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

Resolved: On balance, the benefits of nuclear power outweigh the risks.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/28/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,765 times Debate No: 17315
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)




1. First Round: Acceptance

2. Second Round: Initial Arguments
3. Third Round: Rebuttals
4. Fourth Round: More rebuttals
5. Fifth Round: Conclusion

1. No semantics, ad hominem, etc.
2. No new arguments in conclusion, evidence is fine.
3. The focus for this debate is on evidence and analyzation of said evidence. The use of logic/reasoning is recommended in analyzing facts.


I accept the terms of the debate. Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1


O1: The resolution reserves the power of fiat to the negative – meaning that if neither side is able to prove their side, the resolution must be negated by default. For the resolution to be affirmed, the affirmative must prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the benefits of nuclear power outweigh the risks.

D1: Nuclear Power = use of sustained nuclear fission to generate heat and do useful work [1]
D2: Risk = possibility of loss or injury [2]

: High Construction Costs
According to Dr. Martin Sevior of the University of Melbourne, the cost of the newest third generation power plants are well over “$3500 per KW [kilowatt].” In fact, the Westinghouse AP1000 – a power plant with four reactors, cost well over $8 billion dollars, reports the University of Melbourne's School of Physics. Even ignoring exorbitant start up prices, historical precedent points to massive cost overruns – common issues, such as design flaws and two hurdle licensing, that result in dire financial repercussions. Pundit Ivona Okuniewicz brings up the example of Long Island's Shoreham Site – a nuclear power plant that cost over $5 billion, even though it was never allowed to operate due to two hurdle licensing. Shoreham brings to light a great risk – even with billions of dollars spent towards nuclear energy, there is no guarantee that such funding will actually be utilized. At the point where this is true, needless capital deprivation elucidates negative impacts on the American economy.

C2: Health Risks of Radioactive Mining
The radioactive material, such as uranium, that is needed to fuel nuclear power plants emit radon gas. A study done by the British Columbia Medical Association reveals that “Radon radiation is a health hazard to workers in advanced stages of exploration, such as in tunnels and shafts, where very high levels of working levels have been recorded in low grade deposits (1600 times normal levels).” The study furthers, “Despite AECB claims to the contrary, the risks from radiation in uranium mining far exceed those of a 'safe' industry.” There are multiple negative impacts that result from radon radiation. Reinhard Zaire of Germany's University Medical Centre BF explains that excessive exposure to radon radiation may lead to serious diseases, including apoptosis, cancer induction, genetic damage to future generations, childhood cancers, and dose-response tissue reactions. Empirically, one can look to victims of radioactive poisoning in the aftermath of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings in order to survey the horrifying effects of radon radiation. At the point where the mining of radioactive material proliferates diseases such as cancer, the humanitarian impacts of this point are clear.

C3: Various Harms of Nuclear Waste
"It's [Nuclear Waste] probably the single greatest security vulnerability in the United States," says Kevin Kamps, radioactive waste specialist at Beyond Nuclear, a watchdog group. According to CNN, “In the United States, 63,000 tons of nuclear waste, the sum total of all the waste generated by decades of nuclear power, sits right where it was created -- at the power plants themselves.” There are several risks involving nuclear waste.

Harm 1: Meltdowns
CNN explains, “Power plants are very close to major population centers -- Washington, Boston, New York City, Philadelphia and Chicago have reactors within the 50-mile fallout zone.” According to industry critics, if such waste were to catch on fire, the consequences would result in “an area the size of half of New Jersey permanently uninhabitable.” Historical precedent points to examples such as Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and even Fukushima Daiichi – incidents that demonstrate the dire consequences of radioactive material. Specifically, if one looks to the Chernobyl disaster – a catastrophic event which, according to pundits Marshall Brain and Robert Lamb, resulted in “the evacuation of at least 30,000 people, and eventually caused thousands to die from cancer and other illnesses.” The cause of Chernobyl was poor design and improper operation, and when the two converged – the Ukrainian reactor exploded, setting on fire 50 tons of nuclear waste. Similarly, an untimely tsunami destroyed Fukushima Daiichi's backup generators, resulting in a rise of temperature until a hydrogen explosion destroyed panels containing nuclear waste. Similarly, the Three Mile Incident involved failures in a power plant's PORV system, allowing large amounts of nuclear reactant cooling to escape. Now, the natural response would be: wouldn't the pragmatic choice be to simply store away the nuclear waste in a safe place – to prevent the worst of a plant meltdown? There are fundamental issues with this concept. The main problem revolves around storage issues. According to CNN, “industry critics want lawmakers to mandate that most of the waste, known as spent fuel, be stored away from the main reactors in certified steel and concrete casks, then have those casks placed in fortified buildings or earthen bunkers. But it's fallen on deaf ears in Congress.” Pundit Steve Hargreaves expands on this point, “Most of the waste sits close to the reactors in pools that resemble swimming pools. A smaller amount is kept outside in casks that critics say are poorly guarded. The reason so much waste is being stored at the nuclear power plants themselves is that the government hasn't figured out what to do with it permanently. Storing the waste in this manner was supposed to be a temporary measure until it was permanently buried deep inside Nevada's Yucca mountain. But thanks to a mix of geology and politics, that site was recently deemed unsuitable. The hunt is on for a new long term repository, but finding and building one will likely take decades.” At the point where tons of nuclear waste are found in large pools near reactors, it is very possible a natural disaster, human malfunction, or simple mechanical error could cause another meltdown. From looking at events such as Chernobyl, the negative impacts of future meltdowns is clear. The deaths of thousands of people from the explosion and through radiation poisoning, and other associated diseases, indicate a definitive and severe risk for the use of nuclear power.

