Phenenas's vote is extremely short for a full debate with 30k characters per round. It is also a complete lie as I did not use a single Kritik. Regardless of the latter aspect, please remove it. I have reported it.
I think I should win the spelling/grammar point pretty soundly by any standard. I likely won conduct as well, but I am sure that arguments should be going my way. I hope someone is able to vote and I'll let you do your thing.
If we were to debate, I believe I would have a somewhat easier fairing against you. For this person I don't know what to expect, for you, it would not even be close.
Regardless, they are fairly sold arguments.
I don't think simplicity implies weakness.
Bringing up arguments in the last round is not poor form for the person that goes first unless it was stated in the description that this cannot be done.
It is only bad conduct for the person that goes second because it would be impossible for the first person to respond.
Do not ever "let CON go first" in a two round debate. You never stupiulated that CON must wave the final round, so it is just increasing your chances of defeat.
"Good for you. Just because it doesn't hurt you doesn't mean that everyone else is wrong for being hurt by it"
I don't believe the argument is that no one is offended by it, but that it is arbitrarily elevated in a way that almost necessitates its offensive nature.
People are offended by many things, as it seems.
I'm willing to do this debate, if you are willing to make the rating requirement a little lower. Im just saying this as it is a good topic to go to waste, and there is not much interest in it at the moment.
"the conspiracy theory that hydropower kills a lot of people"
This is the problem. PRO already proved this to be true by showing hydropower caused the deadliest energy accident in the world (deadlier than Chernobyl with more deaths) and it has been proven that hydropower is 50% more dangerous than nuclear power.
That is not a conspiracy, that's one of the most justified points of the whole debate.
I have a feeling that most people will vote in the way I did because I don't think this debate was very close, and not nearly as close as I anticipated.
But, please, more people vote. By all means
Since I am here I can address your arguments though.
1. Novice doesn't take note of any of my points against Pro or for Renewable energy, only Pro's points and twisting everything.
Common, I don't even think you believe this.
2. Yet when Pro does this throughout the whole debate, you accept it.
What I mean to say is this. This is your exact quote: "If Pro wants to tell you drawbacks to RE, I will outdo every drawback by several advantages. If this is a listing battle, I'm happy to fight it that way"
By doing that, you failed to address the specific issues listed for each point. Just listing some advantages in response to specific issues is not a good rebuttal.
Arguments: PRO
CON was heavily cornered here. He argued that because of rare nuclear power accidents (constantly referring to Chernobyl) nuclear power is presumably a worse replacement for fossil fuels than alternative energy sources, but PRO flips that completely against him by pointing out one of his power sources is significantly more dangerous than nuclear power and has caused the worlds deadliest energy accident. CON fails to address both points. By his own assertion, he is essentially giving us reasons to be against his position.
He talks about the "devious history," but seems to not address or pay to the devious impacts of his own sources of energy.
PRO brought up a series of negative impacts of CON's energy sources, and rather than countering them or addressing them, CON says we will "outdo" them with positive energy sources without really addressing the harms PRO continues to bring up.
In terms of benefits and advantages, PRO argues much more strongly, especially in round 3. Hitting back on points of reliability, and sustainability. Ultimately what won this debate was PRO opening his case to emphasize the efficiency, benefits, and future of his case, while CON's major arguments went directly against him.
Sources: PRO had much more and sourced most to all of his claims while CON had significantly less. Regardless, I will call it a draw because both sides provided good sources.
Conduct: tie
Spelling and Grammar: tie
III.
All things considered, PRO is winning this debate, and I think he firmly seals the deal in this round. PRO comes out very well by promoting the safety and safety considerations made by nuclear power plants to address past issues. He once again emphasizes the issues with renewable sources, using CON's own source for solar power against him. PRO shows that Chernobyl was not the deadliest energy accident, rather it was the collapse of a cascade of Chinese dams during a flood in 1975, using CON's own argument against him. If CON truly was concerned about accidents and safety, why does he continue to support hydropower? PRO hits back on every point: sustainability, reliability, and area usage. Reliability and area usage go clearly to nuclear power. I don't believe PRO sufficiently proves the sustainability front for nuclear power, but he is correct in stating that CON also fails to prove it is a restricted resource.
