Question: Can Renewable Energy Sources Adequately Substitute for Fossil Fuels?

Nuclear Power as a Sustainable Alternative to Fossil Fuels

Introduction
In this debate, I will present arguments supporting the use of nuclear power as a sustainable alternative to fossil fuels. I will address global warming, the environmental benefits of nuclear power, its practical advantages, and miscellaneous benefits. I will also discuss the role of nuclear power in addressing global warming, its safety, cost-effectiveness, and contributions to medicine, transportation, and space exploration.

Global Warming and Nuclear Power
The urgency to address global warming cannot be overstated. Rising temperatures and sea levels threaten the survival of countless species, island nations, and coastal cities. To stabilize temperatures by 2050, CO2 emissions must fall by 60-80%. Nuclear power has proven to be an effective tool in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Since 1971, nearly 60 GtCO2 have been avoided globally, thanks to nuclear power. France's transition from fossil fuels to nuclear fission in the 1970s and 80s resulted in the fastest drop in greenhouse gas pollution on record, with emissions decreasing by roughly 2% per year.

Nuclear Power vs. Alternative Energy Sources
Nuclear power has several advantages over alternative energy sources. It has a higher energy capacity, with a nuclear plant operating at 90% of full capacity, replacing a coal-fired plant on a one-to-one basis. In contrast, solar plants and wind farms operate at 15% and 25% capacity, respectively. Moreover, nuclear power is not subject to environmental conditions like wind, solar, and hydro energy. Scaling up nuclear power can help combat global warming by quickly addressing the threat posed by greenhouse gas emissions.

Practical Advantages of Nuclear Power
Nuclear power is not only environmentally friendly but also cost-effective and safe. In 2011, nuclear power had the lowest electricity production costs at 2.10 cents per kilowatt hour. It has a lower levelized cost than advanced coal with carbon capture, conventional combustion turbine, biomass, offshore wind, photovoltaic solar, and thermal solar. Nuclear power is also safer than many other energy sources, with an average of just 0.04 deaths per terawatt hour. Since the first nuclear power plant was constructed 63 years ago, there have been only three major nuclear meltdowns: Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. Of those, only one - Chernobyl - produced any fatalities.

First I would like to address a very important point, and then address my opponent's points. The most important point is funding. Where are we going to get the money to continue subsidies of electric vehicles? Right now we're spending $1.5 trillion a year that we do not have. I will come back to this point shortly. How do you propose we power these electric vehicles? Nuclear power? Where are we going to get the funding for that? What are we going to do when we have a disaster similar to Japan? Nuclear pollution effectively lasts forever. Carbon, on the other hand, is cycled out of the environment via the carbon cycle. Right now the #1 form of electricity in the US is coal. I hate to burst your bubble, but the coal powered vehicle is not new technology. We've been using coal to power machines for 250 years. It also burns extremely dirty, and coal pollution is deposited higher into the atmosphere where it has a stronger effect on acid rain. This pollution also remains in the atmosphere longer, as it is not cycled out of the atmosphere as quickly by plants. Gasoline pollution on the other hand is released within a foot of the ground, and is cycled out of the atmosphere much quicker. It s quite obvious that electric vehicles contribute more dangerous pollution to the environment. The federal government, already $15 trillion in debt, should not be wasting money on technology that is so dangerous to the environment.

My argument here will be brief and I will restate something that I might have misunderstood. If your thesis is : CAN we, according to nowadays technologies, achieve a leisure society in the next decades? Then the answer is yes on all fronts, except for the specific case that requires moral and creativity. Those, as for example, judges, advocates, policeman, musician, film makers/producers, etc, will still be in need of several years of practice and education. Therein lies the problems: Why would you bother if you are offered the possibility to achieve your life without as much as the tough of work crossing your mind? Why would you work for beings that passes their whole days achieving nothing? Why would you even be tempted to receive the education as you can afford a whole life of leisure? Another fact is that we might trust A.I. for basic security (and even more complex) functions. Personally, I do think they could achieve the whole security functions. Now, could you tell me one instance of where we had a nuclear power facility working without any personal to watch over? What would happen with a system breakdown, or a lack of power at a moment where it needs to be watched? This is a considerable roadblock, as a society without moral jurisdiction or entertainment will quickly fall into chaos. However, if your debate is based on: WILL we achieve it in the next few decades, then I'm afraid it won't happen, as too many factors would require massive amounts of change within the current society. First of all, China and India were mere examples of WHY it cannot happen. The fact is that you create a paradox, as being independent to money due to self-serving industry would require an enormous amount of money to create at first aspect. Energy creation and water filtering requires facilities that cannot be created and maintained, at first, by open-source project. As for a quick example, even if you consider heating carbon in an helium chamber to be easy, it cannot be done at home, as the prerequisite are not what we could call affordable for many that lives in in-development countries. As for food production, many of the enhancing soils capabilities do require GMO, which we do not know long-term effect on living organism, or technology that are, for the most part, still in the experimental phase. As for the medical AI, it does still require a doctor to enter the answers to the specific questions this one will need to establish a diagnostic, but this may indeed change in the next years.