Harm 2: Facilitation of Terrorism:
According to CNN, “It's also possible for terrorists to specifically target the pools. Reactors like the ones in Japan, of which there are 23 in the United States, are particularly vulnerable. The pools in that design are located several stories above ground, making them easy targets for shoulder-fired missiles or airplane attacks. Critics say the concrete and steel around the pools are designed to prevent radiation leaks, not to stop a missile.” A CRS report for Congress furthers, “he Nuclear Regulatory Commission has strengthened its regulations on nuclear reactor security, but critics contend that implementation by the industry has been too slow and that further measures are needed. Several bills to increase nuclear reactor security measures and requirements were introduced after the 9/11 attacks, along with provisions in an omnibus energy bill considered in the 108th Congress (H.R. 6). None of those measures were enacted.” From these two sources, a couple of facts can be drawn. First, a clear incentive for terrorists to attack nuclear power plants exists. The damage would be extremely detrimental to the United States – a terrorist goal made clear by events such as 9/11. Second, despite security measures within facilities, plants are not prepared to deal with air or missile attacks. Third, future security measures to prevent the air/missile vulnerable plants have been put on hold – or at the least, delayed. At the point where terrorists have an incentive and the means to attack a plant, one must look at potential negative impacts. In this case, a terrorist attack could result in two things: 1. an explosion similar to that of a meltdown 2. nuclear proliferation – risks involved with nuclear power.



I affirm Resolved: On balance, the benefits of nuclear power outweigh the risks.

To win this debate, I only need to show that, in general principles (on balance), the benefits associated with nuclear power as a whole outweigh the risks of the technology. For example, Three Mile Island is an atypical example of nuclear power as a whole, and is therefore not an accurate way to frame this debate.

I will now first address my opponent's case before introducing my own.

1. Construction Costs:

Listing two or three examples is not an accurate representation of the nuclear industry as a whole. The average nuclear power plant is in fact extremely beneficial to local economies, resulting in a net economic gain that far exceeds construction costs. The numbers speak for themselves: the average nuclear plant generates 400-700 permanent jobs, $20 million in total state and local tax revenue, $75 in federal tax payments, and nearly $430 million in local economic output annually. [(1)]

Considering that the life of a typical nuclear reactor is 30-40 years, total community economic output ($430,000,000 x 30, $430,000,000 x 40) amounts to $12.9-17.2 billion. This exceeds the already atypical $8 billion in start-up costs cited by my opponent. [(2)]

Therefore, the typical economic benefits of a nuclear power plant are greater than the economic investment.

2. Health Effects

This seems to be the structure of Con's argument:
P1: Exposure to a lot of radiation is detrimental one's health.
P2: There's a lot of radiation at nuclear power plants.
C: Therefore, working at a nuclear power plant is detrimental to one's health.

While nuclear power plants obviously have higher radiation levels than surrounding environments, my opponent only cites health detriments to extreme amounts of radiation exposure, without regard to the amount actually present at power plants.

From the New York Times, March 14, 2011 [(3)]:

"[I]n the United States the usual radiation exposure limit for nuclear power plant workers is 50 millisieverts, or 5 rem, per year (compared with the 0.3 rem that the Environmental Protection Agency says most people get from normal background radiation). When there is an emergency, the limit can be raised to 25 rem, which is still far below the level at which people would show symptoms or get sick."