CON points out that to even acquire the materials needed for nuclear energy, energy is required, but PRO already pointed out how nuclear power requires less space and is more reliable, and that these environmental impacts apply to hydropower as well. CON calls nuclear power "a non-renewable highly dangerous and not at all passively available resource," but PRO has proven the latter two of these characterizations to be false.
CON says that "The fact is that nuclear waste being 90% ish recyclable in theory has very little impact on all the other areas of harm and cost involved. To get to uranium, thorium, plutonium, etc the harm to the environment and landscape will be beyond anything Pro suggested hydropower has caused via dams and reservoirs," but he doesn't really justify this, and PRO has provided a more sufficient justification of the contrary.
This debate was a good one. In the end, both sides made their arguments and set the perfect stage for the final round of the tournament, and a successful one at that.
I.
PRO lays out his basic framework in round one. PRO did something interesting; he immediately went after the biggest counter-argument against his case: safety. He strongly asserts that accidents always occur, for example in airplanes, and that does not necessarily remove the safety of the energy system. He also points out that radication levels cause by regular use are not harmful at all. PRO also proves that hydropower is more dangerous than nuclear energy, a significant blow to CON's side. He argues for Nuclear energy's reliability and longevity, additionally showing that nuclear energy is good for the environment.
CON's case is interesting. He gives examples of the devious history of nuclear power. He argues that nuclear power is not renewable because it can only be generated with specific materials. He counters PRO's source showing that nuclear energy is 90% recyclable by arguing that "this doesn't begin to explain how energy-demanding (again, ironically) and complex the recycling of nuclear waste is." He does not provide a source corroborating this, but we can see how PRO addresses it later. He then argues solar panels are recyclable as well and sources that claim. CON now argues on the Chernobyl accident, this is a claim that PRO already directly addressed in round one but CON adds a spin; something like pascals wager; it is weighing the possibility of an accident vs simply not aking a smart investment.
II.
Because PRO initially went after this argument so quickly it fell flat for CON. PRO already proved that hydropower is much more dangerous than nuclear power, so at this point, the argument of CON appears to be self-refuting because he is employing the same or greater "risk" with the renewable energy he is defending.
In round 2 PRO doubles down on this and argues that CON is appealing to emotion by describing the devious history of nuclear energy and describing Chernobyl. He also emphasizes that CON conceded the point on the ability to recycle, and did not provide a source for his objection. He does a good job of defending the point stating that the waste is transported and stored safely and sources the claim. PRO concedes that we only know how to exploit radioactive elements at this time, but argues that in the future science and technology will be able to exploit other resources just as human innovation has done in the past and present. He also argues for fusion energy power, but that is largely theoretical and has not been developed yet. However, it could just connect to his point on human innovation. Either way, I won't weigh in too much on that argument. PRO makes a case for the drawbacks of wind turbines, solar panels, and hydropower. He turns CON's argument directly against him. Given that solar panels are connected to child labor, is their history also devious? We will see how CON addresses this.
CON rebutts the airplane analogy well by showing how it fails to address the scale and impact of damages, but he does not address that hydropower is more dangerous than nuclear power? CON states "Rather than just fixate on Chernobyl, which my opponent equates to a rare plane crash," but it is clear that this is a strawman on his part as PRO equated the rareness of the accidents, not the severities. CON goes on more about the negative impacts of nuclear accidents. CON gives some benefits for each of the power sources PRO listed disadvantages of, acting as if that countered the disadvantages? Simply listing out some benefits of your power sources does not address the disadvantages and issues brought up, it essentially just avoids them.
