Choose a Resolution Debate

I'm just going to post what was my previous argument, since I still have it saved and apologize once again, for marring the debate. Please assess and dock me for this in the voting. I would like to also point out, for the benefit of those voting, that I did indeed concede with my opponents first two points, in the previous round. 1.) Nuclear power will replace coal as a crutch. I apologize for any ambiguity. The resolution, as stated, is ": Nuclear power plants should replace coal as the main source of home electricity in the United States. (I'm PRO)". My opponent is attempting to prove that nuclear power should replace coal as the main source of home electricity in the United States. I am simply trying to prove that nuclear power should not replace it. When saying that nuclear power will replace coal as a crutch, I am pointing out that nuclear power SHOULD NOT replace coal for the fact that, though it is safer and more environmentally friendly, as my opponent pointed out, it does not fix the bigger problem that we as a nation face. That problem being that our entire outlook on energy usage is flawed. We need a new approach, one that does not rely on a non-renewable energy source, and one that isn't short term. "Without further support in showing that coal is superior to show that coal is superior to nuclear, this argument is refuted by itself." Just to clarify again, I am not stating that coal is superior. I fully agree that nuclear power, in most senses, is far superior to coal power. But the resolution does not ask me to prove that coal power is superior nuclear power. It merely asks me to prove that nuclear power SHOULD NOT replace coal power in the home. (I didn't do the semantic argument thing did I? If so, I apologize, and ask that I be docked during the voting period by those voting). 2. Nuclear waste My opponent states he expects that scientists would become more innovative with their ideas for nuclear storage. This is valid assumption. But the problem still persists because all you can do with nuclear waste is store it. That's it. And eventually, with the amount of energy that the United States uses, we would run out of space. My opponent has to concede that point. No matter how crafty, how innovative we get, logic simply says that we will run out of space. "Finally, my opponent brings up solar as an alternate to both nuclear and coal. However, this debate is about whether nuclear power should replace coal as the main source of home electricity, not about solar." Completely right. I was bringing up solar power to give my opponent a better idea of the outlook we should have on energy usage. We need to utilize a PURELY renewable source, and back out of the faulty energy processes we're using today. I wanted my opponent just to get an idea of a better way. He also said that the pressing need for storing nuclear waste would lead to more jobs, etc. So would the need to commercialize solar energy. In fact, more so, since there are so many more components and needs for expansion inside of the field. Just to wrap up, I feel as if I have marred this debate a little because I'm a noob. To make my opponents last round a bit easier, I'll try and attempt to use a quick little template I've seen on other debates, and ask that he refute my points above ^ and use the set up to get an idea of my thought process and contentions, in order to fix the debate a little. Resolved: Nuclear power SHOULD NOT replace coal as the main source of home electricity in the United States. 1. Nuclear Power is another quick fix solution with the some of the same flaws as coal power. - It relies on a non-renewable energy source that will eventually run out. - It loses a lot of energy through the already flawed, multi-stepped energy generation process. - It's too shortsighted, and would only be beneficial until we ran out of materials. 2.) Nuclear Power's on unique flaws prevent it from being readily identified as the standing energy source of the future. - The only means to dispose of nuclear waste, even after reprocessing it and using it again, is storage. Through that idea alone and keeping with the amount of energy used in the US, my opponent has to concede that we will eventually run out of space to put our nuclear waste, if we don't run out of usable materials before the problem occurs. For these reasons, I conclude that nuclear power SHOULD NOT replace coal as the main source of home electricity in the United States.