Radiation exposure is further mitigated by the fact that in areas with the most potential for exposure, workers wear full-body suits and/or take shifts to reduce the intensity of absorption.

Concerns for surrounding communities are also alleviated in that emissions by nuclear plants into environmental surroundings are insignificant compared to natural levels already present [(4)].

If my opponent really wants to get into human health and its relation to nuclear power plants, it is worth noting that most plant workers are unionized and generally receive health insurance and other benefits, as well as exercise on the job [(5)].

3. Meltdowns

Con cites only two meltdown scenarios (Chernobyl and Three Mile Island) to justify the inherent risks of nuclear power. Today, such concerns are unfounded. Modern nuclear reactors are free from the design flaws that caused the Chernobyl plant to explode, and reactors now have multiple containment cores to prevent the escape of nuclear material even if an accident does occur [(6)].

The Three Mile island meltdown was also contained, and no detrimental health effects have been reported. Today's water reactors, which slow neuron emissions to keep reaction rates steady, make major meltdowns extremely improbable [6].

Regarding storage, my opponent admits that storing nuclear waste in steel and concrete casks is optimal, but that Congress has not acted on such proposals. This has nothing to do with the risks of nuclear waste, which can in fact be stored safely, but rather the ineptitude of Congress itself. This point should be dropped from the round.

When stored in steel and concrete casks, uranium waste can be stored for at least a century, and can often be recycled to meet future energy needs., In fact, an amount the volume of one's fingertip posseses the energy potential of 1,780 pounds of coal [6]. Such uranium is useful, efficient, and can be stored safely.

4. Terrorism

Contrary to my opponent's claims, modern plants are built to survive a terrorist attack. Plants are built to withstand the impact of a passenger airplane [1]. Further, if pilots are caught loitering over nuclear sites, the FAA has a policy of detaining and interrogating those responsible [4].

Con claims that terrorists have an incentive to attack nuclear power plants, but terrorists also have an incentive to attack oil rigs, atomic testing sites, and the White House. As Jack Spencer of the Heritage Foundation explains, "A successful terrorist attack against a nuclear power plant could have severe consequences, as would attacks on schools, chemical plants, or ports. However, fear of a terrorist attack is not a sufficient reason to deny society access to any of these critical assets" [4].

At the point where my opponent never quantifies the likelihood of a terrorist attack on a nuclear facility, he is only operating on a "what-if" scenario without gauging either the intent of terrorist groups or the likelihood that they could even conduct a successful attack.

In my case I will provide turn this point, showing that nuclear power actually reduces terrorist activity, thereby shifting this voting issue over to Pro side.

Now for my case...

1. Nuclear Energy is the Best Way to Reduce Carbon Dioxide Emissions

Total emissions over the life of a nuclear plant (including uranium mining, shipping, construction, etc.) are about the same as hydroelectric plants and wind farms, and emit less carbon dioxide than solar plants. The efficiency of nuclear power (the energy potential of 1,780 pounds of coal in an area the size of a fingertip) plus the overall positive economic impact of power plants makes nuclear energy the best renewable energy option for the United States.

2. Nuclear Energy Reduces Terrorism

Nuclear energy reduces U.S. dependence on oil from nations that continue to enable terrorist regimes. According to the Wall Street Journal, "One of the biggest dangers to our security is from oil nations providing support to anti-U.S. terrorist groups. The faster we can move away from carbon-based energy, the faster we take away that funding source" [(7)]. Nuclear energy reduces U.S. oil dependence on nations such as Saudi Arabia and Russia, the latter of which uses Iran to funnel weapons directly to Hezbollah [(8)].

Nuclear power also reduces nuclear proliferation by terrorists. Atomic warheads are excellent as reactor fuel, and currently amount to 15% of world nuclear fuel. Expanding the use of nuclear energy and the resulting increased demand for reactor fuel will divert warheads away from terrorist groups, reducing the threat of nuclear terrorism against the U.S. [(9)].


Nuclear energy is a safe, reliable and efficient way for the United States to become energy independent while reducing greenhouse gas emissions and mitigating terrorist threats. The harms proposed by my opponent are insignificant if not nonexistant. On balance, the benefits of nuclear power outweigh the risks. The resolution is affirmed.
Debate Round No. 2


In order, I will address: framework and then my opponent's case.