CON says PRO asserts a conspiracy theory when he said "These two [wind turbines and solar panels] are the only power sources that are responsible for less human deaths than nuclear relative to energy production" (weirdly, this does not apply to the definition of a conspiracy theory at all) and although PRO's claim does seem hasty, he already pointed out that hydropower is 50% more deadly than nuclear energy, and illustrated significant impacts on the lives and health of people. I dont think CON shows this claim is unjustified. He just repeats the impacts of Chernobyl, but what is the point of this if you will not address the direct attack that one of your energy sources has been proven to be 50% more dangerous than that of PRO?
I will accept if you change the resolution from the modern education system that is "flawed," to something more concrete.
Everything is flawed because perfection is unattainable, so in its current state, it tells us nothing.
I have no problem with the use of slurs. I think all of them are okay; n word, t word, whatever it may be.
Obviously that does not apply to circumstances that demand some form of conduct.
Phenenas's vote is extremely short for a full debate with 30k characters per round. It is also a complete lie as I did not use a single Kritik. Regardless of the latter aspect, please remove it. I have reported it.
So my predictions are as follows:
I think I should win the spelling/grammar point pretty soundly by any standard. I likely won conduct as well, but I am sure that arguments should be going my way. I hope someone is able to vote and I'll let you do your thing.
"multiplying bothnsides"
Typo that obviously means "multiplying both sides"
Please vote.
I can't let another debate I obviously won go unvoted upon,
I will have fun in this debate.
Voting suggestion: PRO wins by full forfeit
I'll tell you what, I may have some time down the line to debate you if you want.
If we were to debate, I believe I would have a somewhat easier fairing against you. For this person I don't know what to expect, for you, it would not even be close.
Regardless, they are fairly sold arguments.
I don't think simplicity implies weakness.
Bringing up arguments in the last round is not poor form for the person that goes first unless it was stated in the description that this cannot be done.
It is only bad conduct for the person that goes second because it would be impossible for the first person to respond.
I think this is a win for you.
This has to be the worst vote I have ever seen. What a joke.
I keep having this form on nonsense placed upon me, and it's enough to tire someone out.
You may as well claim your win by full forfeit now
With ADOL's vote removed, it looks like more votes are needed for this debate
Good Luck.
That was a tough round as I was left with one hour to make my argument and posted with around 3 minutes remaining.
The description is quite clear.
One is better off if they are not lesbian gay bisexual or trans.
I want to debate someone who is relatively high on the rankings, but anyone is fine.
Do not ever "let CON go first" in a two round debate. You never stupiulated that CON must wave the final round, so it is just increasing your chances of defeat.
More votes needed on this, perhaps
"Good for you. Just because it doesn't hurt you doesn't mean that everyone else is wrong for being hurt by it"
I don't believe the argument is that no one is offended by it, but that it is arbitrarily elevated in a way that almost necessitates its offensive nature.
People are offended by many things, as it seems.
Can you vote on another one of my debates if you have time? I need more votes
Thank you for voting.
Please accept the debate
I guess the debate had interest after all.
I am pretty interested in this debate
Are you willing to debate anything with me in the future?
I can't believe I was late to jumping on the train of getting free wins from this person.
Good thing I got two debates just in time.
That was a very good first round
Please give me the riightful win on account of FF
I am happy to vote on this, eventually.
I'm willing to do this debate, if you are willing to make the rating requirement a little lower. Im just saying this as it is a good topic to go to waste, and there is not much interest in it at the moment.
Why did you ban him?
I don't know what the point of the excessive apathy, but that cost you the debate.
I don't know, but he is probably just looking for easy wins.
Thank you
I never thought oromagi would loose to anyone.
By the way, I'm curious, what was the first incident of defeat that incurred the 98-1
I would say that ADreamOfLiberty should have kept conduct tied, but arguments and sources to PRO is fair game.