Let's see now... 1. Enthusiana debate Of course, enthusiana was the only treatment availible during olden days. Nowadays we have alternative options availible. With increasing methods to keep these people alive without their massive pain, we have better care and training. The easy way out would not allow us to help doctors increase their skills of caring for these terminally ill persons. Furthermore, people who choose enthusiana are usually depressed and only see the sad side, the burdened side of life. By not taking the easy way out, we can learn about their problems that might be effecting their decisions. Maybe one day the man lost his job and his spouse died by heart disease, and he's so depressed he think he's sick too, and the only way out is enthusiana. But that's not right. We can treat his depression, we can treat his illusion of sickness. If we instantly just terminate him without really finding out about his sickness, then it's immoral. Also, we cannot learn how to treat the specific sickness, if the patient is really sick. What if 1,000 more people die of disease X, and we didn't investigate the first person who obtained the disease, just killed him with enthusiana! We lose many chances at medical research that could save the lives of others. The doctor also earns far too much power in enthusiana, and his diagnosis could be wrong, as well as new research that could change the outcome. His emotion or tiredness could affect his decision; too much variables could contribute to an immoral death. There are many reasons why enthusiana isn't legalized in all of those countries my opponent mentioned. There's a reason my opponent sourced a majority of countries that prefer no enthusiana to legalizing enthusiana. 2. Better technology So what that we consume fuel? We seek other sources; renewable sources that are more efficient and are more environmental, gaining more energy in the process! Carbon dioxide increase: *Laughs* I was expecting this argument. Now, look at his graph. Tell me what's wrong with it. Nothing? Okay, look on the right side....that's right... it's merely from 310 to 390, and we're merely counting the years 1960-2010. This is what the graph would look like if we started from zero: Eh, eh? Doesn't look so bad now eh? Seriously, that graph is biased. On the other hand, if we look at the bigger picture.... [source: http://www.freerepublic.com...] And this... [source: http://earthintime.com...] We see here, even if carbon dioxide is being released (not to mention, at very small rates), the global temperature is not effected by it. In fact, the temperature is still decreasing as shown over time. Since the earth has not warmed, my opponent cannot contribute it to the "extinction of countless species". As for arctic melting, that makes no sense. The arctic is not melting at all, it is, in fact, expanding. [source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk...] We see it is obvious, my opponent is wrong. Wherever he got the idea of global warming, we don't know. But it isn't happening. As for the letter, my opponent only shows how our world nowadays is much better in communication. You see, long ago people just wrote "K". I even heard of a famous story of a writer who wrote to her publishers, "?" concerning her novel, and the publishers responding, "!". Seriously guys? Now, we don't have to pay for these letters. We can instantly send them by email or by cell phone, much more quickly. The world is much more interconnected with email and computers; two friends separated by 3,000 miles no longer have to wait one month for each other's letters to arrive, they can instantly talk to each other with only waiting a few seconds--or milliseconds--to respond to each other's messages, and even see each other through face time! As you can see here, my opponent's case defeats his own. Global temperature is actually cooling, not warming. Enthusiana is illegal for a good reason. He dropped almost all of my arguments, and I hope he comes back to rebut them later. Back to you, mighty unbeaten Jay!

