Try to set aside your personal biases for or against hydraulic fracturing, and provide some feedback on who made the stronger argument. Explain why you think their argument was stronger and provide evidence and details from their argument that made it the more convincing stance.
Then post your actual opinion on "fracking" and defend your point of view. After witnessing the debate you should be able to provide evidence for your stance.
test
ReplyDeleteI think that my group won the debate , not because it was my group , it was because I thought that we had more evidence and we had a more serious presentation and took this more serious than the other group. I myself are against it , fracking is a stepping stone to energy independence but it is not a good one .
ReplyDeleteI think that the Anti Fracking side had a stronger argument. They were able to counteract each point the Pro Fracking side made, while the Pro Fracking site would keep reiterating the same points, almost all of which pointed only to economic benefits. They mentioned it was a stepping stone to renewable energy, when in reality, we already have renewable energy sources that are even cheaper than natural gas, coal, or oil.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, I am against fracking. Knowing people who have been affected by Cancer, Traumatic Brain Injury, etc, I don't think that the economic benefits outweigh the human costs.
i do not support fracking because it does much more harm than it does good. it destroys the environment and is a danger to animals and people.
ReplyDeletei think the tam that was against the argument had a better speech because they had a lot more information and they really got into the argument they made it if it was in real life.
ReplyDeletei think that fracking should not be done because it is harming the environment and like the people who frack say it will boost the economy it might temporally but when the whole USA is polluted the economy will go down because the USA will probably put most of the money in to clean up mess world wide.
ReplyDeleteFracking is bad because the act of fracking uses over 400 different chemicals mixed with the fluid, which mixes with groundwater, which contaminates drinking water in fracking areas. There are even reports of people being able to light their tap water on fire.
ReplyDeleteI think that the against side of the debate done better (not because I don't like franking) because they had more arguable things topics in their presentation, and because they used big fancy words to describe their part of the debate.
ReplyDeleteI think the anti fracking side had the stronger argument. They always could put up an argument about what the other side had to say. All of their information made sense and they knew what they were talking about. I am on the anti fracking side. Fracking can pollute the water and can no longer be drinkable. The chemicals from fracking can cause life long illnesses.
ReplyDeleteThough i can see the opposing groups point of view I still support fracking, It creates many jobs and is a sufficient source of energy until we find a more viable source. This process does harm the environment i know but look at the damage coal causes and we haven't stopped using it.
ReplyDeletei think that the anti fracking team won because we supported more and stronger evidence on why fracking harms and gives off bad chemicals to kill the environment.
ReplyDelete