Nuclear Power

I will agree to my opponents wishes and confine my arguments to the subject of large scale nuclear power facilities, but am still unclear as to his overall resolution. Even taking this into consideration, his opening statement is still "I would like to argue that Large Scale Nuclear Power Facilities, which have been largely underrated due to events such as Chernobyl, is detrimental to the environment more so than the danger radioactive substances." This continues to make no sense. 1. I am having trouble fully understanding the argument being put forward here due to improper syntax. To be blunt, your sentence structure is nonsensical in some areas, and my apologies if I misinterpret your meaning in some cases. I'll do my best. For starters, I am not holding that nuclear power and its by products are one and the same, quite the opposite. There is of course a difference between the scientific theory behind a technology, the actual application of theory to a technology, and the physical manifestations of that technology, I don't think anyone is arguing to the contrary. Pro then argues in favor of his position by stating that environmental impact from fossil fuel production and consumption is greater than that caused by nuclear power. While this may be the case, I fail to see the relevance of that statement. No where in the resolution, or anywhere else in Pro's opening statement, does it require that it must be proved that fossil fuels are less environmentally detrimental than nuclear power. That is to say, we are not debating the merits of nuclear energy by contrasting them with fossil fuels exclusively, and I am by no means required to prove the invalidity of nuclear power as a fuel source by upholding the validity of fossil fuels. As to his closing statement in this section, I believe the confusion rests with Pro, in his interpretation of my statement regarding the idea of nuclear technology. I was not holding the viewpoint that nuclear technology exists only as an abstract idea. That would be silly. What IS silly is Pro's assertion that because nuclear technology has been in practice for more than 60 years, it is no longer an idea. He fails to recognize that an idea doesn't disappear because you put it into practice, it doesn't 'cease to exist' as an idea. Pro as completely missed the point of my statement and misinterpreted it about as much as one could. The only reason I even felt I had to delve into such abstract lines of logic was to make sense of his nonsensical opening statement in the first place. His final argument is that the power which can be produced from a nuclear reactor is worth producing the radioactive waste. He makes no support to this statement, just the statement. I will counter it with a statement of my own. No it's not. 2. This section seems to consist mainly of Pro taking liberties and making assumptions that he's not allowed to make. In his first statement, he agrees to cede the point if I can show multiple instances where nuclear power has caused 'global damage.' He then conveniently excludes Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, as if to say because he knows about them and they are commonly recognized, they are somehow invalid in this argument. He further marginalizes legitimate nuclear disasters by stating that monetary damage alone is commonplace, again referencing the fossil fuel industry for similar incidents (again, I'm not contrasting Nuclear Power with Fossil Fuels exclusively, so I feel no compulsion to use it as a measuring stick in this debate.) Pro also fails to recognize that monetary damage implies economic damage, and 'global damage' is not simply confined to the environment, there is 'global economic damage' as well. As the resolution does not specify what type of global damage we are to consider, we must consider all forms of global damage as legitimate. I hold that Nuclear Power has caused over 20 billion dollars in property damage alone from 1952-2009, and thus I prove my point that it does not have an "otherwise safe history", as held by Pro. You must vote Con on this point alone. As to his attempts to preempt of any reference to the Japan disaster by reason of claiming the damage caused was not inherent to nuclear power specifically, but rather to an act of God, I refuse to validate such a thoroughly illogical claim. The propensity of a nuclear reactor to cause damage if compromised is directly relevant to its inherent safety and must be considered when evaluating the technology as a whole. If I invented a source of power that ran on peanut oil, but my Peanut Oil Reactor could detonate and irradiate several square miles if it got hit with a snowstorm (act of God), I could hardly be justified in calling my Peanut Oil Reactor 'safe.' Conversely, if I put a wind power generator on a hill, and it gets hit by an earthquake, the wind power generator doesn't explode and cause radiation. Therefore, the nuclear reactor by its very presence has caused nuclear damage in the Japan disaster, and I refuse to accept your invalid and illogical dismissal of it. Pro has clearly failed to demonstrate that nuclear power has 'otherwise a safe history' and thus this point must be given to Con. 3. My opponent here tries to construct a series of criteria which I must meet with my argument in order to win this point. He states that for a technology to even be allowed to be considered as meeting this criteria, it must be able to produce energy comparable to that of a nuclear reactor. My opponent fails to put forth any other requirements, such as cost, or area required to construct, so I hold that even wind power, given unlimited funding and space, can produce enough power to meet this criteria. Even if it takes wind farm the size of Kentucky to produce as much power as one nuclear plant, this point will have been won by Con, as it shows a source of power that is less 'polluting' than nuclear energy. Again, this is just ONE alternative fuel source, there is still hydroelectricity, bio fuels, liquid-hydrogen, solar power, kinetic generation, and others. If my opponent is attempting to claim that nuclear power is definitively safer and cheaper than every one of those technologies, then he has a hard road ahead of him. In summary, since my opponent has not further clarified his Resolution or initial points, we must rely on the list I supplied in round 1 for the criteria with which to judge victory. The points are as follows: 1(amended). Large Scale Nuclear Power Facilities have been demonized due to events like Chernobyl, and are in actuality more dangerous than radioactive isotopes produced by Nuclear reactors. This point continues to be absurd, and will be so until Pro defines it more clearly. As of now, it must be considered a point for Con as it contradicts itself. 2. Other than producing dangerous radioactive waste as a by product, nuclear power has had an otherwise safe history. I have clearly proved that this is not the case. I only needed to show one example where nuclear power has been demonstrably unsafe, other than in the normal operation of a reactor, and I have clearly done so. Point to Con. 3. When compared to other conventional fuel sources, Nuclear power causes less pollution. I have rejected Pro's inference that I must, as Con, attempt to defend fossil fuels. He makes no reference to that requirement in the Resolution or opening statement, and I do not recognize my need to do so. I have provided several alternative power sources that would qualify as 'conventional' (solar, hydroelectric, wind, bio fuel) that all produce less pollution than nuclear power. All points must therefore go to Con!