The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

America should expand nuclear energy production.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/1/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,256 times Debate No: 26812
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (26)
Votes (2)




First round is acceptance.
Second round is for contentions.
Third round is for counter-arguments.
Fourth round is for voters and clarification.


I accept the debate.
I will be arguing that America should not expand nuclear energy production
May both of enjoy this debate and let's begin.

P.S. I apologize for late reply.
Debate Round No. 1


(575)=evidence 8)= argument. This is just a brief key to make it more legible.
I believe that the United States of America should increase the nuclear energy production for the following reasons. It has worked in other countries, It is not nearly as deadly as people say, America needs the energy and this is a cost efficient option.
1) For my first argument I would like to point to France. They are getting 77.7 of their energy from nuclear energy. (1)France is fine and they are using nuclear energy effectively and have had less negative environmental impacts than oil coal and other fossil fuels. This is something that America can move into as we do have examples and could follow Frances nuclear code as they have not had any huge nuclear problems.
2) The cleanest energy(3)(4) is by far nuclear power. We are not harming the environment and we are losing less lives than if we used different energy sources.

3) Nuclear energy is the most cost efficient energy in the United States. (2)We are at a time where we are in a state of extreme national debt and the cheapest energy option is by far the best. (5) We are importing 45% of our foreign oil and this is costing way more than the nuclear energy. Nuclear energy can fill this gap in energy production. The cheapest energy and the cleanest energy is the obvious choice.(3)
Conclusion: Nuclear energy has proved itself by working in France as well as acting as the cheapest and the cleanest energy we have available.



I thank pro for initiating this debate. As Con, I will be arguing that the United States should not seek to build more nuclear power plants.

Undeniably nuclear power could generate an enormous amount of electricity while releasing virtually no greenhouse gases; given numerous reasons including the potential safety risk, and the challenge of disposing of nuclear waste, however, it is unwise to build more nuclear power plants.

Exorbitant Cost
Construction & Operational Cost
While no one knows exactly how much a new nuclear reactor will cost, the estimation for new construction continue to rise.

A collection of new studies suggest that the actual cost of building a new nuclear reactor would be between $3,600 and $4,000 per installed KW. According to Synapse Energy Economic Inc., companies that are planning new nuclear units were expected to pay $5,500/kW to 8,100/kW or between $6 billion and $9 billion for each 1,100 MW plant (2008 figure).[2]

In October 2007, Florida Power & Light (FPL) announced a range of overnight costs for its two proposed nuclear power plants (total of 2200MV) as being between $3,108/kW and 4,4540/Kw. FPL also estimated the total cost of the project (including escalation and financing costs) as being between $5,492/kW and $8,081/kW. These estimated costs translated into a projected total cost of $12.1 billion to $17.8 billion, for just two 1100 MW plants.[2]

As if the things were not bad enough, one company, MidAmercian Energy Holding, announced at the end of 2007 that it had cancelled a proposed nuclear power plant because no longer made made economic sense for its ratepayers.[2]

Comparing to other energy source, nuclear-powered energy costs 14 percent more than gas to produce a unit of electricity and it costs almost 30 percent more than coal.[1] The increased cost of nuclear energy includes a taxpayers subsidy of up to 80 percent of nuclear power"s operating costs.[2] Subsidizing costly nuclear power plants directs that money to large, centralized facilities, built by a few large companies that will take the profits out of the communities they build in. To make the things worse, private sectors are unwilling to finance the new plant due to its high financial risk, which necessarily leaves the government subsidy as the only option.[3]

Storage Cost
The above cost estimation does not take expense of storing nuclear waste in to consideration. In August 2008, the U.S. Department of Energy offered an updated estimate of the cost of building and operating Yucca Mountain, the planned centralized repository being erected in Nevada. The DOE noted that the expected cost for Yucca Mountain was $96.2 billion in 2008/2009, and this figure only covers the costs of building the facility and transporting waste until 2133.[4]

