The Instigator
Pro (for)
20 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Nuclear Energy

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 4 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/19/2011 Category: Technology
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,100 times Debate No: 17577
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (4)




This is going to be a simple Pro Nuclear Energy vs Con Nuclear Energy. No specific resolution, just the broad subject of using nuclear energy.

Burden of Proof - The BoP falls equally on both debaters to support and defend their arguments while refuting their opponent's. For example, Con can focus on negative effects to the environment, safety issues, or better alternatives rendering Nuclear obsolete, but Con cannot just disagree with everything Pro puts up (and vise versa).

I will go ahead and present some definitions. Unless Con finds these definitions to be abusive, they are to be accepted. If Con finds them abusive, Con is free to present alternative definitions, but then it will be up to the voters to agree if my definitions are abusive or not.

Nuclear energy (as it pertains to this debate) - The gathering of energy from nuclear fission or nuclear fusion to use in commercial purposes (such as electricity).

Nuclear fission - A nuclear reaction in which a heavy nucleus splits spontaneously or on impact with another particle, with the release of energy. [1]

Nuclear fusion - A nuclear reaction in which atomic nuclei of low atomic number fuse to form a heavier nucleus with the release of energy. [2]

Con may present any additional definitions that they choose and may start debating in their R1, however, they are also free to pass it back to me to start in my R2.

Additional definitions may be added as needed throughout the entire debate.



I wish to thank Ore_Ele for this opportunity and look forward to a good debate.

I accept the definitions provided.

As the Con, I will respectfully defer my opening positions until after Pro has presented.
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate and look forward to a wonder debate on the merits of Nuclear Energy.

This is going to be a very broad debate, and so it is likely that we will be using all of our characters before saying all that we wish to say. So in order to maximize what we say in our limited space, I will try to keep this as organized as possible. My argument is going to break down into three separate categories. Effectiveness, Safety, and Cost.

1)Effectiveness of Nuclear Energy

Nuclear reactors generate electricity though good ol' fashion steam driven generators (the two most common reactors are the PWR [1] and the BWR [2]). The only thing that the nuclear material is used for is heating up the water and turning it into steam. This may sound like old technology (steam locomotives are a thing of old cowboy movies, not modern society), but with modern technology, it is quite capable of generating immense amounts of usable energy with very little input.

Since the water that is turned to steam can be cooled and condensed, the water can be reused, and so never needs to be replaced. This means that the only thing that needs to be replaced is the nuclear fuel and parts through general wear and tear (usually the generator, since it has the most moving parts). The nuclear fuel can last about 2 years before needing to be replaced in modern power plants [3]. However, new designs, such as the TWR [4] are designed so that they can go decades between refueling and can even use fuel that was once viewed as waste (only using a small amount of U235, and a vast majority of U238).

Your average nuclear reactor produces around 1,000 MW of power, and many power plants will have several reactors on site. The average American home uses 920 kWh per month [5]. This means that a single nuclear reactor (at 1,000 MW) can provide power for about 800,000 homes (exact number is 794,021.7).

2)Safety of nuclear energy and its waste

Everyone knows that nuclear material can be dangerous to your health if you are directly exposed to it. This is why nuclear power plants go to crazy lengths to protect people for as much risk as they can. In PWRs, along with many computerized safety systems, the nuclear material is removed from the environment by two layers of the functioning reactor. While in the BWR, the water that the reactor is in is only removed by one layer. Emerging styles, like the PBMR [6] that use silicon carbide for friction protection, are essentially meltdown proof, as should the reactor lose power, the natural flow of the gases in the reactor would prevent a meltdown.

