uranium (like France, which the Right-wing loves to tout when it comes to nuclear energy) so far. As IF no one is looking for more uranium (and not finding much). Wake up...
"7. Common Resource in that all of us know exactly how to use it. and, same response as 6."
My goodness...still holding out for some "massive" discovery of oil that will save mankind?? Don't hold your breath my friend. The way things are going right now, the world will be running out of oil in THIS CENTURY, and we need to stop putting our heads in the sand (literally) & start doing something different. Doing more of the same thing & expecting a different result is foolish. BTW, don't believe the amounts of oil that the OPEC countries have been touting since the 1980s...they are lying about how much oil they really have. Russia is now pumping more oil out of the ground than Saudi Arabia.
"8. Still, no reason to stop using any of it"
...even though using it at the same (or higher) levels right now will cause it to run out quicker?? That's insane!
"you ARE saying that using oil and nuclear automatically stops us from using others"
No, I haven't said that at all, but keep trying to put words in my mouth anyways. It's obvious that you are devoid of new ideas on this subject.
"Why should we stop using oil?"
Hmmmmm, if you haven't figured that out by now, then there's most likely no hope for you IMHO.
"Then you respond with it stops us from using other energy resources."
Nope, never said that, ever. But keep those strawman arguments right on coming...there're not working BTW...
"10. So, to you, Progression is Authoritarianism."
LMAO! Wow, now there's one of the biggest strawman arguments that's come out of your mouth yet! Look, if you don't want to accept that your beloved Libertarian Party is destined to be a marginal third Party at best, then have at it my friend. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt I hear...
I believe in use of ALL types of energy resources. I am not opposed to any of them.
Are you?
Maybe we can finally get something clear. You've been dancing from one to the other. Either you're for use of oil or you're not. I'm for it. I'm also for use of all other energy resources.
So how about you? Just answer that fuckin' question. No bullshit spin.
And I opposed to the ones that are finite (like oil, coal, nuclear, etc.) and the (same) ones that pollute our planet & make less & less livable for humans in the long-run.
"You've been dancing from one to the other."
No, I really haven't. I have been VERY clear from the beginning in this & other threads how I feel about where the future energy of the USA should come from. You quite simply either haven't been paying attention or you have been engaging in intentional obfuscation, period. Either way, I think we're done here.
Yeah, I suppose offshore drilling is a good idea. I'm not sure it would make a big difference, but it couldn't hurt.
Objection seems to come mainly from environmentalists who I believe are committing the naturalistic fallacy -- just because something is unnatural does not mean it is bad.
Obama is leaning toward allowing it by the way:
"Obama said Friday that he would be willing to compromise on his position against offshore oil drilling if it were part of a more overarching strategy to lower energy costs."
I would only endorse off-shore drilling if those companies who were permitted were also held responsible for ALL consequences. If there is any change the animals, people, tides, water, environment, or anything else, they are completely responsible for all compensation to all those damanged--including the state of CA and the USA.
We should be concentrating on advancing alternative energy. Continuing to drill for oil is like investing in pagers five years ago, it's pointless. We need to start investing in technologies such as hydrogen fuel cells and other clear, renewable fuels.
Our nation has about 3% of the worlds oil reserves and yet it makes up 20% of the worlds total consumption of oil. In case your bad at math what this means is unless we come up with an alternative to oil then we are fucked. It is better to start investing and committing ourselves to alternatives now, rather than wait until it's too late.
I believe your figures may be off just a bit from what I've heard and read . If the Alaska pipeline were up and running,as it should have been 25 years ago, the most we can hope for is 3% and we consume 25% of the world's oil.
Offshore drilling will most certainly upset the various Eco-systems at sea and that is unacceptable. We must consider the cost. What price are we willing to pay to drill off-shore and what are the impacts of that drilling. Off shore drilling has been studied and there most certainly are risks involved, some as a by-product of and some accidental. Massive oil spills, like the 1969 disaster near Santa Barbara, California are still remembered for their impact on every living creature in, on and around the area. We cannot allow this type of risk because it's politically expedient!
We are heading in the right direction for non-reliance when we explore all the other avenues for energy and it would be wise to investigate all of them in the event that different forms of energy are better for certain usages than others. As the world grows we are in need of more and more energy and it must be clean energy. Alternative energy sources should be high on the list of priorities for the next administration and there will be advantages to creating and maintaining an Energy Cartel with those countries who are not rich in oil but rich in other resources and ideas.
There are additional waters that should never be touched and those lie near the heavy tourist trade areas. Imagine the impact on those who depend on their livelihood through seasonal and year round travel should a disaster occur? It is not outside the realm of solid reasoning that the Government demand a higher "tourist tax" in the states where tourism accounts for a heavy percentage of income to invest in alternatives in clean energy. I say NO to offshore drilling in California as well as other states where it is not a viable option.
are you aware that natural seepage puts more oil in the sea than oil spills? That there is actually an environmental group pushing drilling to reduce natural seepage by relieving subterranean pressure? That oil in the water has been written about in Santa Barbara harbor since the earliest European explorers landed their first SUVs there in the 1500s and the natives used it to waterproof their canoes? That Cuba is selling its offshore drilling rights to China so that Florida underwater oil will be drilled whether WE get the benefits or not.
Ink, Mother Nature has a way of taking care of herself. The seepage you speak of is, as you said, a natural way of things in the sea...but do we need to risk more than Mother Nature can handle? I cannot speak to China vis-a-vis Cuba/Florida and must ask you a question on this. Is there no limit on how far out to sea they drill? I know it's only about 90 miles from the Keys. Have we no say so in this at all since it has an effect on our shores and poses some dangers to that area and the islands around it?
Exactly my point! Man did not cause the ice age. Mother Nature did. She CAN take care of herself and that is just the point.
My understanding is that the drilling China contracted with Cuba to do inside Cuban sovereign waters would be as close as 50 miles off Florida's shore but they are just doing seismic work now to decide where or whether to drill. Cuba has also signed a contract with Petrobras of Brazil who is also now searching for drilling sites in the Gulf.
"My understanding is that the drilling China contracted with Cuba to do inside Cuban sovereign waters would be as close as 50 miles off Florida's shore"
Again, this is a literal Red Herring that has been forwarded by the Right-wing. It doesn't hold any water, period.
"Cuba has also signed a contract with Petrobras of Brazil who is also now searching for drilling sites in the Gulf"
...of which there are few that haven't already been picked over. Even T. Boone Pickens recognizes this, and he knows oil!
"That Cuba is selling its offshore drilling rights to China so that Florida underwater oil will be drilled whether WE get the benefits or not."
This is mostly Right-wing hype that doesn't pan out when you look at the facts. As of 2006, Cuba had less than 21 times LESS oil than the USA did. They have also gotten on track with reliving their dependence on foreign oil because of the Soviet collapse.
Hello! Exploring the prospects of offshore drilling in California? It's a compelling topic with significant implications. On a related note, as global specialists in offshore corporate services and wealth management https://astra-trust.com/ , our expertise extends to various offshore services. Whether it's company incorporations, trust settlements, or immigration by investment, we provide comprehensive solutions. If the offshore industry sparks your interest, our services might offer strategic opportunities. Feel free to delve into a conversation about both offshore drilling and financial possibilities with our team!
i say we need to drill but we should also look at how it impacts our economy and our ecosystem. People on here that have replied need to get their numbers matched up because they arent the same and they dont coorrespond to what another person said.