Potential Risk & Safety Issue
Another great concern that frequents Nuclear energy is safety issue. Undeniably, in the wake of 9/11, the safety of nuclear plants have greatly improved. The safety problems, however, persist. A disaster like the Chernobyl, Three Island, and Japan Fukushima Diichi plant accidents can happen anytime anyplace. In fact, as super-storm Sandy punched the East Coast hard in the stomach and claimed many innocent lives, three nuclear power plants were forced to shut down and an alert was issued for the Oyster Creek Plant for potential safety issue.[5] Prior to Japan Fukushima accidents, industries including national government tend to believe that the current design is sufficient to sustain every situation that mankind can possibly image. It seems that none of earthquakes, hurricanes, direct strikes by jets/airplanes, and terrorists could breach the concrete wall surrounding the nuclear reactor.[6] Shortly after the accident on March 11, 2011, however, those perceptions of safety began rapidly changing. Nuclear facility remains vulnerable. A well-designed, highly redundant system can still fail catastrophically. Do anyone really want to see what will happen to them if a terrorist attacks a nuclear power plant or experience a nuclear meltdown if tropic storm like Sandy breach the safety design of a nuclear facility?

Waste Management
The primary waste product of nuclear power, spent fuel rods, remains highly toxic for literally thousands of years. On average, a nuclear power plant annually generates 20 metric tons of high-level radioactive waste.[7] So far, there are 104 operational nuclear power plant in the United States, and the combined total climbs to approximately 2,080 metric tons a year.[8] Since all of this waste emits radiation and heat, it will eventually corrode any container that holds it. Although most experts agree that the best way to dispose of waste is deep underground, when the Department of Energy picked Yucca Mountain in southwestern Nevada for repository, however, the proposal immediately became a political non-starter. No matter how supportive the communities are with respect to nuclear energy, no one would want a box of highly toxic substance buried in his or her backyard. Today, the nuclear waste goes into "spent fuel polls" at nuclear power plants like the one at Indian Point, just 35 miles north of New York City. Consider that the U.S. Government recommended a 50-mile evacuation radius during the Fukushima disaster, a catastrophe would ensue with a mathematical certainty if anything happens to the nearby nuclear reactor.[5] Serious failing in storage technology has resulted in widespread opposition.

Americans do not need nuclear power. Energy demands can be and also should be met from other sources from clean coal energy to natural gas. It is undeniable that climate change is real and people should actively attempt develop new technology to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions and reduce energy costs. The nuclear energy, however, is not the answer to this enduring question. It is not unreasonable to assert that Nuclear energy is relatively clear energy, but numbers suggest that the technology is not cost-effect and inherent risk associated with nuclear energy is too great to ignore. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. Fukushima accident had taught us a great lesson: nuclear energy is not the solution.

Thank you

Debate Round No. 2


I will first defend my arguments and then attack what my opponent has said.
1) My opponent never really attacks my first contention about how this has worked in other countries so that still stands.
2) My opponent cites hurricane sandy and natural disasters saying that plants could be breached but the American power plants were not damaged. He also makes note of the disaster in Japan. (1) This was not because of a problem with Nuclear reactors but a problem in withholding high standards. These standards are getting met by the U.S.A. and no nuclear damage from sandy is proof.
3) If several stations are commissioned at once, then the cost should go down because of economies of scale - a sort of bulk discount. (2) Once built, nuclear power plants have advantages.
In a gas-fired plant, the gas alone makes up 80% of the cost of electricity. So firms and consumers are very exposed to the wholesale price of gas.But at a nuclear power plant, the fuel is processed uranium, accounting for just 10% of the cost of production. While it may cost more to build it will be a good investment for the future.(3)

My opponent says that the exuberant cost is a huge deal.(2)(3) This shows that nuclear power is able to be built for much less than what he has stated. This also shows that once it is built it is far more effective.
He states that there is a very large safety issue with nuclear energy.(sorry for the long chart)(4)
Coal " global average 170,000 (50% global electricity)

Coal " China 280,000 (75% China"s electricity)

Coal " U.S. 15,000 (44% U.S. electricity)

Oil 36,000 (36% of energy, 8% of electricity)

Natural Gas 4,000 (20% global electricity)

Biofuel/Biomass 24,000 (21% global energy)

Solar (rooftop) 440 (< 1% global electricity)

Wind 150 (~ 1% global electricity)

Hydro " global average 1,400 (15% global electricity)

Nuclear " global average 90 (17% global electricity w/Chern&Fukush)
As shown by this chart nuclear energy s by far the most efficient in energy per deaths. If it has the most energy per life lost it is the safest. I also use this rebuttal vs the waste management as it is causing next to no damage.