When it comes to the waste, reprocessing can eliminate around 80% of it, though it isn't a flat 80% that is being removed. It is basically digging through the waste and gathering the remaining U238 and the Pu239 that forms and is not fissiled away. Originally, we only reprocessed to gather the Pu239 in order to make bombs (shame on us and Russia… and everyone else that copied us afterwards), but that Pu239 can be used as fuel. What aren't reused in the waste are all the Cs, Rb, I, and other fissile products. While those are still dangerous and need to be handled with care, the biggest bad boy in the waste is actually the Pu239 (partially because it will turn to the super evil Radon gas). The rest is bad, but not nearly close to Pu. This means that by reprocessing it, it actually makes less waste, and makes it safer for the whole family (not recommended for children under 10, the elderly, pregnant women, or human skin in general). We also have a wonderful option in new technologies that are developing such as nuclear decay reactors (NDR) [8], which allow us to take radioactive waste, place it in a modified reactor and simply turn the heat that comes off of it into electricity.
The other option is to take the waste away and bury it. Now, if the waste is reprocessed, all the Pu239, U238, and any U235 still in it, are removed. So all we have left is the fissile product. The most common of which is Cs133, I135, Zr93 and Mo99, but there are many different elements, all of which have a different half life. For U235 thermal nuclear reaction, 72.24% of the fissile product has a half-life of less than 100 years while only 27.76% is over 1,000 years (surprisingly none of it is between 100 and 1,000 years) [9]. So most of this stuff will naturally decay away into safe and stable elements (many in weeks), while only a little actually remains for thousands ofyears.

3)Cost of building and Maintaining Nuclear Power.

Currently (as of 2010), the cost of nuclear fuel for a single reload was $40 million [10]. Now, that may sound like a lot of money. But given that it only needs to be reloaded once every 18 months makes it very cheap indeed (about 0.65 cents per kWh). And with TWR which can use all of the U238, and not just a portion of enriched Uranium, their cost would be lower. In 2010, the average cost of operation and maintenance for a US reactor came in at about 1.49 cents per kWh. And that is with all of the government regulations (some of which are needed, but some of which are not). There are some other costs (like the Nuclear Waste Fund and such), but they come in at around 0.1 cents per kWh.

This makes the fuel for nuclear power much cheaper than conventional gas or coal. The downside, is that nuclear power plants are more expensive to construct. Currently around $4,500 per kW, compared to Coal's $3,400 per kW or Natural Gas's $1,000 per kW [11].

With this being said, I will turn the floor over to my opponent.

Thank you



I will begin with my opponent's case and then present an alternative to nuclear energy.

Opening statement: My opponent has produced some very impressive data on the efficiency of nuclear energy. Prima facie or first glance could easily sway a person to support nuclear energy. I vaguely recall having done rudimentary research on nuclear energy for a Lincoln-Douglas topic last fall. In fact, a conversation I had with our science department head revealed only one significant pitfall, what to do with the waste?

My opponent has even identified dis-ads of nuclear waste and offered suggestions on the very subject of nuclear waste.

If we dig deeper though, what are other concerns? Let's explore!

1) Effectiveness. At first glance the only disagreements I could identify were really nitpicky stuff. I could say that some of the water which became steam would inevitably evaporate and have to be replaced. I could even strengthen my opponent's defense by saying that the moving parts replacement schedule is likely very minimal.

There is no shame in expanding Robert Fulton's use of steam even if it is an old idea. We still use wheels right? :o)

There is no doubt that nuclear energy can offer power to communities. I, and the judges, are likely tired of semantical battles of topicality, that being said; much of my opponent's first point are stipulated and conceded.

2) Safety. This is a cause for concern. While technologically developed nations such as the U.S.A., the U.K., and France have operated plants for upwards of 60 years without serious incident, that does not make them immune to trouble. Many safeguards have been implemented since the 1950's to improve and upgrade the facilities. Yet, even superpowers such as the U.S. (3 mile island) and the former Soviet Union (Chernobyl) have had their share of growing pains. Most recently, another developed nation, Japan, experienced a calamity of catastrophic proportion. Are nuclear power plants compeletly safe? No.

Now consider lesser developed nations that are seeking nuclear power, Iran and North Korea for example. Both are suspect for being politically unstable as well as using nuclear energy to develop nuclear weapons. Oversight can be a tricky thing when a more radical nation prefers not to be inspected or have other's watching over their shoulders as they attempt to develop energy, or secretly weaponry. This forces them to be sneaky, which may lead to shortcuts, which may lead to disaster.

Security of nuclear facilities. There are high protocol, likely classified, to protect the integrity of nuclear facilities in developed nations. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for less stable nations. Can anyone, with any certainty, verify the count of every spent rod or piece of weaponry from the the Former Soviet Union, especially after the breakup of the former into 15 separate and independent nations? I would have to say no.

Further, what would prevent well organized and well funded terrorists from acquiring nuclear materials in lesser developed nations? This too eats away at the safety argument.

