The Instigator
Jerry_Jia
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
AthenaMusic10
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Is the invention of Nuclear Technology useful or harmful to mankind?

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 1 vote the winner is...
AthenaMusic10
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/15/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,022 times Debate No: 52591
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

Jerry_Jia

Pro

Nuclear Technology has brought many great benefit to our society. The use of Nuclear power plants, safe and clean power supply. Nuclear in medication field. But nonetheless, Nuclear Technology is definitely also very devastating to mankind. The invention of the NUKE bomb may vaporize millions of people in a split second. But for me, Nuclear Technology is far more beneficial than its counters. With the Nuclear Arsenal installed in all worlds superpowers (Chinese, Americans and Russians), there will be almost no chance that there will be another huge war like WW2. As if this happens, the entire mankind is going to evaporate. With superpowers ruling the world, there will be less chance for big conflicts and no chance for WWs. This is just my opinion...
AthenaMusic10

Con

I feel like the invention of nuclear technology has harmed the environment and mankind. This is clearly seen in both World War 1 and World War 2. When the United States bombed Hiroshima, it was said to have stopped the war but it also killed many innocent people including children who were affected by the radiation from the bomb. What I am trying to say is that PEOPLE DIE IF THEY ARE KILLED and many people died becasue of the new nuclear technology. It has helped develop human technology and is essential (the strong and weak nuclear forces) but is very harmful to health in many ways.
Debate Round No. 1
Jerry_Jia

Pro

Atomic Nuke Bomb has a range of 120KM (radius), may certainly (literally) melt thousands of people in seconds. However, without nuclear energy, there won't be sufficient electricity for us to use, as the Hydro and wind power plants are less effective. Nuclear radiation is a new way to fight some old disease that was incurable, such as cancer. With Nuclear Arsenals installed, there will be less chance to have conflicts around the world, as all nations know that once the Nuclear Apocalypse is unleashed, it is the R.I.P. for the human civilizations. Without these conflict, there will be less people killed. In Japan as you mentioned, there were about two hundred and forty thousand people killed. But without the nuke bomb that "force" Japan to surrender, how many more people will be killed in China? Possibly millions and millions more. Nowadays with the nuke armed superpowers ruling the world, every single country that want to start a fight would have to think twice before they act. Therefore there will be less conflicts between nations. How many people will be saved then? Possibly another million of people right? To the health's perspective, nuclear radiation is toxic (extremely), but it also making cancer a curable disease right? Nuclear radiation may also help mankind in the future, as the radiation alters the gene and form some new species such as wheat that can grow more and etc. Everything is like a coin, with one side painted in black and one side painted in gold. Everything has pros and cons. In my opinion, I think nuclear has brought many great benefits to the people that can overwhelm its cons.
AthenaMusic10

Con

The thing about nuclear thechnology is that there are a couple of countries who have them and have threatened to use them more than once. Some of these countries include North Korea and the United States. It is because of this reason that make nuclear technology so dangerous. Besides, there is an old quote "Too much of anything is harmful to health, excpet for goodness." -Mark Twain. Nuclear technology is increasing risks of many countries and if WW3 ever comes along, there will be many uses of nuclear technology such as atomic bombs. Innocents have and will be killed if nuclear technology is used for weapons. Even though it may be used for medicine, producing energy using nuclear power plants is harmful to the people working and round the area of the nuclear power plants. Also, since I am chinese, I understand that if the bomb was not dropped, it may have not stopped the war but there may have been other ways to resolve this problem. We should not rely on nuclear technology as weapons to defend against our country or other countries.
Debate Round No. 2
Jerry_Jia