My opponent never says anything that could take over the role of nuclear besides more gas and when we already have to import almost half of our oil this is not the right step.
I would also like to say that the BP oil spill has caused an extreme amount of damage.(5) America needs energy and the only option is nuclear.
(2)But if several stations are commissioned at once, then the cost should go down because of economies of scale - a sort of bulk discount.


"My opponent never really attacks...still stands."
Unlike France, the United States had once experienced the nuclear disaster in the past (Three Mile Island incident). Unlike France, Americans have abundant natural reserves. Pro"s contention is strong only if the two countries are alike, but Pro has yet included the relevant evidence to prove it so.

"My opponent cites hurricane sandy and natural disasters...and no nuclear damage from Sandy is proof"
Pro"s argument inevitably conveyed a false impression that the Fukushima disasters should be solely attributed to the design flaw, and since the United States would build new reactors with no pre-mentioned flaw, it is plausible to assume that the Fukushima disasters would not be repeated in the U.S. Pro, however, ignored the alternative explanation of the Fukushima disasters: human incapability of defending natural disasters. Japanese government well realized the design flaw and there was huge redundancy to cover the safety issue. But even so, the Japanese government still failed to secure the reactor during the Tsunami. [1]

The reactors that failed in Japan are Mark 1 boiling water reactors designed by General Electric in the 1960s. Th Achilles heel in a boiling water reactor has to do with its cooling system. The main coolant in the nuclear reactor is water which is circulated through the electric pumps system. If the electric pumps lose power, the water inside the nuclear reactor would continue boil off. If enough water boils off, the nuclear core would get melted. In the worst case, the molten fuel, along with highly toxic substance, get released into the surrounding environment. [1]

Because of this known vulnerability, there is huge redundancy around the pumps and their supply of electricity. In summary, there are three layers of extra-protections: Power can come from the power grid if the main reactor is shutdown. If that fails, there are additional backup diesel generators. If that fails as well, there is a backup batter system. Even with all this redundancy, the electric pump system still failed. During the incoming natural disasters, the nuclear power plants were immediately shut down. After the primary source of electricity was gone, rectors switched to power grid mode. However, the power grid was also disconnected because of the perennial earthquake. The secondary source of electricity was therefore gone. Then when the tsunami hit, the unexpected water levels from the tsunami causes the diesel generators to fail. The third defense was gone as well. Then it left the last layer of redundancy - batteries. But batteries were sized to last for only a few hours, and when the last defense was breached, water in the nuclear reactor continued boiling off. Hydrogen gas was quickly generated and accumulated, and it eventually exploded inside the reactor building. [1]

Fukushima incident is not an atypical case. The nuclear power plant that near the NY city is identical to one in Fukushima Dai-ichi. Therefore, both nuclear reactors are subjected to the same safety concerns. Citied by Exelon"s statement, if the water level rose over 7 feet, there is a potential for the core to overheat. The water levels eventually reached a peak of 7.4 feet, but fortunately did not persist before it was down to 5.8 feet. If Sandy were stronger, it is not unreasonable to assume that another disaster would ensue. Given the continuation of global warming and climate change, human may face more Sandy type storms in the near future. [2]

Fukushima Dai-ichi disaster had sent a resounding message to all Americans: a well designed nuclear reactor can still fail catastrophically. A good advise is: Do not play the game unless you afford to lose.

"If several stations are commissioned at once...a sort of bulk discount."
Unfortunately, the conventional wisdom does not hold in the case of nuclear reactors. The more nuclear reactors that government attempts to build, the more it costs. The increased costs are largely due to a fierce worldwide competition for the resources, commodities and manufacturing capacity needed in the design and construction of new power plants. There are no compelling reasons for the government to pursue such an unsustainable energy policy, especially when there are better alternatives available. [3]

"My opponent says that the exuberant cost...what he stated."
I urge Pro to present more evidence regarding the cost of nuclear reactors. It is a known fact that cost of nuclear reactors always exceed the estimated budgets, sometimes by a margin of 200% ~300%. There are many things that work great on paper, but eventually fail miserably in reality. [3]