An article I discovered addresses nuclear waste in a different light than that of my opponent. Like my opponent, it identfied waste that was short term and had reduced effects with proper handling and recycling. Also, like my opponent it identified longer term waste. However; the safety of the longer term waste was the compelling factor. It is quite dangerous, ecologically unfriendly, and can take an estimated 1000 years to decay.

These are a few "what if" or otherwise hypothetical scenarios that challenge nuclear energy safety as well as historical examples such as 3 mile island, Chernobyl, and Japan. While precautions and protocol do exist, they are far from foolproof, and are not necessarily as safe as my opponent would have us believe.

3) Costs. My opponent has demonstrated that nuclear energy does indeed exceed the effectiveness of fossil fuels. It's common knowledge and widely accepted that once established, nuclear is more logical than fossil. It appears to be cleaner in emissions, and uses fewer resources in producing more energy. At first glance, this seems to make perfect sense.

This leads me to ask a question. Why then isn't everyone using nuclear energy then? A Smithsonian study showed that only approximately 16% of the worl'd energy is nuclear based. Since it is demonstrably more effective as shown by my opponent's CBA, why aren't most nations using it? Simply put, the necessary precautions make it cost prohibitive.

Many African and Central American nations struggle to even provide basic necessities to their citizens. Citizens in African nations do not enjoy clean water, adequate food, clothing, or shelter. Haiti and Honduras don't even have a pot to piss in. In fact, many nations have substandard living conditions to include plumbing and basic sanitation. Constructing a nuclear power plant is not in their foreseeable future.

My case:

At first glance my alternative seems to be a reinvention of the wheel. There are alternatives to nuclear energy though. All of which can be done at a fraction of the cost of nuclear energy, and boast a much better safety record.

HYDRO: Every nation does have rivers. Dams can be constructed, and power can be retrieved via hydro energy.

SOLAR: Especially with so many "experts" verifying the existence of greenhouse gases and global warming, you would think that would open the door even wider for good ol' solar power. Yes the sun shines all over the earth! Yes, solar panels are expensive, and yes, at present they need to be rather large to capture this energy. Why can't every roof be a solar panel? This is worth research and development money! Opportunity is knocking! (For my beloved Israelis, I am offering triple mitzvah points if you discover it first) Who among us on this earth will be the first to develop more efficient solar power for all to enjoy?

WIND: The wind blows. Meterologists have ways to track weather and determine the most strategic locations to place wind energy generators.

KINETIC GENERATORS: Quite possibly the world's best kept secret! These puppies are built at a nominal cost, and run virtually clean, quiet, and very efficient. This is probably the better answer to the energy crisis. We (Collectively) have put boo-koodles of investment money into so many things. It makes sense to look into research for the large scale, big picture.

In closing:

While nuclear energy is a better alternative than fossil fuels, it has yet to replace them. Why? It is both dangerous, and cost prohibitive.

I am suggesting that nuclear energy research monies be diverted toward large scale research of kinetic generators.

Thank you!
Debate Round No. 2


I thank my opponent for his argument. I will quickly dive into mine now.

1) Effectiveness.

My opponent has admitted to passing on the effectiveness argument, choosing to focus on different potential short comings. As to save space, I will leave this as is and also focus on the different potentail short comings.

2) Safety.

With this, I will break this down into two subsections, technical safety (a), and political safety (b).

a) Normally, we would dismiss the mentioning of TMI (Three Mile Island), Chernobyl, and Fukushima as cases of spotlighting fallacies rather than accurate representations of the technology. Such fallacies would be like saying cars should not be allowed because the Ford Pinto was unsafe. However, for any engineer, it is vital to learn from mistakes so that they cannot happen again (when there are actually mistakes). Just like they learned from the Pinto to make a better, safer car, we too can learn from these three incidents how to make a better reactor. So we will actually look at each of these individually, as well as the safety record in whole of nuclear reactors.

Going by year, we will first look at TMI, 1979 [1][2]. This was an incident that started because a relief valve became stuck open, causing the cooling fluids to leave the reactor. This was compounded by the fact that an operator mistook the lack of cooling fluid as too much cooling fluid, thus opening more values to let more out. The reactor over heated and the core melted (refered to as a meltdown), however, the melted core never breached the containment walls and was cooled back down by the automated system (all people had evacuated by then). A follow up report, the Komeny report [3], showed that no one had died from the radation releases, and that the releases were of a quantity that they would not have any measurable effect on the people in ther area.

