EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum

That the United States should nationalize oil exports and seek to join OPEC

0 points
4 points
Pasta DebatesPasta Debates (CON)
It is because I disagree with such dictating countries that I negate "That the United States should nationalize oil exports and seek to join OPEC".

Now moving on to some negative observations for today's debate:

Observation 1 is that in order for my opponent to win this debate, the affirmative burden is to provide at least more than 1 exemplifying reason in which the majority believes it is politically correct to join OPEC.

Observation 2 is that in order for myself to win this debate, the negative burden is to provide at least 1 reason in which it would be negative towards the US to nationalize oil exports and seek to join OPEC.

Observation 3 is that OPEC includes the following countries; Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela (1).

The highest value of today's debate is morality. Morality can be easily defined as particular moral principles or rules of conduct (2). In order to achieve morality my value criterion will be the principle that the US shall not become a dictatorship by following the systematic conduct of OPEC, and instead promote democracy.

Contention 1 is that it is nearly impossible for the United States to join OPEC.
Countries seeking membership in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries must have a 'substantial net export of crude petroleum' and 'fundamentally similar interests' to current members... (3)
This shows that the current state of affairs shows us that the US will probably not be able to become part of OPEC, even if they tried.

Contention 2 is that there are currently many issues between the US and Venezuelan government.

The United States' revocation of the Venezuelan ambassador's visa has put a spotlight on tense ties between the ideologically opposed nations.

President Hugo Chavez has threatened to cut off oil supplies to the United States during previous diplomatic flare-ups, but he has never taken that step.

The latest dispute is unlikely to impact oil exports to the United States, which are important to both economies, analysts and diplomats believe. But energy ties have become increasingly tense in recent years (4)

This showing that one of the countries in OPEC is having many issues with our government, especially related towards the oil exports.

Contention 3 is that Russian ties are currently providing conflict towards OPEC relations.
Saudi Arabia has dangled the prospect of real oil production cutbacks in front of Russia in exchange for Russia dropping its support for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad (5)
This showing that currently, the ties between two major oil-producing countries have increasingly conflicted.

Contention 4 is that the current presidency is completely opposed to the OPEC union.
[On January 30, 2017] President Trump signed an executive order Friday night to keep refugees from entering the country for 120 days and immigrants from seven predominantly Muslim nations out for three months. The countries affected are Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Yemen and Somalia (6)
This showing that 2 out of the 7 countries on this executive order have no relations, meaning that the presidency is now opposing such relationships with these countries, preventing the joining into OPEC.

If my opponent is able to respond to this debate in the next round then I am willing to provide negative refutations. Until then, the debate will follow upon refutations until crystallization in the last round.

For these reasons, I ask you to vote negative in this debate.


Return To Top | Posted:
2017-03-06 21:56:49
| Speak Round
Pasta DebatesPasta Debates (CON)
All my arguments remain extended. 
Now, due to the fact that this is the official final round this whole speech will be dedicated toward crystallization.

When judging today's debate much has to be taken into consideration with such an interesting and contradictory topic. But, one thing that simply makes me win automatically without any doubt is that:
My opponent conceded the debate.
When judging the round we see that only the negation side has provided arguments towards this whole debate. Now, for reasons of burden, I will now answer to my 2nd observation. But, before starting that point, obviously, my opponent failed to respond to my first observation, therefore they cannot win today's debate because if we have no exemplifying reason toward WHY you should vote for the affirmative, then there is no reason in logic or common sense that one should vote for that at all.
Now, moving on. To answer to how my own personal burden is to provide at least 1 reason in which it would be negative towards the US to nationalize exports and seek to join OPEC. Well, this is all shown in my 4 contentions, that we DROPPED and completely ignored by my opponent. So, simply, the 4 several impact of the contentions I have provided are as follows:
  1. You cannot advocate for the affirmation because there is simply NO possibility of the US being able to nationalize the oil exports and seek to join OPEC.
  2. The US will be unable to negotiate with at least one of the countries in OPEC, for we are currently in many issues inside the status quo in regards to the Venezuelan government.
  3. There are current problems between Russia and OPEC, which could create harm to society by advocating for the affirmation.
  4. Trump completely opposes the resolution.
And these several defined reasons and that the fact of all my contentions, observations, and the debate in general is completely CONCEDED BY MY OPPONENT. Don't let them get away with anything, because they did nothing.

For those reasons, you are voting negative in today's debate.

Return To Top | Posted:
2017-03-12 06:12:24
| Speak Round

View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

2017-03-13 02:31:47
Bi0HazardJudge: Bi0Hazard    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: Pasta Debates
2017-03-26 02:47:57
8uG%95wyJ&=M7ptgJudge: 8uG%95wyJ&=M7ptg
Win awarded to: Pasta Debates
2017-03-29 07:49:52
sidharth sunishJudge: sidharth sunish
Win awarded to: Pasta Debates
Petasos forfeited the debate
0 comments on this judgement
2017-03-29 21:07:30
t_raoJudge: t_rao
Win awarded to: Pasta Debates
Pasta Debates had convincing arguments, which, while they could have been stronger, fulfilled the burden of proof. Petasos conceded and therefore it is only reasonable that Pasta Debates wins the round.
0 comments on this judgement

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 2 rounds
  • 4000 characters per round
  • No reply speeches
  • No cross-examination
  • Permissive Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds does not mean forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Rated debate
  • Time to post: 3 days
  • Time to vote: 3 weeks
  • Time to prepare: None
This is a random challenge. See the general rules for random challenges at http://www.edeb8.com/resources/General+rules+for+random+debates+%28version+2%29