"He states that there is a very large safety issue with nuclear energy"
Two points:
First, the numbers are at best misleading, and at worst devious. Coal industry, for example, is labor intense industry. Due to the high number of people employed in coal industry and relatively low efficiency in coal process, it is not surprised that its mortality rate is much higher than the rest of industry. Instead of measuring the relative safety by deaths per trillion KWhr, the paper should use percentage of deaths calculated by number of deaths over total number of employees. [4][5]

Second, the safety concerns should not be measured by number of death alone. As what had happened in Chemobyl nuclear disaster: the number of death resulted from the explosion was no more than 40 people, but the incident was rated the worst nuclear disaster in human history. During a radioactive fire that burn for 10 days, 190 tons of highly toxic materials were expelled into the atmosphere. At the time of the accident, about 7 million people lived in contaminated territories, including 3 million children. Today, millions of people continue to exposed to high doses of radiation that would result in tumors, genetic mutations, and sever damage to the immune system. [5][6]

In terms of long-term health impact, thyroid cancer in children has increased in the contaminated area since the disaster. The World Health Organization predicts that over 50,000 children will develop the disease because of the incidents. Moreover, incidence of leukemia has increased 50% in children and adults. In addition to thyroid cancer and leukemia, UNICEF reports that between 1990 and 1994, nervous system disorders increased by 43%; cardiovascular diseases by 43%; bone and muscle disorders by 62%; and diabetes by 28%. Number of birth defects and genetic mutations were also reported increased dramatically follow the incidents. Besides the long term health concerns, after the Chernobyl accident, almost 400,000 were forced leave their home for their own safety. The long term health social concerns cannot be captured by by mortality rate alone. [5][6]

Therefore it is irrational to measure the safety issue merely on the basis of mortality rate. In the case of nuclear safety, the aforementioned mortality rate is next to meaningless.

"My opponent never says anything that...and the option is nuclear"
Nuclear is not the only option anymore. There is a range of cost-effective and more secured clean energy available: Solar power, wind power, and geothermal power. Natural gas is probably the best choice in the future.

I also ask Pro to address Waste issue. It is one of the biggest issue that people stress frequently.

Thank you.

Debate Round No. 3


I would like to thank con for this debate. He is the best opponent that I have faced.
I will defend my case and then attack his.
Argument 1: My opponent says that France as an example does notwork due to America having more resources and the three mile island incident. We import almost half of our oil. I would not call this "abundant natural reserves". The three mile island incident was due to lack of proper training and nobody was even harmed in the incident.[1] France still is a valid example that we can base our code and nuclear progress from. France also has some of the lowest electricity costs of any country.[4]

Argument 2: He says that natural disasters are reasons to stop the expansion of nuclear energy.[2] The largest storm and a storm that is breaking records cannot breach the nuclear safe wall. My opponent says that the storms will continue to grow because of global warming. This will be true only if we do not grow out nuclear energy production. The Japanese did not defend against the design flaw.[3] They did not. It is not the same as the one in America. The advanced reactors, the ones we would be building, stayed up and shut down safely.

The argument about cost:[5] "20 percent of U.S. electricity comes from 104 nuclear reactors on about 100 square miles."
This also can have something to do with cost. The cost of land.[4]" Producing the same amount of power from wind would require covering an area the size of West Virginia with 183,000 50-story turbines as well as building 19,000 miles of new transmission lines through scenic areas and suburban backyards"while building a nuclear plant does require money to build the payoff is very worth it. We will have more land to work with and instead of buying we could sell or do something worthwhile off of. Nuclear is the cheapest when it is already established. "nuclear plant built in the near future to cost around "70 per megawatt hour over its lifetime. The figure for gas would be "95/MWh, for coal it would be "130/MWh and for wind the cost is even higher, around "145/MWh" [4]Nuclear is worth it.

Safety concerns: Chernobyl was a completely different type of reactor than American reactors. The American reactors are the 5 that did not break down during fukoshima and did not break down during the record breaking storm Sandy. My opponent also acts like the BP oil spill did not happen. The Alaskan oil spill and this is just in the past few years while my opponent is going back to 40 years ago.The point is that to act like nuclear energy is the only source of energy to have problems is not true.

