we should expand nuclear energy
Debate Rounds (3)
As Pro hasn't specified whether round one is for acceptance or not, I will proceed straight to my opening argument:
C1.] Environmental Effects
The most obvious issue here is the negative impact that nuclear has on the environment. Pro asserts that "every technology has problems, air pollution, oil spills etc" but none have been as problematic as nuclear. I'd also point out that one of their primary causes of air pollution is nuclear itself. The radioactive waste from nuclear can be extremely hazardous to the environment and can additionally be used to create nuclear weapons [1.] http://www.conserve-energy-future.com... and [2.] http://content.time.com...
Nuclear bombs naturally pose huge dangers to the environment [3.] http://www.theguardian.com...
C2.] Health and Safety
Once again, this is a large problem with the production of nuclear. The Chernobyl disaster that Pro refers to is a prime example of how drastically nuclear can go wrong and how severely it can effect people. An estimated 220,000 people were displaced from their homes, and the accident made 4,440 square kilometers of agricultural land and 6,820 square kilometers of forests in Belarus and Ukraine simply unusable. [4.] http://www.psr.org...
Accidents and waste caused by the nuclear has hugely contributed to cancer-related deaths, and if a big nuclear fallout was to occur the deaths caused by cancer alone could potentially be in the millions [5.] http://umich.edu...
C3.] High Cost of Nuclear
It should also come as no surprise that the cost of nuclear is significantly high--both in terms of establishing nuclear power plans and producing the nuclear itself. On average it takes around 5-10 years to construct the plants, and there is almost always vocal opposition from people living directly in the area. [see link one.]
Additionally a 2009 UCS report estimated that taxpayers could pay anywhere from $360 billion to $1.6 trillion if current proposals for nuclear expansion were realized. [6.] http://www.ucsusa.org...
Thus showing again how incredibly expensive it actually is. As it already stands nuclear energy costs a lot, but the expansion of it [assuming Pro is also arguing for worldwide expansion] would cost literally billions. And the costs of damage to the environment and the considerably negative health effects on people significantly outweigh any "benefits".
Regarding what nuclear can do to people, one can also take the example of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings in which approximately 200,000 mostly innocent civilians were killed. It wasn't just the case that people were immediately wiped off the earth, rather there was prolonged and widespread suffering as a result of the nuclear. This provides another piece of evidence in the damage that nuclear can cause, and expanding on what we already have more or less equates making it more accessible and increasing the possibility of such events happening again. Rather than building on the nuclear energy that we have, we should be looking at improving standards and ensuring it is used as safely and responsibly as possible.
To reiterate once more, these costs enter the billions for each power plan and nuclear building activity [7.] http://www.smh.com.au...
In the U.K alone the cost of actually clearing up the nuclear waste has reached a huge 47.9 billion [8.] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
So again, if we were to develop the nuclear energy that we already have and build more power stations; the financial cost would substantially increase.
per weopons, the USA already has hundreds of them. using nuclear energy isn't going to add to that,or change that. and we dont even use the weopons we do have anways.. we won't magically start using them.
con points to chernobly which i already acknowledged. but she didn't respond to the idea that that was a long time ago, and other countries are doing just fine.
con says nuclear is expensive. but to be sure, n o on would build it if it didn't give profit more than is put in.
con mostly just used arguments i already addressed and didn't address my response to them, such as how other countries are doing just fine with waste and disasters. what does she make of that?
Pro has already admitted that there are "cons" to using nuclear, and as I've outlined in round one--it appears to be quite evident that these "Cons" outweigh the "Pros". The main Con being the huge expensive of nuclear energy; especially when it comes to establishing nuclear power plants.
Pro states that "other countries" are doing fine with using nuclear energy but fails to reference what these countries actually are and provide any source to support their assertion. Moreover, this doesn't answer exactly how nuclear energy should be expanded. Just because other counties in the world have nuclear energy [this should be obvious anyway] it doesn't provide a credible reason for it to be expanded. Especially if we're speaking in terms of it being "expanded" regionally, like the U.K or U.S expanding its nuclear. What other parts of the world have in this example is simply irrelevant.
As for not using the weapons that we currently have, Pro entirely misses the point here. The fact is that nuclear weapons have been used twice by the U.S and contributed to almost 200,000 people being killed--which Pro has dropped from my round one argument. Nuclear has been used on a large-scale in history and could very well be used again if certain circumstances were to arise. In this kind of event, millions of lives could potentially be lost and as with Japan, the suffering and damage caused could be extremely prolonged.
And this is only referring to war examples, in round one I highlighted how drastically nuclear energy can impact people when there's been nuclear accidents, the direct effect of nuclear waste when it's exposed to people is in fact severe.
To conclude my rebuttals, Con has practically dropped each contention of mine--including the environmental impacts and case[s] of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as the significantly high costs of nuclear. I used a number of eight sources in support of my arguments, all of which Pro has ignored and seemingly not looked at.
Instead of responding with a full argument on as to why nuclear should be expanded, they've exclusively gone over the same points and repeated their first round.
I'd note that the BoP is on Pro to affirm their resolution and show how nuclear energy should indeed be expanded. So far, no sources have been used and no real case has been made.
the USA used bombs just twice when nukes were first created, and because of a serious war that was occurring. they haven't used them since. this is mostly just scare tactics that have no basis in reality for realistic scenarios. con has to resort to such far fetched argumentation, because nuclear really doesn't have serious problems.
As Pro is the one asserting that nuclear should be expanded, they are absolutely required to provide a convincing case fully supported with sources. Pro claims that I [as Con] have *not* showed what the problems are with the expansion but I made three separate contentions in round one, and went into detail about what each issue was. Including environmental damage, health and safety concerns, and the expensive of building nuclear facilities. Once again I also outlined eight separate sources, that covered the issue of nuclear and the detriments to it in-depth.
Whereas all Pro has done is state their personal opinion in a few small sentences, without giving any actual argument or referring to any evidence to support their stance.
Pro argues that "there are really no problems", but hasn't shown how this is the case. Rather, they are merely making an unsupported statement as they have done with this entire debate. If there are no "problems" with the expansion of nuclear energy, Pro should include some sources to convince us how this is so.
Pro additionally argues that the USA just used nuclear bombs twice [which I previously stated], however it's more that they were used in the first place and caused the deaths of such a large amount of people. The important fact is that they were used, and could be used again in any future or existing conflicts. The more expansive nuclear is, obviously the easier it is to access it. Pro states that the point has "no basis in reality', but the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings actually happening in reality clearly proves this incorrect. Given the current amount of conflicts in the world, the threat of nuclear being used is still very real [9.] http://www.nti.org...
Alluding again to what can potentially happen when nuclear facilities go wrong or are damaged, the Fukushima disaster in Japan in 2001, which lead to 120,000 people being uprooted from their homes [10.]http://www.theguardian.com...
To conclude this debate, I will remind any potential voters that Pro has failed to affirm their resolution and show [or at least give evidence for] why and how nuclear should be expanded. They haven't listed any benefits and have almost wholly dropped my entire case.
Therefore, vote CON.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TGambit 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||7|
Reasons for voting decision: While I am pro nuclear, I felt that the Pro did not have a very convincing argument to back it.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.