The Instigator
jq
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
64bithuman
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Resolved: Nuclear Weapons have Helped our Society.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
64bithuman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/26/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 364 times Debate No: 76994
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)

 

jq

Pro

Resolved: Nuclear weapons have helped our society.


-First round: Acceptence

-Second round: Affirmitive Construction

-Third round: Rebuttal

-Fourth round: Closing Arguments

64bithuman

Con

I accept the debate.
Debate Round No. 1
jq

Pro






==
Nuclear energy==


My second point involves Nuclear energy, which was created because of the weapons like the A-Bomb. F Nuclear energy alone is about 10.9% of the worlds energy, and growing. Not having this useful tool of the future would severely hurt our society.

-Smaller foot-print

It releases lower green-house gases, and is one of the safest ways of producing energy. NASA writes,


"Human-caused climate change and air pollution remain major global-scale problems and are both due mostly to fossil fuel burning. Mitigation efforts for both of these problems should be undertaken concurrently in order to maximize effectiveness. Such efforts can be accomplished largely with currently available low-carbon and carbon-free alternative energy sources like nuclear power and renewables, as well as energy efficiency improvements."[1]


NASA also caculated that nuclear power prevented an average of 64 gigatonnes of CO2-equivalent (GtCO2-eq) net GHG emissions globally between 1971-2009, preventing the harm of our atmosphere. Nuclear waste can also be easily recycled,
and a company supported by Bill Gates in currently doing this.

-Safer for workers

Nuclear energy is also much safer for workers in these nuclear plants, compared to coal mining and other fossil fuels. This graph, from NASA show my point.

Mean net deaths prevented annually by nuclear power between 1971-2009 for various countries/regions.

"There is no question," says Joseph Romm, an energy expert at the Center for American Progress in Washington DC. "Nothing is worse than fossil fuels for killing people." A 2002 review by the IEA put nuclear energy on top, as safest, and fossil fuels as the most harmful.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- http://www.newscientist.com...;

-http://www.ieahydro.org...

-[1]http://climate.nasa.gov...;

-http://www.inc.com...;



==Saves lives==

-medicine and treatments.

Nuclear medicine uses radiation letting doctors to make a quick, accurate diagnosis of the patient's specific organs, or to treat them. Radiotherapy can be used to treat some medical conditions, especially cancer, using radiation to weaken or destroy particular targeted cells.

Tens of millions of patients are treated with nuclear medicine each year

Over 10,000 hospitals worldwide use radioisotopes in medicine, and about 90% of the procedures are for diagnosis. The most common radioisotope used in diagnosis is technetium-99, with some 30 million procedures per year.


-Lives saved in WWII


During world war two, the only other option for the allies to defeat imperil japan was operation olympus, and coronet. these operations would have cost about a million men for the allies and nearly twice that or more, for the united states. The A-bombs saved many lives, and gava a much needed end to world war two


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


-http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...

-http://www.radiologyinfo.org...;

64bithuman

Con


Thank you Pro.



C1: Nuclear Weapons seriously threaten the human race



Nuclear weapons are so far one of the only weapons mankind has developed that could end the human race as we know it, and in fact, almost did more than once. In 1962, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the world was close to nuclear war.


Former Sec. of Defence Robert McNamara said, “We lucked out. It was luck that prevented a nuclear war. We came that close to nuclear war. Rational individuals! Kennedy was rational, Khrushchev was rational, Castro was rational. Rational individuals came that close to total destruction of their societies, and that danger exists today.


The major lesson of the Cuban Missile Crisis is this: the indefinite combination of human fallibility and nuclear weapons will destroy nations!”


Almost no other weapon besides perhaps chemical warfare has the kind of domino effect that nuclear weapons has. If one is launched, many will be launched. All it takes is the wrong leader with the right capability. A nation like North Korea, or Pakistan, or even Israel.


If 100 small, regional nuclear devices were detonated, we would lose 20-50% of the ozone, followed by a brutal nuclear winter – difficult to survive. If a proper nuclear war occurred, with a real arsenal being launched, we could expect to see the extinction of the human race – a terrible nuclear winter, crippling UV damage, rapid cooling down -30 degrees Celsius, not to mention the primary effects of the weapons themselves.


Bombs made fifty years ago were so powerful they could ‘scorch earth’ nine miles of land above ground and penetrate 230 m underground. When the Soviet Union tested the nuke ‘Tsar Bomba’ almost sixty years ago the resulting explosion was so powerful it blew a 5 mile fireball followed by a 35 mile high mushroom cloud that burst past the stratosphere into the mesosphere. This was 54 years ago, and that explosion blew the windows in houses 125 miles away and caused a 5.5 earthquake. Let’s not even imagine what kind of weapons we must have today.



Sources


https://www.youtube.com...


http://acd.ucar.edu...



Debate Round No. 2
jq

Pro

jq forfeited this round.
64bithuman

Con

Forfeit - Points continue.
Debate Round No. 3
jq

Pro

jq forfeited this round.
64bithuman

Con


Pro forfeits again. In the interest of ‘doing things right’ I’ll post a brief rebuttal.



Pro depends not on the main focus of this debate, that is, nuclear weapons, but rather nuclear power/energy. This is another matter altogether. Nuclear power has drawbacks: waste, the danger of a meltdown, etc. He didn’t defend nuclear weapons, but rather nuclear power. As for his defense of the weapons in relation to WWII, that point is debatable. One A-Bomb was more than enough. The brutal firebombing and the vaporizing of a large part of Hiroshima was more than enough. Nagasaki was overkill.



Thanks.


Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by WaywardSon 1 year ago
WaywardSon
I'm still on the fence about the existence of nuclear weapons as a positive or a negative in the world. I'll be following this debate, as it looks really interesting
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
jq64bithumanTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
jq64bithumanTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by imabench 1 year ago
imabench
jq64bithumanTied
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: ff
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
jq64bithumanTied
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: Not much to say here. Con presented a doomsday scenario that I personally don't find all that convincing, but Pro's forfeits mean he didn't provide any responses, leaving nuclear annihilation as the strongest impact by far. Even if I buy that nuclear weapons were a necessary step in the pursuit of nuclear energy, I'm not clear why a lot of CO2 going into the atmosphere is problematic, and the dangers to workers in other energy fields is kind of irrelevant. Even if I believe that these are harmful and that WWII would have had a very bloody end without nuclear weapons, nuclear annihilation still outweighs. Ergo, I vote Con.