The Instigator
mlkkk
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
DboPoint
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

should we use nuclear power

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
DboPoint
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/24/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 489 times Debate No: 100258
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

mlkkk

Pro

i feel that we should use nuclear power because it is one of the most environmentally friendly source of energy
DboPoint

Con

Nuclear power comes at a cost. Look what happened at Chernobyl, having a devastating impact on the region. You may argue that higher levels of standard are now in place, but look what happened in Japan. For each nuclear reactor we build, there is a risk or human error, natural disaster, cyber attack, or an act of terrorsim. I am not supportive of deploying nuclear power.
Debate Round No. 1
mlkkk

Pro

but it supplies 14% of the worlds power and we have plenty of uranium it would last just as long as coal and it better for the earth
DboPoint

Con

I agree that Nuclear Power can be growing solution to electricity supply to the world. The issue is that is comes we safety concerns. In the recent World history each generation experienced devastating effects of a nuclear plant malfunction. In each case everyone was assured that it was an isolated incident. The risk is just to great, and even 0.001% chance of any Power Plant blowing up is not acceptable.
Debate Round No. 2
mlkkk

Pro

you do make a good point but you forget it is believed that a nuclear fission reaction produces ten million times as much energy as when a fossil fuel atom is burned and they can run for a year straight

if put the nuclear power plant on say the man made islands that china is building for example than if they melt down then all it would only effect that island and not living things. scientist are most likely to be working on ways to make nuclear power plants safer but until we do make them safer we shouldn't depend on them as much as we do

i do agree they are very unsafe but they are also very helpful
DboPoint

Con

Since we both agree that Nucler power is unsafe, that should be a prevailing argument for this debate.
Despite how helpful it maybe , since we cannot be assured of safety it cannot be used.
It's like saying that we will let a wolf live in the house because he is helpful in some way. Safety first.
Impact of a single disaster wiped out any financial benefit and destroys generations to come.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 1 year ago
RyuuKyuzo
mlkkkDboPointTied
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: I find myself unconvinced by pro's case. Pro argues that nuclear energy covers 14% of the world's energy needs, but that on its own says nothing ng about whether or not we should use it. Pro asserts the theoretical value of a kind of nuclear energy we don't actually have yet (fission), but fails to properly address the safety concerns con brings up and even agrees with them. Pro does nothing to weigh the known benefits of nuclear energy against the risks con brings up, and so I find Con's arguments more compelling.