Pro

I remember when my dad said to me:"There is no way there will be another world war is going to happen. Every single country knows it. There may be conflict, but not war. Countries like North Korea that threaten to use nuke bomb, they will never use it. These small countries uses nuke bomb to make themselves looks strong. How many nuke bomb can North Korea take? 30? Maybe 40 even? How many nuke bombs does U.S.A. have? 1000? or 1500 even? Three superpowers, with Russia and China forms alliance to stand against the U.S.A. aggression, formed a strange balance between the two alliances. U.S.A. stands no chance to win the war against the other two, and surely China and Russia are going to have a tough time to get through this. One step goes wrong, an empire will fall. Nuke weaponry as a serious threat today? I would say no. The only time when the war is going to happen, will be alien invasion and the entire world bundles together." At that time, when I thought Nuke is a threat, after these words, I never think that it is a threat anymore. It is more becoming a symbol for "a strong country". Nuke powerplant operators are protected with chemical suit that may guard them well against radiations. Otherwise why would so many people work there? In late WW2, the Japanese crisis could be resolved, who said no? But the resolving time would be delayed by months or years. Compare to what Japanese troops do every single day to Chinese civilians, within these few months or years, there would be more casualties in China than the two city were bombed. Some Japanese troops taking killing Chinese civilians an honour, a pride and something fun to do. I wouldn't given hope on the Japanese going to surrender, without the overwhelming force that is pushing their back.
AthenaMusic10

Con

I find this very funny but what you're dad is telling you (or told you) is not true. Humans often find ways to reassure themselves that what we fear will never come true. If you are scared if the dark, you will never go near the dark (or atleast try). Our brains fill in the gaps of what would happen if that fear came true becasue we fear it. WE FEAR WHAT WE FEAR. Humans (mostly the goverment) fear war because it is terrible and sad and many people die. We pretend that it does not exsit and never will but that is not true. Also, the United States seems to be the strongest country right now but the reason is that they have nuclear weapons. We also see North Korea as a strong and threatning country because they have weapons. The other countries try to make peace with North Korea out of fear. Many goverements also act out of fear because they do not want to collapse. Back to the Japan situation. If you were a normal person just sitting at home but you know you're country is in war but then BOOM this bomb comes down on you and your entire family. You lost your home and a couple of family members or friends. The next few months aren't any better. Your friend has lukemia, another family member died and many people in your neighborhood has lukemia or cancer or some other deadly desiese. The innocent people that died in Japan had abosolutly NO say in whether or not their country should go into war. Let that sink in......
Debate Round No. 3
Jerry_Jia

Pro

Jerry_Jia forfeited this round.
AthenaMusic10

Con

Ok. So I stand by my judgement that nuclear technology is harmful because it causes health defects, it is harmful to the environment and it is used as a WEAPON. It can kill people and that is something everybody wants to avoid. Countries who have control over these weapons may threaten to use them to kill millions of people.
Debate Round No. 4
Jerry_Jia

Pro

Too much video games made me forgot about this... :P
Weapon is only one practical use of Nuclear Energy, it is not the biggest role in the Nuclear usage we see in our society. And yes, Japanese civilians has nothing to do about WW2 like their government is. But nuclear weaponries are limited now due to a "whatever pact" the superpowers signed to reduce the number of nuke bombs within them and within the world. (Ironically, USA signed it but it only try to reduce the bombs in other nations while they build more...) North Korea, with China sits right beside it, does not have the gut to drop nuke bombs.
Back to the main point, nuclear technology can also greatly benefit us by producing power (which is VERY efficient) that we use everyday, cure diseases like cancer and more. Without nuclear powerplants, the cost of electricity could be few times higher than now. Nuclear also can alter genes to cure diseases and invent new species. Nuke bomb is just one negativity it have, plus no one is going to use it anyways. Therefore I still stand by my point that it is more beneficial.
AthenaMusic10

Con

So my conclusion is that although our cities may temporarily strive from the use of nuclear technology, it is still harmful to Earth and it's people. Nuclear weapons are a threat and may eliminate all life on Earth one day. This is why we must be careful while using these types of energy.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Jerry_Jia 2 years ago
Jerry_Jia
WOW!!! Nobody vote here? WHY!!!!!!!!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by AdamKG 2 years ago
AdamKG
Jerry_JiaAthenaMusic10Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had a more convincing argument and seemed more knowledgeable. Pro's arguments had some falsities or very unlikely opinions. Conduct goes to con since pro forfeited a round because of video games, apparently. Neither side used sources.