Thank you, RougeFox, for an impressive second round. As I expected, my opponent has given a worthy argument, however I will rebut and show how off shore drilling should be tapered(as opposed to continuing), and perhaps stopped altogether. My opponent starts with quoting the assistant secretary of energy. This is not the most reliable source, especially when he is making comments on terrorism. This gentleman is not even the secretary of energy. He is the assistant. Also, this man is clearly stating opinions on a subject that he is NOT an expert. Therefore, his quotes are not valid. Please keep in mind that this debate is not about the dependence on foreign oil, but offshore drilling itself. My opponent states that offshore drilling will stabilize gas prices, however that is not the case. Studies have shown that continuing with the current levels of offshore drilling would not stabilize gas prices until 2030. One of the reason we should taper offshore drilling, is to explore cleaner, cheaper, safer means of energy which are already becoming reality. By 2030, with the proper funding and support, these energy sources can overtake crude petroleum products. In fact, one of my opponent sown sources ends with the good doctor describing his electric car, and how the technology is becoming more widely available. Before I start on viable replacement energy sources, I would like to point out the many dangers to our environment that offshore drilling presents. I think we are all well aware of the BP nightmare of late, so I will not focus on that. No reason to beat a dead horse. I'm not sure if people are aware of the inherent pollution caused by offshore drilling. offshore drilling rigs produce routine pollution "in the form of drilling muds and cuttings, produced waters, workover fluids, deck drainage, air emissions from the rig machinery and support vessels, as well as large amounts of trash." In the drilling process, the drilling fluid is used to lubricate the drill bit as it drills through the layer of hard rock of the outer continental shelf. A toxic soup is formed when the fluid blends with rock, mud, and naturally occurring radioactive materials, which can spread at the minimum of a thousand meters from the rigs. These drilling muds and cuttings as well as the produced waters contain, according to the EPA: arsenic, lead, mercury, cadmium, barite, chrome lignosulfate, petroleum hydrocarbons, vanadium, copper, aluminum, chromium, zinc, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, radionuclides, and other heavy metals. All of these chemicals pose a threat to the area surrounding the rigs for as many as forty years. Such threats are affecting the quality of the marine water, harming the organisms that stay on the bottom of the ocean, and, ultimately, having negative impacts throughout the region, which includes changes in the abundance richness and diversity of the marine life from both the physical and toxic effects. Oil and grease, ethylbenzene, napthalene, toluene, and zinc are included in the category of workover fluids, with restrictions only having an effect on the dumping of the oil and grease. Draining of oil, grease, drilling fluids, lubricants, ethylene, fuels, surfacants, biocides, detergents, corrosion inhibitors, bleach, cleaning solvents, coagulants, as well as other chemicals off of the rig deck has a disastrous affect on the surrounding marine environment. For every well that is drilled, about 8,000 square feet can be covered by as much as a meter thick of drilling waste, which can remain in the environment for at least two years. If the mud were to get scattered, by a hurricane for example, the waste could ultimately last for as long as forty years. Around an exploratory well that belonged to Chevron, inspectors discovered that shovels, bags, pipes, tubing, hose, and many other forms of debris covered more than three acres. The effects of offshore drilling are not simply felt by the surrounding environment, but also by the marine life. These effects have damaging consequences for our fisheries, food chain, balance of the ecosystem, health, and the enjoyment that we find in the diversity of nature. One compelling fact is that the federal government allows the "taking" (killing) of marine life during the drilling for oil and gas, which in return, has negative effects on various marine mammals, including manatees and dolphins. Furthermore, the extent that contaminants can amplify and bioaccumulate is unknown, and the lack of knowledge in this area has an ensuing impact on many of the marine mammals. One particular example of the effects that these rigs pose to the marine life that inhabits the waters around them, is the sea turtle. When sea turtles come in contact with weathered oil, they become infertile. Moreover, sea turtles are attracted to light, and the lights that are situated on the rigs pose a risk to the hatchlings, for they would be drawn towards the rigs where predator fish could be hiding. It is evident that the offshore rigs are harmful to marine life, and this one example illustrates that they do more harm than good for the environment. Economically, offshore oil drilling is already proving to be an economic catastrophe. The price of real estate properties around the Gulf of Mexico has been projected to fall up to 10 percent -- erasing some $4.3 billion in value -- Bloomberg noted recently. One Wall Street analyst has a very dire projection about the economic effects of the BP oil spill. David Kotok, the co-founder and chief investment officer of Cumberland Advisors, a Sarasota, Florida-based investment advisory firm, has projected that the spill will cost 1 million permanent jobs in the next five years. Also, this does not include the billions of dollars that BP is going to have to pay in reparations. According to a recent USA Today/Gallup poll, 8 in 10 Americans think that the Gulf oil spill will damage the economy and push up commodity prices. States are now suffering because of the BP spill. Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi are hit by oil slicks that are devastating their fisheries and tourism. This is bound to happen again, if we continue offshore drilling. I'm sorry I must end my round, but in my next round, I will give descriptions of several alternate energy sources, which are absolutely viable. As always, I appreciate my opponent bringing this very important subject to the surface, and look forward to his third round. References http://na.oceana.org... http://www.scientificamerican.com... http://cseserv.engr.scu.edu... http://www.epa.gov... http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

The difference between the two examples is obvious, your idea was five hundred years in the future and required us to become psychics. My idea is thirty years away and is necessary in order to reduce our dependence on foreign countries, keep the environment safe, stimulate the automotive industry, and stay competitive in a global market. There is absolutely no assumption involved here, these changes are necessary right now. You have repeatedly argued against yourself, first you say that it is too far in the future, then you say there is not time to accomplish it, what is it? I have already provided several examples of alternative fuels. The most up and coming of these is hydrogen fuel cell use. This systems on emission is oxygen which we need to survive obviously and also is not a greenhouse gas. Also I already defined alternative fuel so clearly there is a standard set that automakers can follow. I also doubt that everyone is going to forget the mandate over the next thirty years, that idea is simply ridiculous. When the technology to make this transition already exists why not take these important steps to keep the United States an environmentally, economically, and globally healthy country. To anything else would be a mistake.