I. Framework:
1. Extend my framework where I reserve the power of fiat for the negative.
2. While I agree that my opponent must show net benefits, I would argue that specific examples (such as Three Mile Island) should be utilized for two reasons:
Reason One: The resolution calls for potential risks. By definition, a risk indicates a “possibility of loss or injury.” While obviously not every single nuclear power plant will meltdown at some point its lifetime, it's possible that some will. As such, the impacts of such possibilities must be weighed.
Reason Two: In order to ensure a fair debate. My opponent is trying to nullify some of the Con's warrants by stealthily framing the debate to give the Pro an unfair advantage – please do not be fooled.

II. Affirmative Case:
AC1: Nuclear Energy is the Best Way to Reduce Carbon Emissions
NR1: Nuclear Energy Emits More Carbon Than Viable Alternatives
TURN – a meta analysis of nuclear plant life done by Benjamin K. Sovacool, a research fellow at the National University of Singapore, found that “nuclear power (at 66 gCO2e/kWh emissions) emits twice as much carbon as solar photovoltaic, at 32 gCO2e/kWh, and six times as much as onshore wind farms, at 10 gCO2e/kWh.” My opponent asserts that nuclear energy is the best way to reduce carbon emissions but according to Sovacool, “Things like energy efficiency, and some of the cheaper renewables are a factor of six better. So for every dollar you spend on nuclear, you could have saved five or six times as much carbon with efficiency, or wind farms.” At the point where alternatives are viable and offer less harms, it's clear that nuclear power's risks don't outweigh – an assertion that will expanded upon throughout this round.

NR2. Nuclear Energy Doesn't Solve Excessive Carbon Emissions
Even if you don't buy my first response, understand that according to the Wall Street Journal, “Nuclear power isn't a solution to global warming. Rather, global warming is just a convenient rationale for an obsolete energy source that makes no sense when compared to the alternatives.” The WSJ furthers, “The sheer number of nuclear plants needed to make a major dent in greenhouse emissions means the industry hasn't a prayer of turning nuclear power into the solution to global warming. One study from last year determined that to make a significant contribution toward stabilizing atmospheric carbon dioxide, about 21 new 1,000-megawatt plants would have to be built each year for the next 50 years, including those needed to replace existing reactors, all of which are expected to be retired by 2050. That's considerably more than the most ambitious industry growth projections.”

NR3. Nuclear Energy Is Not Renewable
My opponent asserts that nuclear energy is “the best renewable energy option for the United States.” However, Nathan Shedroff of the California College of Arts explains, “Uranium sources are just as finite as other fuel sources, such as coal, natural gas, etc.” Furthermore, NGO CSEF found that “Nuclear energy is not a renewable because [it] uses Uranium as fuel, which is a scarce resource and is expected to last only for the next 30 to 60 years.”

AC2: Nuclear Energy Reduces Terrorism
NR1: Nuclear Power Doesn't Solve U.S. Oil Dependence
This is true for two reasons.
Reason One: Oil Is a Fungible Commodity With A Single Global Market
Extend my WSJ evidence where I tell you nuclear power plants take years, if not decades, to build. Understand that my opponent's terrorist impact hinges on the fact that nuclear power will replace oil quickly and efficiently enough to hold tangible significance. Given nuclear power's negative economic impacts, the thriving oil market, and said construction times, it's improbable that nuclear energy will replace oil as the U.S.' staple means of generating power – to the extent where not switching to nuclear energy will have minimal impact of state sponsors of terrorism.
Reason Two: Energy Independence Isn't Feasible Nor Desirable
TURN: Pundit Shikha Dalmia explains that the notion of “replacing oil with alternative fuels will create "millions of jobs" and, once again, put America on the road to riches” is a common misconception. In fact, Dalmia states “Trying to fight this reality won't create jobs or restore America's economy, it'll do the opposite.” She points to Nixon's crusade for energy independence, noting that oil importing actually increased by 27%. Let us also understand that Third World countries in Latin America and Asia also tried to achieve energy independence by adopting a policy known as “import-substitution,” where – through massive subsidies, these nations attempted to bolster domestic production by discouraging the importation of key industrial products. In the end, import-substitution “raised production costs, making Third World goods uncompetitive in the global markets and prohibitively expensive at home, consigning these countries to decades and decades of economic stagnation that has not yet been fully reversed. Delinking America from global energy markets will wreak similar economic havoc.”

Understand that in order to extend my opponent's terrorism impact, he must first show that nuclear power does solve U.S. oil dependence because otherwise – there would be no reason for the United States to turn to nuclear power instead of following the status quo. Given these two reasons, we can see that Pro's terrorist impact can't actually be extended. However, even if you don't buy any of my evidence or logic, look to my second response (NR2) where I turn his terrorist impact.

