Mens Tennis Forums banner

MTF Debate I: This House Would Frack, Teams Posted!

4K views 63 replies 11 participants last post by  redshift 
#1 · (Edited)
Welcome to what will hopefully be the first of many official MTF Debates: This House Would Frack

Rules

1. The Structure to the Debate is British Parliamentary, explained here: http://www.menstennisforums.com/3-non-tennis/787913-game-idea-mtf-debating.html

2. The word limit for "speeches" is 500 words. Feel free to treat it like an actual speech and use phrases like "Ladies and Gentleman" and rhetorical devices.

3. No personal slander, inappropriate language or irrelevant discussion.

4. If the 1st Proposition Speaker gives a motion that you feel is too twisted a take on the motion, you may raise a point of order and the judge may consider changing the definition.

5. To sign up, merely post "In" below. If you feel strongly about the motion, PM me and ask to be put on one side or the other and, if possible, I shall do this. If you want to judge then PM me too.

6. The Deadline for admissions is Sunday 8th May Midnight CET. at this point teams and speaker order will be posted, and teams may brainstorm.

7. The Debate will begin on Monday 16th May at 7 AM CET. The First Speakers will have to send their speeches by midnight on the Sunday.

Obligatory Definitions:

1. "This House" represents the Earth and all countries within.

2. "Fracking" (Hydraulic Fracturing) is the process of drilling into rock with high-pressure water, sand and chemicals to release the natural gas within.
 
See less See more
#3 ·
Re: MTF Debate I: This House Would Frack

I would like to be a part of this but the subject does not interest me nor do I have enough knowledge to debate about it. Any alternatives?
 
#4 ·
Re: MTF Debate I: This House Would Frack

I would like to be a part of this but the subject does not interest me nor do I have enough knowledge to debate about it. Any alternatives?
We could do the alternative motion of: "This House would hold regular debates on MTF"?
 
#7 · (Edited)
Re: MTF Debate I: This House Would Frack

Allow fracking of course. Why not?

Green extremists would like to bring us back to the stone age. They would stop nothing short of that. No thanks.

No time for 500 word novels, sorry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: acacacacademy
#8 ·
Re: MTF Debate I: This House Would Frack

Allow fracking of course. Why not?
Because carcinogenic chemicals are used to blast the rocks, contaminating the aquifers.

But if you want to drink contaminated water or have gas coming out of your taps instead of water, sure, why not. :shrug:


Green extremists would like to bring us back to the stone age. They would stop nothing short of that. No thanks.
Did not know that in the stone age, solar panels, wind turbines, sea wave energy extractors, geothermal plants, etc, were used.

Sad times when caring for the health of Earth's inhabitants is an extremist view.
 
#9 ·
Re: MTF Debate I: This House Would Frack

Okay so it seems that @redshift36188 ; is very much for the original motion, but people like @Tennis4Lyf ; and @Sham Kay Adams ; seem more for a motion more like "This House would hold regular debates on MTF" , would people be happy to do either motion or favour one in particular?
 
#10 · (Edited)
Okay so it seems that @redshift36188 ; is very much for the original motion, but people like @Tennis4Lyf ; and @Sham Kay Adams ; seem more for a motion more like "This House would hold regular debates on MTF" , would people be happy to do either motion or favour one in particular?
I have a proposal after watching a very funny and intense debate on tv.

'Men are victimised by feminist movement.'
https://au.tv.yahoo.com/sunrise/video/watch/31483476/feminism-for-the-21st-century/

You'll definitely get support for this one
 
#13 ·
Re: MTF Debate I: This House Would Frack

I think @Floki has not understood how this debate is supposed to work. You do not debate here. If you are for or against the motion, take part in the debate, which has its own rules as laid out by OP. If you think this is nonsense, you are more than welcome to ignore it and leave it for a structured debate on the dates and format as mentioned. :D
 
#14 ·
Re: MTF Debate I: This House Would Frack

Not really participating in the house debate. No time to write 500 words novels.

Just disproving redshifts misconceptions on the topic, addressed directly to me.
 
#18 ·
Re: MTF Debate I: This House Would Frack

Fracking is scientifically proven to be dangerous for the environment and the health of the people, plus it would bring profit almost exclusively to the already mega rich oil companies. In comparison to the increasing number of green energy platforms being self managed by their own surrounding communities - even conventional drilling is far less harmful.

I don't get why you call extremist to oppose something like that. Specially when you are a self-declared leftist on socioeconomic issues.

So yeah, I'm in for a debate although I have been really busy those days. Sorry if I am ruining the thing exposing my point on here, surely I can go deeper on it.
 
#29 ·
Re: MTF Debate I: This House Would Frack

it would bring profit almost exclusively to the already mega rich oil companies.
Sounds like profit is a bad thing in your opinion.