This is going to be a simple Pro Nuclear Energy vs Con Nuclear Energy. No specific resolution, just the broad subject of using nuclear energy. Burden of Proof - The BoP falls equally on both debaters to support and defend their arguments while refuting their opponent's. For example, Con can focus on negative effects to the environment, safety issues, or better alternatives rendering Nuclear obsolete, but Con cannot just disagree with everything Pro puts up (and vise versa). I will go ahead and present some definitions. Unless Con finds these definitions to be abusive, they are to be accepted. If Con finds them abusive, Con is free to present alternative definitions, but then it will be up to the voters to agree if my definitions are abusive or not. Nuclear energy (as it pertains to this debate) - The gathering of energy from nuclear fission or nuclear fusion to use in commercial purposes (such as electricity). Nuclear fission - A nuclear reaction in which a heavy nucleus splits spontaneously or on impact with another particle, with the release of energy. [1] Nuclear fusion - A nuclear reaction in which atomic nuclei of low atomic number fuse to form a heavier nucleus with the release of energy. [2] Con may present any additional definitions that they choose and may start debating in their R1, however, they are also free to pass it back to me to start in my R2. Additional definitions may be added as needed throughout the entire debate. [1] http://www.google.com...= [2] http://www.google.com...=

1st water is a renuable resource and we shouldn't worry about whether or not it takes more water for a cow then wheat, because it is all going to be renewed and if we chose not to eat those cows they would consume more water to live longer. You could post the arguement to that that plants create oxygen and when we eat more and more plants that is depleting the oxygen so if everyone turns vegetarian we will start running out of oxygen. Neither of these I believe will have a big effect on humanity I believed was just stating the parralex argument that seemed to work with it. Second We don't need to worry about fossil fuels causing climate change ohh that's right they used to call it global warming but since they were wrong and it didn't exist they changed it here is why climate change is false, "Those who belive that there is no evidence for global warning often argue that extremely accurate temperature gauges that can measure temperatures to within .01-degrees Celsius have shown no evidence of global warming over the last 25 years. While some can consider this a plateau, these satellite readings correspond with land readings taken for years before this; there has been little recorded climbs in temperature. Scientific Debate While many scientists are willing to go on record to point out trends in global warming, more than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying that they see no evidence of global warming at all. Less formal surveys amongst climatologists have pointed in the same direction. No Future Prediction While it is tempting to look ahead at what global warming could do if left unchecked or untreated, it is currently impossible to predict actual climate change in this manner. There are currently no computers sophisticated enough to extrapolate from current data in a reliable pattern that can indicate future climate temperatures."(1) Next I would like to say why animal rights shouldn't be a question. If you are an evolutionist you believe in survival of the fittest and that the better smarter species will weed out the lesser species, yes of course now days we try and keep a couple around but working against extinction of animals is very condridicting if your an evolutionist. If you area Christian or Catholic or Mormon or Judiest you believe in the Torah 1st five books of the bible which say man is to rule over all the animals, "Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."(2) So to all those religions their God says it is ethical to eat and rule over them. And you say that it matters that a cow has 80 percent human DNA so they are part human well you also sited that rice is 15 percent well that means that are also part human so if you believe one you have to believe the others or that's almost unethical to say one human cousin is more important then the other. That is if you believe that which I don't. I'm going to start a Rice rights group Rights for Intellectual Creatures that shouldn't be Eaten Rice lol Now we should attempt better conditions for these animals like maybe put them to sleep before they are slaughtered not that it matters that much what an animal is feeling. Most people fight for animal rights and no pain for animals but they believe abortion is fine they are just as alive in that stomach as some animal is but that child is going to grow into a living breathing human that could be having a debate like this in the future,so if you count feeling pain as a sign of being alive like a human you better not be an abortion supporter,"With the advent of sonograms and live-action ultrasound images, neonatologists and nurses are able to see unborn babies at 20 weeks gestation react physically to outside stimuli such as sound, light and touch. The sense of touch is so acute that even a single human hair drawn across an unborn baby's palm causes the baby to make a fist. Did you know that this 20-week-old unborn child can feel pain? Surgeons entering the womb to perform corrective procedures on tiny unborn babies have seen those babies flinch, jerk and recoil from sharp objects and incisions. "The neural pathways are present for pain to be experienced quite early by unborn babies," explains Steven Calvin, M.D., perinatologist, chair of the Program in Human Rights Medicine, University of Minnesota, where he teaches obstetrics. Medical facts of fetal pain Anatomical studies have documented that the body"s pain network"the spino-thalamic pathway"is established by 20 weeks gestation. " "At 20 weeks, the fetal brain has the full complement of brain cells present in adulthood, ready and waiting to receive pain signals from the body, and their electrical activity can be recorded by standard electroencephalography (EEG)." " Dr. Paul Ranalli, neurologist, University of Toronto " An unborn baby at 20 weeks gestation "is fully capable of experiencing pain. " Without question, [abortion] is a dreadfully painful experience for any infant subjected to such a surgical procedure." " Robert J. White, M.D., PhD., professor of neurosurgery, Case Western University Unborn babies have heightened sensitivities Unborn babies at 20 weeks development actually feel pain more intensely than adults. This is a "uniquely vulnerable time, since the pain system is fully established, yet the higher level pain-modifying system has barely begun to develop," according to Dr. Ranalli. "Having administered anesthesia for fetal surgery, I know that on occasion we need to administer anesthesia directly to the fetus, because even at these early gestational ages the fetus moves away from the pain of the stimulation," stated David Birnbach, M.D., president of the Society for Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology and self-described as "pro-choice," in testimony before the U.S. Congress. Given the medical evidence that unborn babies experience pain, compassionate people are viewing abortion more and more as an inhumane and intolerable brutality against defenseless human beings. The unborn baby at 20 weeks Fetal development is already quite advanced at 20 weeks gestation: " The skeleton is complete and reflexes are present at 42 days. " Electrical brain wave patterns can be recorded at 43 days. This is usually ample evidence that "thinking" is taking place in the brain. " The fetus has the appearance of a miniature baby, with complete fingers, toes and ears at 49 days. " All organs are functioning"stomach, liver, kidney, brain"and all systems are intact at 56 days. " By 20 weeks, the unborn child has hair and working vocal cords, sucks her thumb, grasps with her hands and kicks. She measures 12 inches."(3) Your last point about healthy sets doesn't have to do with ethics but I would like to see a test where they eat a doctors alloted mount of meat and healthy vegetables because the average American is a meat eater and the average American is obese so that test doesn't really work. My conclusion Eat meat there is nothing unethical about it. It is a great source of protein. And it tastes darn good and just the fact that eating a nice steak can make a good day for someone that's proof enough for me that it's a good thing. (1)http://greenliving.lovetoknow.com... (2)http://bible.cc... (3)http://www.mccl.org...