Solar, wind, and geothermal simply cost way too much. Natural gas is just far too risky.[6]

The waste issue that my opponent asks me to address."And thanks to technology, we can safely recycle "nuclear waste" and turn most of it into more fuel. After recycling, the French are able to store all of their final waste"from producing 80 percent of their electricity for 30 years"in one room in La Hague." The problem is one of the past. 30 years of production and the largest problem is still in only one room. I would call that more efficient than all the carbon dioxide in the air as of right now.[4]


I would like to extend my sincerest thanks to Mr.baseballkid who initiates this interesting debate.

Closing Argument
Americans are growing increasingly concerned about energy, and the growing problems with America"s energy supplies are further complicated by hostile and unfriendly nations which dominates the world oil supply. Coercive regimes, occasionally, employ energy supplies as an economic weapon to harm American interest. Therefore, there are compelling reasons to to augment the domestic energy supply while at the same time reduce the reliance on foreign oil. Nevertheless, the nuclear energy should not be considered one of those options.

It is undeniable that nuclear power does offers some advantages over other power sources, but the technology entails a great risk, both financially and environmentally. Without a proper management, nuclear power would gravely threat national security. Often, due to the nature of the technology, government direct intervention is necessary. The subsidy is frequently at the expense of the taxpayers. Companies that are planning new nuclear units are expected to pay a sum between $6 billion and $9 billion for each 1,100 MW nuclear plant. MidAmercian Energy Holding, citing exorbitant cost as the main cause for canceling a proposed nuclear power plant, further reinforces the notion that nuclear energy is not the solution. No private sectors are willing to finance the new power plant, which necessarily leaves the government, therefore the taxpayers to subsidize the nuclear industry. The unsustainable cost alone could sufficiently invalid the policy of building more nuclear power plants.

In addition to the prohibitive construction costs, safety issue is also one of the greatest concerns. Chernobyl, Three Island, and Fukushima Diichi plant accidents can happen anytime anyplace. Undoubtedly, the United States would build more advanced nuclear reactors than Japanese ones, the Fukushima tragedy, however, reminds the American people that a well-designed nuclear power plant may still fail catastrophically. Human errors, although greatly reduced, may still occur. In Chernobyl nuclear disaster, 190 tons of highly toxic radioactive materials were expelled into the atmosphere. Even today, millions of people are still hunted by this man-made nightmare. Given the complexity of world situations and increasingly alarming global warming, it is not unreasonable to assume that nuclear disasters may happen again, if not necessary in the United States.

The United States is blessed with a cornucopia of energy resources. Developing them has been a pathway to prosperity for the nation in the past and offers similar promise for the future.[1] Therefore nuclear energy is not the sole option anymore. There are many alternatives that may serve the national interest while also meet the energy demands. Gulf of Mexico, both the Atlantic and Pacific Outer Continental Shelves, Western lands, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and off the Alaska coast. All these aforementioned places are within the boundary of the United States territory and they also contain an abundant conventional reserves beneath them.[1] The oil explorations entail a great risk to the surrounding environment, government should therefore develop a comprehensive energy policy to prevent the BP oil spill from happening again. In addition to explore and develop the oil reserves, partner with friendly neighbors would also ensure a steady steam of conventional energy supply. Canada and Mexico are home to enormous oil reserves and the United States should work in close partnership with them to develop those resources.[1]

Natural gas is another option. Natural gas is the cleanest-burning fossil fuel, and it should play a bigger role in the national energy supply.[1] Recent discoveries suggest that the United States may have an approximately 100-year supply.[1] Extracting this gas requires a technique called "fracking." Although the technique is not without risk, the potential benefits greatly overweight the potential environmental concerns. [1] Besides, it is much safety than nuclear technology.

Solar and wind power are the future energy source. The existing technology to harvest solar and wind power is not mature, and the efficiency of power sources are constrained by uncontrollable factors. (Continued sunlight for solar power plants and geographic requirements for wind power plants.) But both powers are alternative to nuclear power. Instead of spending billions of dollars on subsidizing the nuclear industry, government should redistribute the appropriation to fund fundamental research and advanced technology.