And all the mega rich oil companies are owned by the public.

So that means you are opposed to the general public making a living?
 
#22 ·
Re: MTF Debate I: This House Would Frack

Anyway, we can save all of this great stuff for the debate. So far we have at least two people for the Fracking Motion, which is enough for a debate, so we'll stick to that. Please now get your friends and anyone who might be interested to commit to this so that you two don't have to write 2,000 words each ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tennis4Lyf
#23 · (Edited)
Re: MTF Debate I: This House Would Frack

I believe fracking is something environmentalists love to get there claws in and whine about. It is a lot more efficient and safer for the air quality in comparison to burning coal. At the power plant level it only produces between 44 and 50 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in comparison to coal.

Methane and other chemicals used to get the natural gases have been thought to leak but that's still just a case of not being made as efficient and safe, not the fracking itself. Same with it leaking into the water supply, it's just a case of pipping and knowing the depth of water pipes in the local area to try to avoid any leaking. Coal, nuclear and oil extraction use around two, three and 10 times more water than fracking per year.

One worry I do have with it though is earthquakes. When shale gas became more in use in 2001 it was thought that the rate of earthquakes annually in central US went from 21 to 100.

I do believe there are better sources of energy but it's still definitely not as bad as people make out and is better than coal based energy.
 
#24 ·
Re: MTF Debate I: This House Would Frack

@JMdelpotro6 ; would you like to sign-up officially for the Debate? :)
 
#26 ·
Re: MTF Debate I: This House Would Frack

Last couple of days to commit!
 
#28 · (Edited)
Re: MTF Debate I: This House Would Frack

Okay, after a slightly disappointing Sign-up, we've got our two teams:

Proposition: Crustaceok

Opposition: redshift36188

We're going to change the format slightly:

Deadline for Opening Speaker: 11:59 pm Wednesday 11th May
Deadline for Second Speaker: 11:59 pm Thursday 12th May
Deadline for Third Speaker: 11:59pm Friday 13th May
Deadline for Final Speaker: 11:59pm Saturday 14th May

Don't forget that all speeches are sent by PM!

The Scoring will be as follows:

Content: /30
Style: /10
Structure: /10

Total: /50

The next deadline's for the Opening Speaker:

The Job of the Opening Speaker is to lay out the outline for the team's case. They should focus on the advantages of their side of the argument, and what would happen if the motion were carried, and what would happen if it were blocked. Generally the Opening Speaker focuses on the bigger concept hand. When the Opening Speaker is finished, the audience should know their argument, and also have a vague idea of what their next Speaker will say.
 
  • Like
Reactions: redshift
#30 · (Edited)
I don't get it. I totally agree with all that redshift has said.

@buddyholly In my opinion, as impossible as it sounds, profit should be starting to be a secondary issue in such things. And not all the big oil/big miners are owned by the public - and if they are, it's usually only in part and benefit developed societies.
Anyway, from what I've read you are a climate change denier (or skeptical). I respect it, but that means the discussion will inevitably become pointless.
 
#31 ·
I don't get it. I totally agree with all that redshift has said.
Unfortunately only two people signed up, and we had to have someone proposing the motion in the official debate, since no-one arguing for Fracking actually signed up for the debate. Occasionally you'll have to argue against what you really think.
 
#33 ·
Okay then....people are going to have to occasionally go against their beliefs in debates, but if you don't do it then we'll do a "dry debate" which isn't scored, and I'll be the Proposition.
 
#34 ·
So you'll post the proposition after the deadline, and I post my rebuttal after reading your proposition, right?

Do I still need to send my speech to you by PM or can I post it directly on the thread?
 
#36 ·
Sorry for my tardiness:

Opening Proposition

Ladies and Gentlemen, this House Would Frack: we define this as follows: across the world we would frack in areas with fewer than 5 people per square kilometre. In this speech I will address our need for fracking to ease our global crisis, after which the Deputy Prime Minister will discuss how fracking is preferable to current method of power-creation.

We acknowledge that fracking is harmful for the environment: not only are the chemicals used often carcinogenic, but the process can often result in gas leaks into the local area. This is why we are limiting our activity to areas with low population density, in order to minimise the human damage. Whilst we realise that there will still be environmental damage, we view this as less important than the crisis I am about to describe.

The human race has an insatiable demand for fossil fuels, and one that we cannot currently sustain. In 2014 16 billion barrels of oil or equivalent fuel sources were found, compared to the 35 billion used in 2015, and this number is only going up. Without fossil fuels, the world would plunge into chaos, with no source of heat, light and travel; countries would face food shortages as it became too expensive to transport meat and grain across oceans, and society would break down. Renewable energy currently only produces 21% of worldwide energy, and nuclear power plants, whilst a possible long-term solution, take years to produce. In the meantime, fuel prices are only going up, and the only short-term solution is fracking.