First I will address my opponents three points. 1) "Timeliness. This is 2009. 2040 is a long ways off. It's out of scope. " That is a mere thirty years away, the resolution is allowing the automakers time to prepare for the switch to alternative fuels. 2) "Vagueness. What will this solve? Any alternative fuel is acceptable? What's the plan behind this? " This mandate will solve global warming, will help jump start the automotive industry, and keep us competing on an international level. Yes any alternative fuel is acceptable so long as it is within the bounds of the law. As for the plan itself there are already many sources of alternative fuels currently available to automakers. Things like hybrid gas electric, ethanol, hydrogen fuel cells, and propane. Alternative fuels are defined by the Michigan State Document Center as anything other that Coal, Petroleum, Natural Gas or Peak Oil. 3) "Mandate. Why are we MANDATING something that is so far off. That's dumb. That's like if I say by year 2500 all cell phones must be solar power or something. The world might end, or we might be psychics that use telepathy and no longer need cell phones. We're not prophets. We don't know the future. Oh, and can mandates be undone? I suppose all businesses will be 100% ready to do that then. " It is becoming clearer by the day that it is time for the government to step in and point the automotive industry in a new direction. This can only be done with firm decisions and a strong governmental role. As for my opponents analogy "That's like if I say by year 2500 all cell phones must be solar power or something. " This couldn't be more untrue. It would be true if all the cellular phone suppliers in the U. S. were bankrupt or going under, if they cell phone grid where destroying the environment, if foreign cell phone suppliers were all moving forward and taking business from the United States and if instead of Solar Power you told them to use a whole new form of power and they could decide what it was. If that were the analogy then it would fit pretty well. And I think you will agree that if that were the case a change would need to be made on the part of the cell phone business. There is also the issue my opponent has brought up with timing. First my opponent says "2040 is a long ways off. It's out of scope. " My opponent then compares the resolution to switch to alternative fuels with some others related to cell phones, "The world might end, or we might be psychics that use telepathy and no longer need cell phones. " Imagine if the rest of the world took this approach. What if scientists proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that we would run out of oil in thirty years and the word from the white house was, hey don't worry, by 2040 everybody will just be teleporting instead of using cars. If we allow that kind of thinking to prevail then we will be in a world of trouble by the time the mandate goes into affect. As for government mandates, they can be repealed if it is necessary. A mandate is merely a direct rule or order. If changes are necessary the government can form a new mandated that make the new adjustments.