"the conspiracy theory that hydropower kills a lot of people"
This is the problem. PRO already proved this to be true by showing hydropower caused the deadliest energy accident in the world (deadlier than Chernobyl with more deaths) and it has been proven that hydropower is 50% more dangerous than nuclear power.
That is not a conspiracy, that's one of the most justified points of the whole debate.
Okay, let's just see what whiteflame and the other voters do, because I have a feeling they will agree with me.
I have a feeling that most people will vote in the way I did because I don't think this debate was very close, and not nearly as close as I anticipated.
But, please, more people vote. By all means
Since I am here I can address your arguments though.
1. Novice doesn't take note of any of my points against Pro or for Renewable energy, only Pro's points and twisting everything.
Common, I don't even think you believe this.
2. Yet when Pro does this throughout the whole debate, you accept it.
What I mean to say is this. This is your exact quote: "If Pro wants to tell you drawbacks to RE, I will outdo every drawback by several advantages. If this is a listing battle, I'm happy to fight it that way"
By doing that, you failed to address the specific issues listed for each point. Just listing some advantages in response to specific issues is not a good rebuttal.
Wait, hold on.
Do you actually think you won this debate? Be honest
Arguments: PRO
CON was heavily cornered here. He argued that because of rare nuclear power accidents (constantly referring to Chernobyl) nuclear power is presumably a worse replacement for fossil fuels than alternative energy sources, but PRO flips that completely against him by pointing out one of his power sources is significantly more dangerous than nuclear power and has caused the worlds deadliest energy accident. CON fails to address both points. By his own assertion, he is essentially giving us reasons to be against his position.
He talks about the "devious history," but seems to not address or pay to the devious impacts of his own sources of energy.
PRO brought up a series of negative impacts of CON's energy sources, and rather than countering them or addressing them, CON says we will "outdo" them with positive energy sources without really addressing the harms PRO continues to bring up.
In terms of benefits and advantages, PRO argues much more strongly, especially in round 3. Hitting back on points of reliability, and sustainability. Ultimately what won this debate was PRO opening his case to emphasize the efficiency, benefits, and future of his case, while CON's major arguments went directly against him.
Sources: PRO had much more and sourced most to all of his claims while CON had significantly less. Regardless, I will call it a draw because both sides provided good sources.
Conduct: tie
Spelling and Grammar: tie
III.
All things considered, PRO is winning this debate, and I think he firmly seals the deal in this round. PRO comes out very well by promoting the safety and safety considerations made by nuclear power plants to address past issues. He once again emphasizes the issues with renewable sources, using CON's own source for solar power against him. PRO shows that Chernobyl was not the deadliest energy accident, rather it was the collapse of a cascade of Chinese dams during a flood in 1975, using CON's own argument against him. If CON truly was concerned about accidents and safety, why does he continue to support hydropower? PRO hits back on every point: sustainability, reliability, and area usage. Reliability and area usage go clearly to nuclear power. I don't believe PRO sufficiently proves the sustainability front for nuclear power, but he is correct in stating that CON also fails to prove it is a restricted resource.
CON points out that to even acquire the materials needed for nuclear energy, energy is required, but PRO already pointed out how nuclear power requires less space and is more reliable, and that these environmental impacts apply to hydropower as well. CON calls nuclear power "a non-renewable highly dangerous and not at all passively available resource," but PRO has proven the latter two of these characterizations to be false.
CON says that "The fact is that nuclear waste being 90% ish recyclable in theory has very little impact on all the other areas of harm and cost involved. To get to uranium, thorium, plutonium, etc the harm to the environment and landscape will be beyond anything Pro suggested hydropower has caused via dams and reservoirs," but he doesn't really justify this, and PRO has provided a more sufficient justification of the contrary.
This debate was a good one. In the end, both sides made their arguments and set the perfect stage for the final round of the tournament, and a successful one at that.
I.