What have we learned from TMI [4][5]? We learned many things from TMI that have allowed us to not have a repeat, even though the damage from TMI was actually rather minor (apart from damage to the reactor itself). From improved training, better communication, and better configuration of the control rooms to allow better understanding of issues and faster, more accurate reaction from personnel.

Moving on to the next, Chernobyl, 1986 [6]. Chernobyl is a unique disaster, that given the secrecy of the USSR at the time (we didn't even know about the incident until we discovered radioactive material in the air in Sweden). Chernobyl was using an RBMK style reactor [7], which the US and most of the western world knew was unsafe because of the use of a void coefficient and their particular fuel rod set up. With the reactor styles we have now, a Chernobyl style incident is not physically possible, even if someone got into the reactor control and tried to make it happen [8].

The latest, Fukushima, 2011. Fukushima is most definiately a spotlight example. While most of the others we look at and say "what went wrong," which Fukushima, we can look at and say "Holy crude, why didn't more go wrong?" Fukushima reactors were all over 30 years old, with some over 40 years old. They we hit by a 9.0 earth quake followed shortly by a 50 foot tsunami. Yet somehow, they managed to hold out (about as well as Rocky did in his first movie). While most of the reactors ended up melting down from a disaster that would cripple any structure in the world, they've done a fair job contianing that material. While some radiation does escape, just like some did at TMI, there are no recorded deaths from the radiation, either on the plant, nor in the general public. And from this, we've been able to learn where the reactor had issues, and how to improve upon them going forward.

Since accidents are learning opportunities, to see what you may have overlooked and places to do better, they can actually be very helpful to us. And in cases where the accident has no serious harm to society, the minor accidents can be viewed as possitives, so that we can get better at preventing the big accidents that do cause serious harm.

Now I will look at the safety risks of aggressive nations having nuclear energy. My opponent points out that nations, such as Iran and North Korea, will hide their nuclear facilities, and as a result, may cut corners with them. This is not a good argument against nuclear energy, since it is the very prohibition of the nuclear energy that is causing them to be unsafe. By opening up, showing them the safe ways and the unsafe ways, and even helping them build them it has many benefits.

1) Safer power plants
2) Better relations between nations
3) More energy for the nation to help people get out of poverty and build their economy
4) More power to the people to fight against dicatorships

Since electricity is needed to clean water, power hospitals, develop medicenes, run industry, and provide heat and air conditioning for people, it is vital to bettering the lives of the people in those nations, and thus bettering the relation between them and us.

3) Costs

To answer my opponent's question regarding why more energy isn't done by nuclear energy, I have two responces. First, this isn't really a legitimate question. One could easly through this question upon his suggested alternatives, that since solar makes up so little energy, it must not be effective. In reality, better ideas, always take time to replace the status quo, and simply because something is being used used more commonly does not mean that it is more effective. The second part of the answer is a lack of knowledge, combined with false knowledge. In regards to nuclear energy, it is often called the China Syndrome, in reference to a 1979 movie (which came out only months before TMI), that showed nuclear reactors as bombs just waiting to go off. Since more people get their views from hollywood than from sciencewood, they are going to have opinions based on incorrect knowledge.

While many African and Latin American nations are not wealthy enough to produce nuclear, by us generating more nuclear, that cuts the demand for natural gas and coal (and other fuels). This drop in demand, turns into a drop in cost of those materials, and the drop in cost will help the people in those poorer nations.

Moving on to the alternatives that my opponent has listed, I will quickly address them one by one (1,500 characters left, sorry).

Hydro - Hydro is limited by rivers, while many nations do have a lot of rivers, many do not, and so hydro is not adequate for them. Hydro also takes much longer to build, as it develops the entire ecosystem around it (turning a river into a lake).

Solar - While solar is my ultimate energy fav, it too has its limits. Many northern nations are going to find solar to be less than ideal. Even here in Oregon, we find that it is only the edge. As only getting 5 sun hours a day (on average over a year), one would need 4,800 MW solar field to equal the same as a single 1,000 MW nuclear (or coal, or natural gas, or anything that can run 24 hours a day). Move up into Canada or other northern nations, and that can stretch into 8,000 MW of solar to match the single 1,000 MW of nuclear.

