If we could drill in ANWR, we would be less dependent on foreign oil.
ANWR oil would take 10 years to come to market and the impact would be negligible.
This assumes domestic oil will be sold at a discount in the U.S.
I would rework this as "Environmentalists have been trying to free us from ALL oil since the 70's"
I agree with your premise, but I felt this argument was more in tune with our current national dialogue.
"Merely liberal rhetoric" is insufficient.
I changed the node to "It would take less than 5 years to get significant oil from ANWR". You indicate that "many studies" show otherwise. Please cite at least one.
J-Luck - when you claim support from polls, you need to cite at least one.
Furthermore, your appeal to popularity is most certainly a logical fallacy, even if you're just using it to refute a claim of unpopularity (itself an ad populum).
As such, I'm removing your node "VERY CLEARLY NOT A Populum".
More importantly, you misunderstood the node you were refuting. The node was not arguing unpopularity, it was arguing concerns that spills or other pollutants would damage the tourist economy generated by these coastal regions.
Ad populum suggests that a point is correct merely because the populus believe the point to be true. You may delete the poll argument, however, you must keep in mind that you are still not correct, and it was clearly not ad populum.
Will be glad to oblige, many scientists agree with my statement. I'll try to find multiple sources by tommorrow and link them in.
I didn't misunderstand the node. The user was arguing that people don't want tourism to be threatened, that if you googled the term, you would find that is was an unpoular idea.
I was merely refuting this.
I concede that the node was inelegantly worded. But let's take a closer look at it.
Just google "offshore drilling tourism" and you'll see who opposes offshore drilling - the people whose economy depends on their beautiful beaches and the tourists it attracts.
The title of the node "Tourism destinations are the reason for the moratorium" implies nothing about popularity.
The body of the node supports the title by noting the economic dependency on tourism. Yes, it begins with a reference to who opposes it, but that's clearly a secondary point.
The best you can hope for here is that the node comprises two assertions, the lesser of which was an ad populum.