I have a 50 minute debate coming up and the topic is oil drilling in Alaska's ANWR?

will make the United States less dependent on foreign energy. I have been assigned to the pro oil drilling side. Does anyone have any good main premises I can use to argue this?I have a 50 minute debate coming up and the topic is oil drilling in Alaska's ANWR?
I'm very much against drilling ANWR. With that in mind, some of the pros you might use are:


- the US Geological Survey estimates x barrels of recoverable oil (I don't know the actual number so look it up). Most people say this isn't worth destroying the refuge but without thorough exploration we can't be sure there isn't more.


- With oil guaranteed to increase in cost it makes sense to exploit ever possible source we can find.


- Finding oil in ANWR may delay the impact of Peak Oil (look up Peak Oil theory and spend a little time explaining it).


- There is already existing infrastructure in Alaska to get crude to the market so investment would be minimal.


- It would boost the bottom line of American oil companies and provide jobs.





I think those arguments aren't worth the cost but you can only debate the side you were assigned. Good luck.I have a 50 minute debate coming up and the topic is oil drilling in Alaska's ANWR?
Yes, it is full of millions of barrels of oil. It is inside our country. We will need oil for at least another 20 years or more. There is no reason not to retrieve and use this oil. I may make a 1000 Square acres look bad, but the entire site is massive. Those who are against the drilling aren't because they care about these 1000 Square Acres, they want people to stop using oil completely. We need to utilize OUR oil reserves and pay OUR people to retrieve it. There is no downside.
This is why I didn't persue debate beyond one semester. My ethics hinder me from arguing points of view in which I don't believe.
its will help te stock market.