Alright my opponent begins his final round by telling me that I am abusive. He does this by quoting me when I defined biopower. I would agree that this would be very abusive of me if it wasn't for my solvency specifically stating in round 1, in the last paragraph: "This plan takes away all of the political energy known as biopower and replaces it instead with the energy of the single individual and the energy of the whole." My plan throughout this entire debate has been to decrease biopower, I openly stated such. It is not my fault in any way that my opponent did not understand this. TOPICALITIES: My opponent puts no standards for voter on any of his topicalities. Thus if you as a judge agree that my opponent has won on any of the topicalities then you do nothing. However if you feel my opponent has lost any of the topicalities then the result is a pre-fiat vote in my favor. Thus the only way that anything else said in this round is important is if my opponent wins all three topicalities, otherwise I win this debate by default. Significant/Substantial: My opponent doesn't bother arguing this standard in his final round. Instead he argues that there will not be an increase in energy. Whether there is an increase in energy or not whatever happens is going to be substantial as this class will be offered nationwide. Nationwide = substantial. My opponent once again agrees that this is a reverse voting issue, and agrees with all of my standards by dropping them. Thus this issue flows to my side and results in an automatic vote for Pro. Substantial increase: See above. This class will decrease biopower whilst increasing individual power. These two being opposite ends of the spectrum. My opponent has shown no evidence on the contrary, and once again drops all standards thus agreeing that my interpretation is the most fair. Energy: My opponent once again pushes his definition which contains 3 examples. I will once again therefor remind the voters that energy, while including those examples, is not limited to them. Humans are an energy source in themselves, they can work, and they can attain an output. Without humans being used as energy society as we know it could not exist. My opponent drops my standards thus my opponent agrees: 1. Humans as energy increases the education in todays round. 2. Humans as energy makes this round fair. 3. Humans as energy gives us each equal ground to debate on. Furthermore my opponent drops my r.v.i thus he once again concedes that he should be voted against. II/III DISAD: My opponent completely drops each point I brought up in my last speech. I would ask that all of those are extended into this round as they all still hold just as much weight as they did then. He then goes on to state that I can not possibly solve for murders. Thats great, I never claimed to, I am solving for Genocide and War. As my opponent has dropped both of these points they flow to my side. IV Counter plan: My opponent drops my 4 points and 3 subpoints. Instead he simply states that his plan would cost less money, apparently he missed point D from my last round, "having an election for everything would cost mass amounts of money." Thus his counterplan would actually not save money. Once again my opponent concedes to my plan solving for genocide and wars. Therefor at the end of this round even if you agree with everything my opponent says its saving money vs stopping genocide and war. Once again I must restate that his counterplan is not mutually exclusive therefor it can and will happen at the same time as my plan. Vote Pro, my plan prevents wars and genocide. My opponents case can claim no such benefit.


Question: Can Renewable Energy Sources Adequately Substitute for Fossil Fuels?

Nuclear Energy: A Viable Alternative to Fossil Fuels

Introduction
Thank you, bsh1, for your patience while I prepared this response. I have taken the time to thoroughly research and construct my arguments. In this debate, I will be addressing the framework and the benefits of nuclear power as an alternative to fossil fuels.

I. Framework
I concur with my opponent’s framework that countries should prioritize the welfare of their people and citizens. My goal is to demonstrate that prohibiting nuclear power would be detrimental to the public, and I will provide evidence for the advantages of nuclear power.

II. Scientific Consensus
Nuclear power is fundamentally a scientific issue. When evaluating science-related matters, I turn to experts and scientific journals for guidance. Although a consensus does not inherently prove the benefits of nuclear power, understanding the consensus helps us grasp the direction of scientific evidence. A 2015 Pew Research poll of AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) members found that 65% supported building more nuclear power plants, while only 35% backed expanding offshore drilling.

III. Reliability
Nuclear power is one of the most dependable energy sources available today. Unlike most alternative energy sources that require backup from natural gas and traditional energy sources, nuclear power does not. Moreover, nuclear energy has the highest average capacity factor, as illustrated in this chart. Nuclear Matters explains that nuclear power plants maintain a national average reliability of 85-90%, with some plants operating at 93-95% capacity for extended periods. High reliability ensures that electricity is available on the grid whenever needed, which is crucial during extreme weather conditions.

IV. Environment
A. Global Warming
Climate change is a pressing environmental challenge. Bruno Comby suggests that to address climate change and reduce reliance on fossil fuels, we must promote efficient energy use, utilize renewable energies where possible, and adopt a more sustainable lifestyle. However, these measures alone are insufficient to slow the accumulation of atmospheric CO2. Nuclear power should be rapidly deployed to replace coal, oil, and gas in industrial countries and eventually in developing nations. Nuclear energy produces negligible amounts of carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides, making it an environmentally friendly option.

B. Sustainability
As previously mentioned, alternative energy methods often rely on fossil fuel and natural gas as backup. Moreover, they cannot match the large energy demands of our society. A 2014 paper in Sustainable Materials and Technology concludes that renewable energy sources, such as wind and