Wind - similar to solar.

Kenetic - The generators that are listed are standard fuel generators. I'm not sure what Kenetic Generators are and could not find them on a quick search. But those that you listed, show that the 15 kW model uses 1.36gal/hr. It doesn't say what the fuel is, but if it takes 1.36 gal to make 15 kW of energy, or 1 gal to make 11.03 kW, the fuel has to cost about $1.10 per gallon to be comparible. And even then, these only have 5 year warrenties, and so would need to be replaced and repaired more often [9].



This round is going to be quick and painless due to my very limited computer access.

In response to my opponent:
Safety: The 3 accidents are worthy of mention simply because they happened, and to illustrate that safety is indeed a concern.

Another item of safety concern is transport of nuclear waste while in transport from facilities to recycling centers and / or disposal sites. Should an accidental spill occur, it could put lives in danger as well as disrupt the ecology.

Cost is also a legitimate question as the startup costs are far greater than many nations can spend.

I unintentionally misspoke on my primary alternative source. The actual term should have been "Magnetic generators".
Included is a link to magnetic generators:

I feel that if a substanial research investment were made in this area, it could have monumental positive effects for the entire world.

"All truth goes through three phases. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self evident." Arthur Schopenhauer

Debate Round No. 3


I thank my opponent for a very enjoyable debate and look forward to more in the future. In this final round, I will go ahead and first, address my opponent's round 3 arguments, and second, post a summary.

2) Safety.

While the three accidents are worthy of mention, they do not provide logically reason to support that nuclear energy is unsafe, anymore so than arguing that the Ford Pinto supports that cars in general are unsafe. If anything, they show of individual cases where safety was comprimised due to design issues (as with the pinto), nature, or human error.

And I did refer to each of these individually in the last round to show how we learned from them to help us make sure that they never repeat (just like we learned from the design flaws of the pinto to make sure we never make something like it again).

Regarding the safe transport of nuclear waste, I encourage everyone to watch at least the first 45 seconds of the attached video [video]. Nuclear waste transportation is tested and tested and tested. There are not many things which are tested to the point where they are strapped to a rocket powered semi truck and rammed into a concrete wall to see if they stay intact.

Going on to the safety of storing, remember that if we reporcess nuclear waste (as many other countries do), the waste will not have any actinides (like Pu239, U235, or U238, or Th232 and U233 in the Thorium cycle), making it much safer. To the point where you only need minimal protective gear (Enriched uranium can be handled by only a latex glove covered hands, it is the Pu239 in the un-processed waste that requires the full suits and robots).

3) Cost

Cost has been shown that it is cheaper to run (once built) than all current fossil fuel power sources, and it is cheaper than all alternative energy sources in start up costs (with the exception of dams, however, their restriction of having to be on rivers makes their use limited, and unable to be a primary powersource for a large nation). My opponent has also stated that the cost would be too great for some poorer nations. This doesn't really make sense. Many people can't afford a Porche, does that mean no one should be allowed to have one? I've already shown that by having wealthy nations switch over to nuclear, that will free up some supply of coal and natural gas, which will bring the price down on those, and thus make them cheaper for the poorer nations and ultimately help them and their economy, as an indirect result of nuclear energy.

Regarding the magentic generators, anyone and everyone should be instantly skeptical of anything that promises free fueless energy. Most of these claim to be based from "the lost Tesla Generator" which Tesla didn't view as practical and never rebuilt them after his wearhouse burnt down (while he did rebuild other inventions). Most of these are no more real than that Nigerian Prince wanting to give away some of his money, the same is true for all perpetual motion devices.

Regarding the quote from Arthur Schopenhauer, such a saying is known as Galieo's gambit, a logical fallacy. While it is true that many "truths" are first laughed at, not everything that is laughed at is a "truth."

Moving on to my closing summary. I have shown that the effectiveness of nuclear energy far surpasses that of any other power source, both in quantity of power, and in the locations it can be used. These went pretty much entirely unchallenged. For safety, the main concerns where several spotlighted examples, all of which were addressed in my round 3 and were not challenged in my opponent's round 3. For cost, we can see that nuclear energy has a higher start up cost, but much lower fuel cost, meaning that over the long run, it costs much less. And this will allow other nations to obtain other fuels at lower prices. Regarding the opponent's arguments on various alternatives, those were all addressed and none of the addresses countered (though the magnetic generators was explained in greater detail and was only addressed in this round, so my opponent can counter the address in his next round).

