Drilling on ANWR Outline for Debate Class

Affirmative
Resolved: The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge should be opened to oil and gas exploration and drilling.

Contention I: Topicality
Harm/Need 1. Limited Domestic Supply of Petrolium
A. Increase in gas prices
-- 800 mile pipeline from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez
B. Foreign oil dependency
-- Strained relationships with countries
C. Less availability
Harm/Need 2. Job Availability
A. Less jobs for drillers
-- Won't decrease unemployment rates & gov't costs
B. Less construction jobs for home builders
-- Less expansion of communities & businesses
-- Less economic increase
Harm/Need 3. Less State and National Income
A. Less oil that could be sold to increase state & gov't income
B. Not helping towards massive state debt
-- Library cuts, etc.

Contention II: Inherency
I. Present system prohibits drilling in ANWR
II. Gas prices are currently almost record high
III. Much of US gas is imported from foreign countries
IV. Little income for Alaska other than petrolium from north slope
V. Not as many construction & drilling occupations available as there could be

Contention III: Solvency
I. Gas prices should decrease
II. Larger abundance of gas in the state
III. Alaska will have a much larger income from exporting
IV. Many new construction, drilling, & other job opportunities will be opened
V. Better ties with foreign countries
VI. Unemployment rates should drop
-- Gov't. spending on unemployment should decrease





Negative

Resolved: Opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling and exploration is unnecessary and may have a predominantly negative impact on the state of Alaska.
*Definition of national wildlife refuge:
-- Refuge: Place that provides shelter and protection from danger or distress

Contention I:) Topicality
Harm/Need 1. Dependency on Foreign Oil
A. *Statistics on % dependency
B. ANWR would only decrease dependency a small amount and for a short period of time
Harm/Need 2. Accessibility to Oil & Amount
A. U.S. Geological Survey estimates:
-- Only six months worth of oil in ANWR
-- Not available for another ten years
Harm/Need 3. Contradicts Purpose of National Wildlife Refuge
A. *Restate definition of wildlife refuge
B. "What little remains of that wilderness is part of our heritage and deserves to be protected." - Brooks Yeager, VP of WWF
C. If one wildlife refuge open, gives support to open others
Harm/Need 4. Other Resources
A. Nonpolluting renewable resources instead of fossil fuels
B. Would help with independence from foreign oil
Harm/Need 5. Economic Influence
A. Wouldn't help with much income because of such small supply & availability
B. Only payable in installments ten years down the road
C. Would be a greater cost to drill
Harm/Need 6. Job Creation, or Not?
-- Would only supply jobs for limited time because of small amount of oil

*Include researched statistics

Closing: Drilling on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would overall be a negative thing and cause more harms with the economy, wildlife, terms of national wildlife refuges and parks, and just be a hassle to the state instead of a benefit.




*Sorry guys... This is pretty rough, confusing, and hard to follow, but I had to do it a while ago for my Debate class. I have to have it typed up now, and my Microsoft Word isn't working properly, so I'm using this, hahah. I'm a loser. Yeehaw. I have a buttload of other statistcs that aren't included in here. Those were used during the actual debate. This is just our rough outline we had to turn in for the written grade.