The Instigator
kevz1140
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
TheParadox
Pro (for)
Winning
47 Points

Should nuclear energy be used?

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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/23/2010 Category: Science
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,651 times Debate No: 13443
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (5)
Votes (8)

 

kevz1140

Con

Hello,

Nuclear energy is not to efficient, I mean nuclear power is only 12 percent of the total energy used in Canada according to official records in the Canadian Nuclear FAQ. In addition, nuclear energy is not cheap either; it costs 5 billion dollars on average to build just a single power plant according to Dr. Benjamin K. Sovacool who is a professor at the National University of Singapore.

Another disadvantage of nuclear energy is that if imported to a country such as Iraq, there is a high risk that they might create nuclear weapons to use. The USA currently is dealing with Iraq to make sure that they will use nuclear energy for power, not weaponry.
TheParadox

Pro

I offer a warm blanket of thanks to my adversary as well as the peanut gallery for making this debate and its subsequent judging possible. Good luck to both of us!

1. Definitions Offered (since the Aff. has failed to do so)
2. Rebuttal (Opponent's contentions attacked)
3. Case Presented for Pro.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definition:

"Should" suggests a pragmatic perspective; that is, nuclear energy can be used only if it is practical to society.
"Nuclear energy" is a form of "alternative energy" that harnesses nuclear power to generate usable electricity.
"Used" simply denotes utilization of anything for purpose(s).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REBUTTAL:

O-C1: "Nuclear energy is not sufficiently efficient."
As my opponent provides absolutely zero evidence to support this claim, we can disregard this as false.
Even if we decide to render it as true, the supporting evidence show otherwise:
"The main benefit of generating power in this method is that fissionable uranium is abundant and a very small amount of uranium generates a tremendous amount of energy... Since relatively little fuel is needed to power nuclear plants, nuclear energy is safer than the other alternatives for generating large amounts of electricity," says Mark Brandly, PhD.
The fact that such a diminutive amount (compared to other energy sources) can produce such a gigantic amount of energy itself is the proof of its efficiency and productivity.

O-C1 Subpoint A: "Only 12 percent of energy used in Canada derives from nuclear power."
Again, my opponent shows no impact; that is, he fails to explain how the number of countries utilizing nuclear power relates to whether nuclear power *should* be used. Continuing, Canada is only one sole example. Other nations, such as France (75% of electricity from nuclear power), Belgium (52% of electricity from nuclear power), and Hungary (43% of electricity from nuclear power), and many more are active users of this cleaner form of alternative energy. The numbers are rising as technology and economy improve.

O-C2: "Nuclear power is at risk of being stolen by a dangerous group, such as a terrorist faction."
My opponent provides absolutely zero incident in history where such event occurred. Furthermore, such terrorist groups lack the adequate technology or militant power to do so. As well, the international community is already closely surveilling nations interested in a nuclear energy program.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CASE:

C1: "Nuclear energy is extremely efficient."
As shown in O-C1 rebuttal, nuclear energy can produce much electricity in a small amount, making it a far superior source
Debate Round No. 1
kevz1140

Con

Thank you. A one key thing you might want to look at though.
One of the reasources you use happen to include Wikipedia. Are you aware that anyone can edit the material posted on that online encyclopedia? E.g. "Neil Armstrong was a homeless person that lived in a box under the bridge. He became a musician and earned millions of dollars." Although there are moderators online to help dim down the untrue facts, sometimes they may slip past them on to the Internet where everyone can see it.

The process of making nuclear energy is complicated. Workers must wear anti radiation suits to carry out hazardous duties in the power plant. Despite the extra precautions, nothing is 100 percent safe. The risks for accidents are very high. For example, in 1986, Chernobyl Russia, which is now part of Ukraine, The world's worst nuclear accident occurred after an explosion and fire at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. It released radiation over much of Europe. Thirty-one people died in the immediate aftermath of the explosion. Hundreds of thousands of residents were moved from the area and a similar number are believed to have suffered from the effects of radiation exposure. Radiation can cause certain types of cancer. Nuclear power plants cause between 600-1000 deaths a year according to the World Nuclear association.

Although some people might say nuclear energy does not pollute in carbon dioxide, it does pollute in radioactive waste. The United States plans to move all its waste into an isolated underground dump by the end of this decade. Nuclear waste is highly dangerous. Scientists have not yet found a safe way to dispose of it.

Since nuclear energy is a non-renewable resource, it will not last forever. Nuclear energy needs uranium to make, so once all the Uranium is mined, there would be no more nuclear power. World uranium supplies may run out in about 50 years. Nuclear power plants require nuclear fuel to run. Scientists do speculate that the world's nuclear fuel will run out in 50-60 years.