C1) Global warming is real and is a threat To deny global warming is real and is a threat is akin to denying evolution, germ theory, and gravity. Of all the articles published between 1991 and 2012, a survey of the literature looked for explicit rejections of anthropogenic global warming theory. Of the 13,950 papers, only 24 rejected AGW theory [1. . http://www.desmogblog.com...]. A second survey of the literature found 4,000 papers which held a position on climate change. Of those, 97% endorsed that climate change was real and that humans are the main cause of global warming. The study also found—as it tracks the consensus/minority opinion by year—that “the consensus has grown to about 98% as of 2011. ” [2. . http://skepticalscience.com...]. I will leave the evidence at this. Unless my opponent opposes climate change, I will expand upon this contention. But due to the fact academics pretty much agree on the issue, I will assume my opponent will concede/agree with this point. C2) Nuclear power reduces carbon emissions Climate change is predominantly man-made due to the fact humanity is emitting CO2 emissions. The way to prevent warming is to find an energy source which emits the least amount of CO2 possible. A review of the research suggests nuclear power is the *best* energy source if we are to pursue an end to carbon emissions. A review of 21 studies has analyzed the lifetime greenhouse gas emissions of different energy sources. This is measured via CO2 emitted per megawatt hour. The least clean energy sources were coal, oil, and natural gas—with natural gas being the cleanest of the fossil fuels. The three energy sources which emitted the least was nuclear power, hydroelectric power, and wind. Solar power actually emits a surprisingly high amount of CO2 at 85 tones per megawatt hour (compared to nuclear which comes in at 28). Hydroelectric and wind power emit 26 tones per megawatt hour. It must be noted, however, that the error bars for both wind and hydro are much larger than for nuclear. This means the two are about even. The maximum estimate for nuclear is 130 tones per megawatt hour, whereas wind’s max is 124 and hydroelectric at 237. The minimum estimate puts nuclear at 2 tones per megawatt hour and wind at 6. The differences between the two are so minor that the study authors concluded “Greenhouse gas emissions of nuclear power plants are among the lowest of any electricity generation method and on a lifecycle basis are comparable to wind, hydro-electricity and biomass. ” [3. . http://www.world-nuclear.org...]. The obvious objection is wind and hydroelectric, if they are comparable from a greenhouse gas emission perspective, is why not prefer them over nuclear power. The answer is efficiency. Wind is an intermittent power source. It only produces power when the wind is blowing. This means when the wind is not blowing, no energy is being created. Another power source would be needed in order to fill in the gaps. Nuclear power, as a clean source of energy, would be the obvious choice. So even assuming we put wind power everywhere, we would need nuclear power in order to keep a constant level of electricity running through the grid to meet peak demand. Hydroelectric, although a good power source, is already maxed out. Hydroelectric, although the “best-established means of electricity generation from renewable sources”, has many issues for *future* energy production. The World Nuclear association argues, “Hydropower using large storage reservoirs is not a major option for the future in the developed countries because most major sites in these countries having potential for harnessing gravity in this way are either being exploited already or are unavailable for other reasons such as environmental considerations. ” [4. . http://www.world-nuclear.org...]. It should be noted nuclear power has actually been shown to already save lives due to the fact it emits close to zero greenhouse gas emissions. Assuming nuclear power becomes the *sole* energy source (and depending on which energy source it replaces), research has found that “nuclear power could additionally prevent an average of 420,000–7.04 million deaths and 80–240 GtCO2-eq emissions due to fossil fuels by midcentury, depending on which fuel it replaces” [5. . http://pubs.acs.org...]. The three energy sources needed to stop global warming—nuclear power, wind power, and hydroelectric power—require nuclear power in order to prevent environmental catastrophe. Wind power alone cannot reduce emissions as it is intermittent, and either fossil fuels or nuclear power is required to fill in the gaps, and hydroelectric power will likely not be able to create more energy than it already is today. So, no matter the angle you look at this issue, nuclear power is required to prevent catastrophe. C3) Nuclear power provides cheap energy and is economically efficient Not only does it provide cheap energy, but it provides jobs. One nuclear power plant generates $450 million each year of economic output, which has translated into $40 million dollars per year income for workers. Each nuclear power plant provides 400 – 700 permanent jobs which pay, on average, 36% more than other jobs in the area. Construction of a nuclear power plant provides in excess of 3,000 temporary jobs. “Analysis shows that every dollar spent by the average nuclear plant results in the creation of $1.04 in the local community, $1.18 in the state economy and $1.87 in the U. S. economy. ” [6. . http://www.nei.org...]. In fact, other than solar power, nuclear power provides the most jobs per megawatt hour. But nuclear power plants provide the highest paying jobs and the most jobs provided in the local area—solar power makes a lot of jobs outside of the country. Nuclear power then creates the largest workforce of all of the energy sources as well as the highest paying jobs [7. . http://www.nei.org...]. Nuclear power is one of the cheapest forms of energy. Coal is generally regarded as the cheapest form of energy, but nuclear power actually is cheaper. “[N]uclear generat[es] power at 2.40 c/kWh, compared with coal at 3.27 cents and gas at 3.40 cents. ” [8. . http://www.world-nuclear.org...]. A peer-reviewed study done in Finland comes to a similar conclusion. Energy prices have been increasing all over Europe, the study argued. But nuclear power’s cost only increases 9%, whereas coal got 31% more expensive and gas became 66% more expensive. Further, newer nuclear power plants are significantly reducing uranium fuel costs in order to make nuclear power even cheaper [8]. The biggest argument against nuclear power in this area is the fact nuclear power has large up-front costs. It is well known that creating a nuclear power plant can cost about 8 billion dollars. So using a lower number of 430 million, over the lifetime of a nuclear power plant (30-40 years) a nuclear power plant can create up to 13 – 17 billion dollars over its lifetime—a 5 through 9 billion dollar return. Using the higher number of 450, we get 13.5 billion through 18 billion. Using the highest estimate of 470 million per year, 14.1 billion to 18.8 billion. No matter which estimate you use, the economic profit of a nuclear power plant significantly outweighs the startup costs. In 17 years, the original construction cost is accounted for with a 460 million dollar return. Thus, nuclear power is actually a good investment. It should be noted that the benefits of nuclear power could easily explode if government interference was reduced. The current regulatory structure “operates under an outdated regulatory system that has yet to adapt to new technology and designs, and it overregulates existing nuclear plants and technologies. … The commercial nuclear industry has a lot to offer American customers in the way of safe, efficient, abundant, and inexpensive energy, but that will require removing politics and burdensome government policies from the picture and replacing them with free-market policies to unlock nuclear energy’s potential. ” [9. . http://www.heritage.org...]. A similar conclusion was reached in a peer reviewed paper—not just by conservative extremists like me—in 2006. The paper was published in the Journal of Business Ethics. The government has significantly increased the costs while reducing the benefits of nuclear power with extensive regulation, which “has reduced the ability of entrepreneurs to develop and provide new means for the generation of energy using nuclear fuel. ” [10. . http://www.jstor.org...]. So, if government interference is reduced (or reformed), the economics of nuclear power actually becomes even better than it already is. Newer reactors are much more efficient and would make the returns much larger and make the returns come much sooner! Nuclear power = the best power