NR2: Energy Independence Would Aid Terrorism
This is true for two reasons.
Reason One: Discourage Middle Eastern Aid in Counter-terrorism
According to the Reason Foundation, “But will energy independence make America more secure by depriving terrorist nations of petro dollars? Not really. Indeed, insofar as America, the single biggest oil consumer, spurns Middle Eastern oil, it will only make it that much cheaper—and therefore more attractive than the alternatives—for everyone else, including India, China and other energy-hungry emerging markets. The result might well be a new geo-political alignment with countries dependent on Middle Eastern oil in one camp—and "energy-independent" America in the other. This is not a recipe for defunding terrorism. Rather, it is a way of giving Middle Eastern countries even less of a stake in our well being and making them less interested in helping our struggle against terrorism.” Given the utmost importance of Middle Eastern support in counter-terrorism, we have to understand that turning to nuclear power wouldn't reduce terrorism – as my opponent suggests, but would actually increase it as counter-terrorism would be hampered.
Reason Two: Incentivize Further Support of Terrorism
If the U.S. stopped importing oil from states such as Russia, two incentives would be created in order to further said terrorism. First, these states would be losing a significant amount of revenue. Russia, for example, relies on crude oil as one of its main exports. With this in mind, it would benefit Russia to increase arms sales to terrorists – in order to: 1. make up for lost revenue on oil sales 2. harm the United States. States that seek to challenge the status quo, such as Russia, have an added incentive to do so – as knocking down the U.S. from its hegemonic status would be a bonus. States such as Saudi Arabia and Iraq share similar goals.

NR3: Most of the U.S.' Top Oil Import Locations Do Not Sponsor Terrorism
Even if you don't buy NR2, understand that out of the U.S.' top oil import locations, none are on the U.S. state sponsor of terrorism list, and only 3 (Saudia Arabia, Russia, and Iraq) are alleged supporters of terrorism.

Due to character limitations, I will focus on defending my case in the next round – whilst extending my rebuttals.




I agreed with my opponent's framework that the burden of Pro is to prove that the benefits of nuclear power outweigh the risks. That is, after all, what the resolution states. But the main phrase that should help voters frame the debate is "on balance," where the concept of nuclear power as a whole must be taken into account. I went into great detail in the previous round explaining why Chernobyl and Three Mile Island are not representative of nuclear power today.

There is a possibility (a risk) of my computer exploding in my face. Such a risk is very impactful, but it only outweighs the benefits of computer ownership (increased productivity, etc.) if it is likely to occur. If the possibility of harm is extremely small, as is the likelihood of a nuclear meltdown, and the probability of benefits are almost certain (economic growth, energy security, etc.), then the benefits of nuclear power outweigh the risks, and Pro has upheld the affirmative burden of proof.

Carbon Emissions

I would like to point out to voters that Con's many arguments to the Pro case do not necessarily have much substance behind them. In many cases, Con's quotations are simply reiterations of his claim without defending the reasoning behind the claim. In a couple cases, Con's citations have nothing to do with the topic at hand. I'll point these out along the way.

Con then claims nuclear power actually results in more carbon emissions. This is really interesting, because Independent Online explains:

"Over the full life cycle - from mining of the uranium, iron ore and other minerals, manufacture of the components and construction of the power station, operation and maintenance of the power station through to decommissioning of the station and the management and disposal of waste - nuclear power emits less than 11 grams of carbon equivalent per kilowatt hour. " [(10)]

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development estimates carbon output as even lower:

"For example, during its whole life cycle, nuclear power releases three to six grams of carbon
per kiloWatthour (GC kWh) of electricity produced" [9].

Clearly, we have conflicting evidence. Here's why Pro is still prefered:

Unlike solar and wind power, nuclear energy is not susceptable to weather fluctuations. For example, wind farms must keep conventional power generators running at all times, making wind extremely unprofitable [(11)]. Nuclear energy is able to thrive in limited spaces and operate independently from global weather patterns. So even with both sides' carbon emissions evidence dropped, nuclear power is still more efficient than wind and solar.

Is nuclear power alone enough to mitigate total carbon output? No, and I never claimed it was. It is, however, the best and most sustainable among current energy sources.

Con then claims that nuclear energy is not renewable, because uranium exists only in finite quantities. While the earth's supply of uranium, if used and discarded, will only last for about 50-60 years, Con ignores my evidence explaining that used uranium (95% in fact) is often recycled over and over again to meet future needs [6]. Nuclear energy is indeed renewable.