Jim Talent, former U.S. Senator from Missouri once said that "America has hundreds of years of coal reserves. Recent discovers are making the United States the "Saudi Arabia of natural gas." [1] Even oil, according to the Senator, is available in much greater quantity. It is estimated that America has domestic reserves of at least twenty billion barrels of oil.[1] With such an abundant natural reserves, America should not risk its own national interest and security to pursue highly dangerous and widely deplored nuclear energy.

Americans are growing increasingly concerned about energy. Much of the world"s supply of oil is delivered in a restrictive market dominated by unstable or hostile nations, some of which are using energy as a tool to frustrate U.S. National security and foreign policy objectives.[2][3] Sound national energy policy therefore is central to America"s freedom and prosperity. It is time to debunk the claim that nuclear power is inexpensive and safe energy source and lead government energy policy to move in the right direction.[2][3]

Thank you.

Debate Round No. 4
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheElderScroll 3 years ago
We should ask more people to vote for the debate.
Posted by baseballkid 3 years ago
this was a lame way to win lol.
Posted by baseballkid 3 years ago
I agree. I like winning and batman is cool but this was a debate with a lot of effort put in.
Posted by TheElderScroll 3 years ago
No reasons? I would prefer some reasons...
Posted by baseballkid 3 years ago
Yes jmr354. vote please lol.
Posted by TheElderScroll 3 years ago
If you can, then vote. Any opinions are welcomed.
Posted by jmr354 3 years ago
This is a very interesting debate and I am interested to see who wins. I personally agree with @baseballkid.
Posted by TheElderScroll 3 years ago
It is a very interesting debate and I greatly enjoyed it. There are some points, such as politic reasons, yet being brought up from both sides. Those points bear further analysis and could also move the debate in a complete new directions. The more we learn, the less we know.

P.S. Mr.Freedom1Man also raised many valid points, such as Thermal and photovoltaic, which bear further analysis.

BP oil spill is one of the worst oil pills in history, and it would not be the last as long as people continue use conventional energy source. According to my knowledge, there was another oil spill back in 1970s or 1980s. The culprit was Mr.Big Oil ExxonMobil. So you have the very right to dislike big oil companies, but here is the reality: Without those Mr.Big Oil, Americans would have gone "energy bankrupted" and millions of people would lose their jobs.

As for the vote, I would like to say that I certainly could lose the debate after more votes. So please ask your friends to vote on debate and see.

P.S. My gratitude to Mr.RationalMadman.
Posted by TheElderScroll 3 years ago
As for the solar panels, if it can produce power at such a low cost, it would be a great news to all Americans. But it also should be acknowledged that the solar market is not expanding at the pace that the government had envisioned. So it does raise a legitimate question: What has happened to the bankrupted solar-company Solyndra? I am guessing that 200 dollars per panel would not be profitable for the company. The panels can be produced at such low cost is not the same as saying that the panels will be produced at such low cost. There is a fine line between "can be" and "will be." (In reality, they are two very different of sorts).

Many of your points about Solar power are great. I would agree with you that solar power should be encouraged, but perhaps just not right now (a good question would be: then when?). If the debate is about the future energy source or renewable energy or whether the government should build more nuclear power to solve global warming, solar power perhaps would be the one pillar of the discussions.

There are also some political reasons needed to be considered. Politicians are incline to focus more on short term than long term results. Every politician constantly face the pressure of re-elections (Every two-year for the House Representatives and every two-year for 1/3 of the U.S. Senators) and their voters demand results, especially the immediate results. Therefore, some politicians may attempt to please their own constituents at the expense of the entire nation.

Another reason is that solar industry is not labor intense industry and it needs massive government subsidy to stay competitive. In short term, the industry would not create many jobs. Given the current economic and political climates, pursuing solar power would earn myriad political backlashes. Besides, although Republicans resent solar industry, they tend to support nuclear industry, so do many Democrats. There are simply too many things going on at the sam
Posted by baseballkid 3 years ago
my opponent did not really bring up solar. He said more natural gas and oil and coal so that is what I talked about.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by G0102676 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: HES BATMAN
Vote Placed by RationalMadman 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: So amazingly debated both sides. However, I think that it came to what is more important a concern: Distribution of energy or safety of lives? This is why I voted con. He raised a more essential core issue but both did as well as each other.