The Instigator
moh
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
Korezaan
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

THW ban the civilian use of nulear power

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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: 2/19/2008 Category: News
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,555 times Debate No: 2768
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (7)

 

moh

Pro

Health Impacts
The waste produced by nuclear power emits ionizing radiation, which can cause cancer and other adverse health effects in humans. Exposure to ionizing radiation can occur externally from material released into the air, or internally from the consumption of contaminated food and water. Scientists have concluded that there is no safe level of exposure to ionizing radiation, and that even the smallest dose is capable of contributing to the development of cancer.
Korezaan

Con

I negate, "This House Would ban the civilian use of nuclear power".
(I'm going to assume you have no spikes in the mispelling of "nuclear".)

Definitions:

This House - The voters of Debate.org. THWill vote for who they think is the winner.
Civilian Use of Nuclear Power - Commercial nuclear power plants

Observations/Burdens:

The PRO has the burden to give reasons as why to affirm. If I take them out or outweigh, then he does not reach, therefore I win.

Args:

He comes up in R1 and gives this short and concise little arguement about how nuclear power creates waste that can cause cancer in humans, and basically says that we can't take the chance in using this sort of power if it's going to hurt people. I have three responses to this.

1) His warrant is an insufficient reason to stop using nuclear power. Just because has the chance to hurt a few people doesn't mean that we should stop using power. (Insert generic Util warrant here) We have rad suits when we work near radioactive materials, and that's only when our machines fail to work. We are no longer in the age of Marie Curie; we do not handle uranium with our bare hands.

2) He also assumes that we're going to be consuming contaminated food. I don't think that this is sufficient either; we can just solve the problem by enforcing regulations so that safety and containment standards are met. This also applies to his "inefficient dumping" argument. He's just making a conditional contention.

3) Impact turn: His thesis is that we shouldn't be using nuclear power because it can hurt a lot of people. Under this line of reasoning things would become extremely insensible, because absolutely everything has the capability of hurting people. His usage of the precautionary principle is bad because under the concept that "we shouldn't take any actions that will hurt people", everyone would end up just not moving at all due to Chaos Theory (the Butterfly Effect). Even if that's not true, his line of reasoning would AT LEAST lead us to not use the following:

Missiles - They can fly to the wrong place.
Cars - These cause the death of quite a few people. This is a well known fact.
Space Shuttles - Challenger.
Coal - Exhaust fumes, child labor.
Electricity - Electrocution.
Fuel Cell - Hindenburg.
Guns - These kill people. This is a well known fact.
Paper - Deforestation.
Medicine - MRSA.
Fertilizer - Lowering of fish population in bays.
English - Limits people to certain areas.
Cruise ships - Lusitania.
Plastic - Too much oil consumption.
Leather - Lowering of cow population.
767's - World Trade Center.
Liberals - Steer the country in the wrong direction.
Conservatives - Steer the country in the wrong direction.
Motor boats - Disturbs the fishies. Fishermen get mad.
Airplanes - Disturbs the birdies. Birdwatchers get mad.

And more!

Since his warrant isn't sufficient to affirm,
it's conditional,
and the impacts of affirming on his line of reasoning would lead to really queer things,

you vote CON.
Debate Round No. 1
moh

Pro

moh forfeited this round.
Korezaan

Con

I still stand in negation of the topic. Extend all my arguments.

I await a response from the affirmative debater.
Debate Round No. 2
moh

Pro

moh forfeited this round.
Korezaan

Con

Since my opponent has not responded to my original case and it says that affirming on his justification leads to really ridiculous things, and because even if that weren't true, his case is insufficient to BAN the use of civilian power because he just gives conditional harms as warrants, you vote CON because he has not provided enough reasons to go PRO.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by roycegee 9 years ago
roycegee
mohKorezaanTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by ronnyyip 9 years ago
ronnyyip
mohKorezaanTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 9 years ago
Derek.Gunn
mohKorezaanTied
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 
Vote Placed by claypigeon 9 years ago
claypigeon
mohKorezaanTied
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 
Vote Placed by Patrick_Henry 9 years ago
Patrick_Henry
mohKorezaanTied
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 
Vote Placed by Ninjanuke 9 years ago
Ninjanuke
mohKorezaanTied
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 
Vote Placed by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
mohKorezaanTied
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