Some countries have already began to frack in areas with low population density. In the US, for instance, fracking has begun, and it was in fact too effective, causing oil prices to dip below $30 a barrel for the first time in years, leading to several fracking operations being shut down. This shows not only the positive effect that fracking can have, but also shows that extensive fracking would not be required to have a marked effect on global prices.

What would happen if we were to engage in fracking? Not only would oil prices go down but the demand on our current wells would be eased. With the money raised from fracking, the area surrounding the wells could be developed and, once the operations had stopped, people could move into these low-population areas, easing overpopulation in cities. Additionally, the money raised could be used to develop green initiatives so that a permanent solution to our energy crisis could be found.

Fracking is by no means an acceptable measure in the long-term: environmentally damaging and dangerous, and it must be emphasised that fracking would only occur for short periods of time in areas of low population density, in order to minimise this damage. With this damage mitigated, we believe that the pros of fracking: an easing on global oil demand; a drop in oil prices and a potential to invest in these areas and in green initiatives, would outweigh the disadvantages.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kellemanske
#45 ·
This is a terrible proposition. Almost like you are supporting the opposition. Why only temporary? Why emphasize how supposedly "Bad" fracking is. Makes no sense at all.

None of your claims about fracking being bad are proven and confirmed. That needed to be said.
Also needed to say that you would regulate chemicals to be used and forbid anything remotely bad, and if that is the case there is no proven negative impact on the environment. Only green propaganda in their unreasonable crusade war against fossil fuel.
 
#37 ·
#38 · (Edited)
First Speaker (Opposition)


Fellow Earthlings,

It is my view that any practice which causes severe damage to the environment and its inhabitants should not be adopted unless strictly necessary.

Altough the proposition recognises the health and environmental risks posed by hydraulic fracturing, I shall present this issue in more detail, so that everyone has a clear understanding of what we are dealing with here.

Hydraulic fracturing uses a combination of water, sand and chemical additives in order to fracture the shale rocks containing gas and oil. Besides the use of toxic chemicals which I'll touch on in a minute, it is not to be neglected the intensive use of water required by this process, which in many regions may result in a conflict with the rest of the activities this precious liquid is already used for.

The main concern about this method of (oil and gas) extraction relies on the use of toxic chemicals, however. These chemicals usually contaminate the local aquifers, putting at risk, not only the fauna and flora, but also the human beings using these water supplies. This has forced some communities to travel beyond their area of residence to get the water they need for their daily activities - water pipelining projects are also being realised.

Besides groundwater contamination, it is known that methane (a potent greenhouse pollutant) and volatile organic compounds, such as benzene, are released into the air, something local communities simply cannot avoid being exposed to. The health impacts are numerous and can go from eye, nose and throat irritation to more serious problems such as immunological problems, reproductive system effects, birth defects and harm to the developing fetus, cancer and other problems which can be summarised into the following categories:

- respiratory system: asthma, shortness of breath, difficulty breathing and lung disease;

- nervous system: dizziness, headaches, seizures and loss of consciousness;

- blood disorders: damage to blood-forming organs, resulting in harm to bone marrow and anemia.

It should be clear from this, that fracking is not an acceptable practice, not only for the long term but also for the short term, and regardless of the population density - every life matters.

The proposition alerts to the potential fossil fuel shortage by comparing the dwindling number of new discoveries to consumption growth. It should be noted that new discoveries contribute a small percentage to the total production and that this total is projected to start declining only around the mid 2020s to an effective shortage occurring only by the mid 30s. On the other hand, we should take into account that the (monetary) debt weighing on the individuals, companies and states around the globe should stifle demand for many years to come.

In the meantime, renewable energy alternatives can and are being developed, and becoming more efficient over time. These alternatives shall take over fossil fuels as the main energy producer in the following decades and therefore, there is no need to tap into shale oil and gas.
 
#40 ·
Great, I'll send my next speech in a few hours.
 
#41 ·
Making me work hard here ;)

Second Speaker Proposition:

Ladies and Gentlemen, in this speech I wish to rebut a few of the arguments of the Leader of the Opposition, before going on to the main body of my speech, in which I shall discuss why fracking is in fact preferable to other methods of obtaining fossil fuels, and also to renewable energy (currently, at least).

The Leader of the Opposition cited a commonly held myth about fracking, that the chemicals “usually contaminate the aquifers”. This is a gross exaggeration of the reality, indeed there are cases when aquifers can get contaminated, but, due to the fact that the fracking itself usually occurs about a thousand feet below ground, the cracks very rarely reach the aquifers, and it is rather cracks in the pipes, i.e. faulty machinery, that carries out the contamination. If this House were to allow fracking, then the profits created would lead to research and development into the pipes and would in fact make operations less harmful to the environment.