My oppenent offered us acceptable definitions for the topic and I do thank him for "covering up" for me, allow me to make a minor change. As he said, "Nuclear energy is a form of alternative energy that harnesses nuclear power to generate usable electricity."
Nuclear power is energy released by nuclear fusion, which is when they fuse atoms together, or fission, which is when they split atoms to make energy.

Now I hope I "blabbed" enough so I would now like to hand it back to Pro.
TheParadox

Pro

Thank you, Pro, for your prompt response.

Before I begin, just a quick note that, while in professional, formal debates, Wikipedia itself is an unacceptable source, Debate.org has rescinded such restriction. You will see many people using Wikipedia as their source(s) on here, because all facts from Wiki must have external, credible sources for support. I shall provide it:
http://www.world-nuclear.org...

I also accept your change in definition, although I do not see why we must debate on semantics when it is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

My opponent failed to respond to or refute any of my two rebuttals, O-C1 and O-C2, so we can assume as true.

Rebuttal to O-C3:
My opponent brings up a new point in Round 2: "the process of making nuclear energy is complicated." We must realize that all energy sources require some kind of a risk. Hydroelectricity must be generated by dams, and dams can easily hurt the marine ecosystems. Furthermore, the recent Gulf disaster, as well as the Exxon mobile accident, caused tremendous damage to the environment, making the dangers of nuclear power seem completely infinitesimal.
Also, the Chernobyl incident occurred in 1986, or around two and a half decades ago. Incontrovertibly, technology has massively advanced since then. In fact, Kauffman from Discovery News responds to the question: "Can a Chernobyl-like accident occur in the US?"
"A Chernobyl-type accident can't happen in the United States. It's physically impossible. All of the U.S. nuclear plants are self-limiting. They can't run out of control and explode. The Chernobyl reactor wasn't self-limiting. That design is banned in the United States and in most other nations."
I would like to add on that the 600-1000 death statistics is not supported by any source, so we can regard this as false. If this was to be true - as I said before, all forms of harnessing power for electricity entail some risk. It is inevitable, and anyhow, the risks for nuclear power are much lower than, per se, oil (as shown by the innumerable oil disasters in history).

My opponent claims that nuclear energy pollutes the air. However, my evidence shows otherwise. The National Policy Analysis Center states:
"The waste from nuclear plants must be isolated for a fairly long time (but not as long as many think - only a few hundred years, if the used fuel is properly recycled). It can be handled with essentially no impact on the general public or the environment. Not so the millions of tons of waste each year from a coal-powered plant."

My opponent also claims that the world uranium supplies "may" run out in about 50 years (no source whatsoever to support this claim). However, this is irrelevant, since uranium, coal, etc. are all non-renewable energy sources. Regardless, we can use nuclear energy for a long time because a very small amount of uranium can produce great amounts of energy (as shown in my previous rebuttals).

I would now like to close the de
Debate Round No. 2
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by kevz1140 6 years ago
kevz1140
i admit that this debate was somwhat pointless, and I am totally a newbie when it comes to debating so just remember that! ;D
Posted by darkkermit 6 years ago
darkkermit
Since I gave Pro all points, in order not to look like a vote bomber I will explain my reasoning.

Conduct: Pro, Con tried to divert the attention of the audience by questioning Pro's source. Con also introduced new arguments at the last round which is bad conduct.
Spelling and Grammar: Pro, Con made many mistakes
Reliable sources: Pro, Con does not provide any sources
Convincing arguments: Pro gave a rebuttal on all of Con's claim without a rebutal.
Posted by SuperRobotWars 6 years ago
SuperRobotWars
-bate you forgot to finish typing (or you ran out of words) ;)
Posted by TheParadox 6 years ago
TheParadox
Ah, darn my senile brain! I forgot to add the sources:
http://timeforchange.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.virginiainstitute.org...
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Austriananarchist 6 years ago
Austriananarchist
kevz1140TheParadoxTied
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 
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
kevz1140TheParadoxTied
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 
Vote Placed by King_of_Contradiction 6 years ago
King_of_Contradiction
kevz1140TheParadoxTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by wsu4ever 6 years ago
wsu4ever
kevz1140TheParadoxTied
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 
Vote Placed by darkkermit 6 years ago
darkkermit
kevz1140TheParadoxTied
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 
Vote Placed by SuperRobotWars 6 years ago
SuperRobotWars
kevz1140TheParadoxTied
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 
Vote Placed by dudewth 6 years ago
dudewth
kevz1140TheParadoxTied
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 
Vote Placed by TheParadox 6 years ago
TheParadox
kevz1140TheParadoxTied
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