PRO lays out his basic framework in round one. PRO did something interesting; he immediately went after the biggest counter-argument against his case: safety. He strongly asserts that accidents always occur, for example in airplanes, and that does not necessarily remove the safety of the energy system. He also points out that radication levels cause by regular use are not harmful at all. PRO also proves that hydropower is more dangerous than nuclear energy, a significant blow to CON's side. He argues for Nuclear energy's reliability and longevity, additionally showing that nuclear energy is good for the environment.
CON's case is interesting. He gives examples of the devious history of nuclear power. He argues that nuclear power is not renewable because it can only be generated with specific materials. He counters PRO's source showing that nuclear energy is 90% recyclable by arguing that "this doesn't begin to explain how energy-demanding (again, ironically) and complex the recycling of nuclear waste is." He does not provide a source corroborating this, but we can see how PRO addresses it later. He then argues solar panels are recyclable as well and sources that claim. CON now argues on the Chernobyl accident, this is a claim that PRO already directly addressed in round one but CON adds a spin; something like pascals wager; it is weighing the possibility of an accident vs simply not aking a smart investment.
II.
Because PRO initially went after this argument so quickly it fell flat for CON. PRO already proved that hydropower is much more dangerous than nuclear power, so at this point, the argument of CON appears to be self-refuting because he is employing the same or greater "risk" with the renewable energy he is defending.
In round 2 PRO doubles down on this and argues that CON is appealing to emotion by describing the devious history of nuclear energy and describing Chernobyl. He also emphasizes that CON conceded the point on the ability to recycle, and did not provide a source for his objection. He does a good job of defending the point stating that the waste is transported and stored safely and sources the claim. PRO concedes that we only know how to exploit radioactive elements at this time, but argues that in the future science and technology will be able to exploit other resources just as human innovation has done in the past and present. He also argues for fusion energy power, but that is largely theoretical and has not been developed yet. However, it could just connect to his point on human innovation. Either way, I won't weigh in too much on that argument. PRO makes a case for the drawbacks of wind turbines, solar panels, and hydropower. He turns CON's argument directly against him. Given that solar panels are connected to child labor, is their history also devious? We will see how CON addresses this.
CON rebutts the airplane analogy well by showing how it fails to address the scale and impact of damages, but he does not address that hydropower is more dangerous than nuclear power? CON states "Rather than just fixate on Chernobyl, which my opponent equates to a rare plane crash," but it is clear that this is a strawman on his part as PRO equated the rareness of the accidents, not the severities. CON goes on more about the negative impacts of nuclear accidents. CON gives some benefits for each of the power sources PRO listed disadvantages of, acting as if that countered the disadvantages? Simply listing out some benefits of your power sources does not address the disadvantages and issues brought up, it essentially just avoids them.
CON says PRO asserts a conspiracy theory when he said "These two [wind turbines and solar panels] are the only power sources that are responsible for less human deaths than nuclear relative to energy production" (weirdly, this does not apply to the definition of a conspiracy theory at all) and although PRO's claim does seem hasty, he already pointed out that hydropower is 50% more deadly than nuclear energy, and illustrated significant impacts on the lives and health of people. I dont think CON shows this claim is unjustified. He just repeats the impacts of Chernobyl, but what is the point of this if you will not address the direct attack that one of your energy sources has been proven to be 50% more dangerous than that of PRO?
I'll commend you for that one
I believe this will be a tough debate, because I have never faced anyone with as high of a rank as you.
I look forward to the opportunity of debating you, and if all goes to plan, defeating you as well.
Good luck
I will accept if you change the resolution from the modern education system that is "flawed," to something more concrete.
Everything is flawed because perfection is unattainable, so in its current state, it tells us nothing.
I have no problem with the use of slurs. I think all of them are okay; n word, t word, whatever it may be.
Obviously that does not apply to circumstances that demand some form of conduct.
Yeah, these type of tactics are really annoying and ridiculous
Good luck to both PRO and CON