With that, I end my rounds of this debate and await my opponent's closing round.

Again, thank you for the debate.


There once was a saying that went something like this. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Clearly, this is not the case for neither my opponent, nor myself. The non-renewable bubbas are quick to dismiss anything positive, and exacerbate anything negative that would threaten their cash flow. Welcome to modified capitalosm.

Voting issues:
1. There is no doubt that nuclear energy works.
2. Likewise, there is no doubt that there ae inherent dangers associated with nuclear, and we have yet to discover a feasible way to dispose of the toxic waste without further endangering lives and ecology.
3. Start up costs clearly make it prohibitive for much of the world.
4. As only a handful can afford it, nuclear constitutes only 16%. This deduces that 84% comes from alternative sources.

I have demonstrated that the 3 headed renewable energies, wind, hydro, and solar, are indeed efficiient, affordable, and cleaner than nuclear.

I went on to make the ddo community further aware of the possibility of magnetic energy. While still in it's infancy, should magnetic energy blossom, everyone, everyone could benefit from this discovery. Yes it is a monetary threat to the Haliburtons of the world, yet they too could prosper by among the first to expand this invention.

Conclusion. My opponent outlined the merits of nuclear energy and attempted to minimize the effects of it's toxic waste.
I have demonstrated viable alternatives. I would like to thank my opponent Ore_Ele for a good discussion that if read widescale, it could open eyes at the highest levels of the people who make our decisions.

In a close and informative, if not entertaining discussion, I respectfully request a Negative Ballot, vote CON.
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by poorenglishspeaker 5 years ago
I think human made mistake leads to a disaster.
It's not only nuclear energy but also other alternative energy.
Cutting corners would be done for some reason such as saving cost or time,shortage of worker.
Human can make a perfect system but human who designs and operates the system is not perfect.
Posted by twsurber 5 years ago
Wow, this could be the first shut out in debate history. :o)
Posted by 92nida 5 years ago
Nuclear power is a disaster. It has been proven. But, it is essential so it must be controlled and regulated with utmost care.
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
I think the unspoken resolution is "The advantages of nuclear power outweigh the disadvantages."
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
baiscally yes, that nuclear wasn't a good choice, due to either it being too unsafe, or too costly, or too [insert negative attribute], or that there were better options so that nuclear is, in general, not a good choice.
Posted by twsurber 5 years ago
As I undersood it, PRO was to argue in favor of Nuclear Energy. My burden of rejoinder was to clash with nuclear energy and argue alternatives.
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
Yeah, it needs a resolution. The instigator has the obligation to make a clear resolution, so I'm thinking maybe a conduct violation. But Con went along with it, knowing that there was no resolution. I dunno.
Posted by innomen 5 years ago
Not crazy about debates without clear resolutions.
Posted by twsurber 5 years ago
No worries Ore! Add it whenever you can fit it in. I'd rather have good dialogue than worry about goofy debate rules of new evidence. Put it in anywhere and I will just address it in rebuttal.

Well done in round 2! I like your material, especially the info on Uranium and Plutonium. People really need to be more aware of that stuff. TTYL, "Surbs"
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ugg, I forgot to put my favorite crash test movie in there! I totally spaced over the transporting safety... that's what happens when you do things out of order. :P
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by PARADIGM_L0ST 5 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 Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: While CON admirably tried to stem the tide, PRO's points simply overwhelemed CON. Sensing the futility, I feel CON ultimately relented in the final round.
Vote Placed by 000ike 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro simply had a more compelling argument. I even think Con himself was convinced, but didn't want to concede. It was a good debate. For once the opponents were not insulting each other or being disrespectful of each other's ideas. This was very informative read, provided a wholesome view on what nuclear energy is and can do, and interesting as well, seeing how it can shape future society. Thankyou to Ore_Ele and twsurber for making a debate worth reading -something that isn't too common on DDO.
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 5 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 Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro definitely used more reliable sources. Pro had more evidence to support his claims and con didn't always address pro's arguments to the point. No conduct or spelling issues.
Vote Placed by SuperRobotWars 5 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did convince me more and did use more reliable sources.