Judge: David Kane (Binghamton University)
Resolution: Finals Week: This House Believes that Animal Testing Should be Banned.
|Click to begin|
Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.
Posted at May 19, 2020 11:20:24PM EST by Laura Aybar
CDC - Uranium miners (1) - NIOSH study summary. (2020, April 8). Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/pgms/worknotify/uranium.html
Deseret News. (2001, February 13). Uranium mining left a legacy of death. Retrieved from https://www.deseret.com/2001/2/13/19781194/uranium-mining-left-a-legacy-of-death#tim-meier-describes-doe-work-at-the-monticello-mill-site
Uranium: The deadliest metal. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.ccnr.org/uranium_deadliest.html
Why nuclear power will never supply the world's energy needs. (2011, May 11). Retrieved from https://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html
As nuclear waste piles up, scientists seek the best long-term storage solutions. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://cen.acs.org/environment/pollution/nuclear-waste-pilesscientists-seek-best/98/i12
The devastating truth behind this image. (2015, October 28). Retrieved from https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/residents-in-st-louis-dying-in-record-numbers-from-world-war-ii-radioactive-waste/news-story/3626e996b759f6e4694abe61b7416975
Epstein, A. (2015, January 14). How opposition to fossil fuels hurts the poor most of all. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/14/how-opposition-to-fossil-fuels-hurts-the-poor-most-of-all/#67dbed0e74ce
RICHMOND. (2018, June 18). Fossil fuels have reduced poverty, not increased it. Retrieved from https://www.richmond.com/opinion/editorial/editorial-fossil-fuels-have-reduced-poverty-not-increased-it/article_da370dfb-48ef-5966-832a-07ea293234c3.html
Shifts to renewable energy can drive up energy poverty, study finds. (2020, May 19). Retrieved from https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190712151926.htm
What if you had no modern energy? The realities of solving energy poverty. (2019, June 1). Retrieved from https://pubs.spe.org/en/jpt/jpt-article-detail/?art=5483
Posted at May 22, 2020 02:41:43AM EST by Laura Aybar
2017 U.S. energy and employment report. (n.d.). Energy.gov. https://www.energy.gov/downloads/2017-us-energy-and-employment-report
Emerging Technology from the arXiv. (2015, April 17). The chances of another Chernobyl before 2050? 50%, say safety specialists. MIT Technology Review. https://www.technologyreview.com/2015/04/17/168600/the-chances-of-another-chernobyl-before-2050-50-say-safety-specialists/
Rees, E. (2018, February 14). Don't believe the spin on thorium being a greener nuclear option. the Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jun/23/thorium-nuclear-uranium
Researchers develop AI to cut staff costs for advanced reactors. (n.d.). Nuclear Energy Insider. https://analysis.nuclearenergyinsider.com/researchers-develop-ai-cut-staff-costs-advanced-reactors
Segal, R. (2018, October 9). Should we depend on fossil fuels or renewable energy? theperspective.com/. https://www.theperspective.com/debates/living/depend-fossil-fuels-renewable-energy/
Valuing the greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear power. (2017, March 29). Journalist's Resource. https://journalistsresource.org/studies/environment/climate-change/nuclear-power-greenhouse-gases/
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at May 23, 2020 11:24:45PM EST by David Kane
|Category||andrew cui||Laura Aybar|
|Use of evidence:||3||4.5|
|Coherence of arguments:||4||4|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||3||4|
|Identification of key points:||4||4|
|Comments:||Beware of making broad, superlative statements like "the end of the world." Use evidence to quantify the impact. You did have a potentially powerful argument to make about scale of impacts
I think you misunderstood the economic argument your opponent was making. You responded with details about how many people are involved with mining, but the opposition was making a point about the economic impact of cheap energy. Look at something like China's GDP grew ( https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=china+gdp ) as their share of nuclear power grew ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China )
One of the advantages of this format is you can easily look up evidence. E.g. your opponent tried to attribute the reduction of infant mortality due to economic growth with a reduction infant mortality, but it is not hard to find sources connecting coal to infant mortality (e.g. https://www.livemint.com/news/india/how-coal-based-power-increases-infant-mortality-11576575760647.html ) I just bring this up as an example of a way that you can use evidence in the debate.
Don't cite evidence you don't need to. In your constructive, you had some data on cost per mil for various energy types, and the first thing you read was about hydro power.
Be careful about calling out your opponent for "false information." She may have had information that conflicted with yours, measured something slightly different, etc, but that does not make it false. Your opponent provided plenty of references to assess the details.
|I don't want to read your evidence citations to understand your arguments. Make sure you articulate.
I thought your China example was vulnerable. First, the facts don't back up your argument. ( See https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=china+gdp ) and ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China ) But even if they were aligned, be careful about confusing Corrleation and Causation ( https://xkcd.com/552/ ) Chine encountered many other changes in that period of growth -- growth of the private economy, joined the WTO, etc.
The decision is for the Opposition: Laura Aybar
Reason for Decision:
The opposition won the point on economic inequality.
The opposition was able to express in more concretely and with stronger evidence the long term consequences (waste, accidents, etc) of nuclear power.
The economic argument was a wash. Both sides did a good job articulating a case for why their was the cheaper solution
Thank you for the debate.