Instigator / Pro
7
1516
rating
2
debates
75.0%
won
Topic
#2792

Nuclear Energy is Safer then Fossil Fuels

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

The_Meliorist
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
4
1468
rating
8
debates
37.5%
won
Description

I'll take the PRO position, that nuclear energy is safer then fossil fuels. CON will have to show that fossil fuels are safer then nuclear energy.

safe = not likely to cause harm or lost.

fossil fuels = a natural fuel such as coal or gas, formed in the geological past from the remains of living organisms. (especially when used in a power plant)

nuclear energy = the energy released during nuclear fission or fusion, especially when used to generate electricity.

If someone wants use different definitions, then they have to make it clear before the debate, and I have to agree with them.

vote bump

-->
@3RU7AL

thank you for the sources, I'll check them out

-->
@The_Meliorist

And this one,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak

Meliorism is an idea in metaphysical thinking holding that progress is a real concept leading to an improvement of the world. It holds that humans can, through their interference with processes that would otherwise be natural, produce an outcome which is an improvement over the aforementioned natural one.

-->
@The_Meliorist

Don't forget about THROIUM REACTORS and specifically MODULAR THORIUM REACTORS.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yofGtxEgpI8

-->
@The_Meliorist

Good argument! We can definitely see the positive effects of nuclear power when comparing France and Germany, with France having one-tenth the carbon emissions per kWh than Germany due to how 70% of France's power is from nuclear energy while Germany has many coal-burning plants. These plants in Germany have also spread pollution via wind, with a small portion of pollution in France being from the wind blowing pollution from Germany. Furthermore, Germany's burning of fossil fuels for energy is linked to over 2,500 deaths abroad each year.

Definitely, as we see innovations in modern nuclear power plant designs being safer, smaller, and more efficient, it would be good to see the US move towards more nuclear sources too in order to cut down on fossil fuels and burning coal.

What a lopsided debate. Just going by the metric of human casualties, More people died manufacturing and installing solar panels this year than all deaths combined from Nuclear power ever.

-->
@Sum1hugme

I think the government would pay the homeowners who have to move in the event of a meltdown, as that is precedent with Flint Michigan, so if they move, it's not a big deal. Such people are very rare given that not many people live close to a nuclear power plant. Granted, I'm not worried about power plants melting down again anytime soon. The most feasible alternative to nuclear is coal power, which isn't clean.

-->
@TheUnderdog

Yeah that's what I mean, those living close, regardless of where their power comes from, would have to move.

-->
@Sum1hugme

You can choose whether or not you are powered with nuclear. If you don't like nuclear energy, don't buy energy from nuclear power plants. Half of my state is nuclear powered. If there is a meltdown (which almost never occur), I won't have to move. Some people living really close to the plant would have to move, but most people who rely on the plant for power won't have to move. A nuclear power plant powers more than just a small town. 2 plants power a small state, and 4 power plants can power an entire average sized state. Meltdowns are almost non existent, so I wouldn't worry about them.

-->
@TheUnderdog

Not really a choice if the town is nuclear powered, cause if it melts down, even if you chose solar panels, you're gonna have to move

I think people should decide for themselves what energy source to get. If you like solar, buy from solar producers or make your own. If you like fossil fuels, buy from fossil fuel producers or make your own. If you like cheap energy, buy from cheap providers or make your own. Let people make their own decisions.

The-Meliorist, I am looking forward to be a good debate.

-->
@greenplanet

Thank you for accepting the debate, I will have my first round argument in by Monday

-->
@Intelligence_06

He likes the green of the smog

-->
@greenplanet

Aren't you advocating for the opposite of whatever your username would say?

-->
@Sum1hugme

War is ugly in general. It's best used when the alternative is uglier.

-->
@Sum1hugme

Yeah for sure. You can be justified in your war on paper but fuck it up with awful conduct

-->
@MisterChris

The lines get blurry in cases like the Battle of Grozny (1994). Chechnia politically seceded from russia after the USSR fell bc they hated the purges stalin had committed (literally loading them up into cattle cars for mass deportation).

In response, the Russian government sent some 40,000 conscripts to retake the city of Grozny. They underestimated the chechin's will to fight and suffered incredible losses. But the insurgent forced did not give a fook about the moral high ground and freely boobytrapped everything, piked the heads of the Russians on the roads, and hung captured Russians upside down in their fighting positions so Russians had to shoot at their comrades in order to even fight. They would order their snipers to shoot the legs, and freely shoot at the rescue parties. Or even or shoot the groin, to attack the morale of the Russians who would suffer a slow painful, humiliating death.

But the Russians were mostly teenage conscripts that, from hunger, stress, and a lack of discipline, were taking their frustrations out on the populace.

-->
@Sum1hugme

Yeah. I think WWII was a prime example of that.

-->
@MisterChris

Yeah I think I agree with that.

-->
@Sum1hugme

Definitely not in every case. If we truly value human life, we must also be willing to fight to protect it from being devalued. But of course, you can commit war crimes that cross that line into becoming murder.

-->
@MisterChris

Oh that's a good one lol. Do You think that war is always murder? Also Josh powell killed his kids with gasoline, is where my mind went

-->
@Sum1hugme

Guess in response to that you could make a meta-arg about nuclear subs and nuclear aircraft carriers lmao. But yeah, a little gas + match = fun times in California.

-->
@MisterChris

Yeah 1 came to my mind aswell. But the rate of nuclear meltdowns are pretty low so I haven't accepted. And gas Is volatile and freely accessible, used in murder a lot for that reason.

-->
@Sum1hugme

The main points I thought of for CON have to do with the following:

1. Nuclear disasters (Chernobyl much)
&
2. Nuclear waste (This shit won't turn you into the hulk, it'll just kill you)
&
3. Higher energy costs killing the poor (Self-explanatory)

But each point has their own refutations, and outweighing is so much easier on the PRO side

-->
@MisterChris

Yeah that's almost exactly what I was thinking. Still can't decide tho...

There's a good debate to be had here, but the literature favors PRO enough to where I'll pass I think.

-->
@zedvictor4

I think that's the same thing.

-->
@The_Meliorist

You should be proposing, that nuclear fuel is safer than fossil fuel.