When it comes to energy security, one must look to the long term effects of enacting a policy. Con's only responses to the fact that nuclear energy will reduce oil dependence is citing costruction times and negative economic impacts, all of which I refuted in the previous round. When looking long term, the fact that a nuclear reactor takes 5 years to build is paltry compared with the resulting economic output and productivity. Even construction times are beginning to decrease, with pre-assembled parts increasing in use in recent years [(12)]. Furthermore, just as transportation transitioned coal power to petroleum power in the 20th century, current modes of transportation will likewise adapt to nuclear power as the technology expands [(13)].

This should alleviate any of Con's concerns that nuclear power would not reduce oil dependence.

My opponent then claims that if the U.S. attempts energy independence, that we will follow the fates of Third World Countries that attempted import-substitution economic policies. Understand that the concept of "import substitution" is that of replacing imports with domestic products, and my opponent's comparison of the United Statse to Latin American nations is ridiculous. The reason this policy did not work in these nations is that governments, by implementing elaborate command economies, tried to force their destitute citizens to consume products they couldn't afford. Market economies with greater citizen purchasing power, such as Brazil and Chile, have experienced enormous success by turning to domestic energy sources [(14) Blouet, Olwyn; Olwyn Blouet and Brian W. Blouet (2002). Latin America and the Caribbean: A Systematic and Regional Survey. New York: John Wiley.]. The U.S. will be wise to follow this model.

Con then tries to turn my terrorism point, claiming that ceasing oil imports from the Middle East will cause those nations not to like us, and will therefore cause them to increase terrorist support. There are two problems with this assertion. First, one of the main reasons there is jihadist resentment against the United States in the first place is because our oil ties with Middle Eastern governments, namely Saudi Arabia [(15)]. The United States is literally seen as an imperialist aggressor hell-bent on exploiting Middle Eastern resources. Secondly, the concept of peak oil ensures that oil prices won't decrease in the long term, and the fact that demand for oil in India in China is increasing at a faster rate than demand in the United States ensures that prices will remain high in the short term [(16)].

To conclude this point, my opponent continues to operate under "what-if" scenarios to substantiate his points. Con claims that Middle Eastern nations might turn hostile if the United States were to phase out oil dependence, but never cites any intent by these governments. The likelihood of a risk becoming reality must be given more weight than mere theoretical possibility.


This is essentially what this debate comes down to: possibility versus probability. Con tries to extend the fears of the past to today's very different nuclear climate. Meltdowns, terrorist attacks and health crises are possibilities with an extremely slim chance of actually taking place. On the other hand, the economic and environmental benefits of nuclear energy are well documented and supported by reality. Don't let the scare tactics fool you. The resolution is affirmed.
Debate Round No. 3


Brotherhood forfeited this round.


I thought this has been an excellent debate. Hopefully Con returns so we can give our closing arguments. Extend Pro's points.
Debate Round No. 4


Brotherhood forfeited this round.


I'm sorry that Brotherhood was not able to participate in these last two rounds. When you look at the facts presented, this becomes a debate over a certainty of benefits versus only a negligible possibilty for harms, most of which are completely preventable. Nuclear power works from an economic, health, and foreign policy perspective. On balance, the benefits of nuclear power outweigh the risks. The resolution is affirmed.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
Con did well at first, but Pro answered everything, and Con ended up forfeiting. A clear win for Pro. Not close.
Posted by Wandering 6 years ago
I think Steelerman6794's (pro) arguments are a little stronger than Brotherhood's (con) for the time being. Lets see how this debate unfolds...
Posted by BlackVoid 6 years ago
Interesting debate.
Posted by Steelerman6794 6 years ago
No problem. I do it all the time.
Posted by Brotherhood 6 years ago
Yeah, sorry. I spent too much time on research and had to write this in the last day or so.
Posted by Steelerman6794 6 years ago
You going to post an argument?
Posted by Kinesis 6 years ago

You can click 'accept the challenge' and it will show all the details of the debate. You won't be entered into the debate until you click the futher option 'yes, I will debate the topic with (insertnamehere).
Posted by Brotherhood 6 years ago
72 hours
Posted by Raisor 6 years ago
How long (timewise) is each round?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by ApostateAbe 6 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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: fofeit
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 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 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: The first two rounds were quite good, but Pro effectively refuted the Con arguments. Con's forfeits then lost conduct and left Pro's points unanswered.