The Leader of the Opposition also stated, perfectly rightly, that “every life matters”, and in the long-term, fracking is much more preferable than oil extraction and coal. Indeed the Leader of the Opposition gave a long list of the harmful effects that the gases from fracking can have. But what I want to ask you all today is, is this worse than what we currently do?

As it stands, burning natural gas only creates half the greenhouse gases that coal does, and between 2008 and 2012, the proportion of natural gas used increased from 20% to 30%, and the volume of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide (both much more harmful than methane) produced decreased dramatically. Although methane and other natural gases are harmful, in the long-term (100 years rather than 20), methane is in fact proven to be less harmful than other greenhouse gases. Thus we can see that fracking is more beneficial than other forms of fossil fuel extraction.

But what about renewable energy, I hear you ask. In the long-term, renewable energy will be fantastic: once we can harness the power of the wind, the waves and the sun and eliminate emissions then we can abandon all forms of fracking. But currently the only forms of renewable energy that are viable are biofuels, and in a world where our demand for land for grazing, building and planting is insatiable, we don’t want to add to this demand by creating swathes of land dedicated to biofuels.

This is not a debate about what is the best form of energy, if that were the case then we could all agree that renewable energy is preferable to any non-renewable alternatives. As it is, we have to use the best worst option until a solution can be found, and, in the short-term at least, we the Government, believe this to be fracking.
 
#42 · (Edited)
@Diadochi Oh, I misunderstood the game sequence. I thought the proposition was considered the 1st speaker.

So, you have to do 3 speeches (proposition, 2nd speaker and 4th speaker) and I have to do 2 (1st and 3rd speaker), right?
 
#43 ·
@Diadochi Oh, I misunderstood the game sequence. I thought the proposition was considered the 1st speaker.

So, you have to do 3 speeches (proposition, 2nd speaker and 4th speaker) and I have to do 2 (1st and 4th speaker), right?
Nah we each have four speeches: opening, 2nd, 3rd (extension) and summary speakers
 
#55 ·
Thanks guys, @Jon Snow ; your input's appreciated, but if the debate becomes convoluted over a series of pages then it'll become a lot harder to follow. If you want to talk about it on another thread or even after the debate, feel free, but whilst the debate's going on I'd appreciate it if you just watched.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Floki
#56 ·
Second Speaker (Opposition)


Fellow Earthlings,

Fact remains that water contamination occurs, causing a great disturbance to the affected populations. It is our duty as representatives of the people to ensure the safety and the health of every human being, therefore, we cannot allow more cases to occur before this issue is finally resolved.

I'd like to call your attention again to the problem of the volatile organic compounds which the Proposition has failed to address. This is not a matter of leakage which could potentially be contained as these compounds are naturally released into the air through the exploration wells. The grave health consequences to the workers and local population the Leader of the Opposition has already presented are attested by dozens of studies. As far as greenhouse gases are concerned, coal is indeed worse, but we do not endorse the use of coal either.

There are still a few problems related to fracking which haven't been discussed yet, namely the increased seismicity in the explored regions, due to the injection of wastewater deep underground. Although, so far, the magnitude of the registered earthquakes hasn't been high enough to cause substantial damage, as a precautionary measure, we should avoid these practices. Noise and vibration pollution are also reported as problematic for the well being of the local residents.

Regarding renewables, the most recent data from REN21 shows that most of the investment is being used on Solar and Wind by a very large margin. These two sources of energy in particular are experiencing a steep growth in implementation in the past 5 years. Photovoltaic in particular shows a tremendous potential with the recent developments on perovskite and perovskite-silicon hybrid cells. Biofuels on the other hand are seeing a decrease in investment which is indeed a fortunate event as we should have the land available for food production, as the Proposition refers.

I would also like to note that the Energy Returned On Energy Invested (EROEI) of shale oil and gas is around 5, which is not great (normal oil wells usuallly provide a ratio of 20) since we are talking about the exploration of a finite resource. In addition, the lifespan of a fracking well is very short (most of the oil and gas is extracted in the first year), demanding the usage of a vast land area for the drilling of new wells every year.

We do not see evidence that the exploration of shale oil and gas is a necessity since an energy shortage is not expected to come in the short term, not to mention we have serious doubts that this method of energy production can offset significantly the decline in the standard fossil fuel production - the major contribution to the currently low prices on fossil fuels is the lower global demand due to the ongoing debt crisis. On the other hand, the growth in the capacity of renewable sources during the following decades will fulfil the energy slack left by the decline in fossil fuel production.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tennis4Lyf
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top