First Contention: The Agreement is NondbindingThe agreement reached in Paris is not legally binding, and participation is voluntary. There will be no punishments for nations who do not fulfil their duties. Therefore it will have no impact and if a nation percieves the agreement as "hurtful" it will simply not implement it.http://thinkprogress.org...http://time.com...Second Contention: Fossil Fuels are not necessary for developmentCoal, Oil and Natuaral Gas are not necessary for economic development. While historically economic growth has dependended upon fossil fuels, there is no evidence to believe that development in the 21st century requires fossil fuels. Green Growth is on the rise globally and the OECD states that Green Growth is allowing for more sustainable and equitable growth in nations including Cameroon, Nambia and Uruguay. In all these nations Green Growth has increased GDP and GDP per capita, and reduced poverty.http://www.theguardian.com...http://www.oecd.org...Lastly, it would appear that the Pro has simply made a contention, without elaboration, and has shown no interest explaining his contentions or meeting the burden of proof. Any unsupported arguments are not argumetns and shoulld be disregarded.

Be careful where your examples come from. There is a problem with documentaries today. Very few of them are fair to other sides of the debate. I could easily tell you that the electric car had at least 2 very simple problems that made them uneconomical and weak in the US market. The first was that a charged battery gave a person 150 miles before needing to be recharged, which took several hours. Over time, an expensive electric car battery would decay and require replacement. Chances are, however, someone would recognize that as they got stranded on the side of the road because the battery meter was unreliable after many charges. Another issue was a failure of the country to have an infrastructure that could competently accommodate the electric car. Forget gas prices, that's merely an accusation of a film that is in no way unbiased or fair. You opened yourself up for criticism on a few points with this debate, so I ask you to get a little more specific to this topic. Global warming is a very debatable topic of it's own, so I could challenge that to refute your assertion that there is a special environmental urgency to deal with gas prices. You also mention biofuels, which have their own slew of problems. And then of course, the electric car as an alternative power source. Are you saying that we should challenge high gas prices and find a means to lower them? Are you saying that we need more funding for alternative energies to lower prices? Or are you saying we need the alternative fuels simply to eliminate oil usage for the environment's sake? Please clarify exactly what you would like this debate to focus on.

I don't think my opponent seems to understand that billions and billions of goverment dollars go into keeping these Nuclear power plants safe, as a conservative i would think you would find this as a problem. Corparations manage Natrual gas. Conclusion My opponent still cannont refute Natural gas not costing gov. money much at all and Nuclear energy being more expensive and dangerous.

I will begin with my opponent's case and then present an alternative to nuclear energy. Opening statement: My opponent has produced some very impressive data on the efficiency of nuclear energy. Prima facie or first glance could easily sway a person to support nuclear energy. I vaguely recall having done rudimentary research on nuclear energy for a Lincoln-Douglas topic last fall. In fact, a conversation I had with our science department head revealed only one significant pitfall, what to do with the waste? My opponent has even identified dis-ads of nuclear waste and offered suggestions on the very subject of nuclear waste. If we dig deeper though, what are other concerns? Let's explore! 1) Effectiveness. At first glance the only disagreements I could identify were really nitpicky stuff. I could say that some of the water which became steam would inevitably evaporate and have to be replaced. I could even strengthen my opponent's defense by saying that the moving parts replacement schedule is likely very minimal. There is no shame in expanding Robert Fulton's use of steam even if it is an old idea. We still use wheels right? :o) There is no doubt that nuclear energy can offer power to communities. I, and the judges, are likely tired of semantical battles of topicality, that being said; much of my opponent's first point are stipulated and conceded. 2) Safety. This is a cause for concern. While technologically developed nations such as the U.S.A., the U.K., and France have operated plants for upwards of 60 years without serious incident, that does not make them immune to trouble. Many safeguards have been implemented since the 1950's to improve and upgrade the facilities. Yet, even superpowers such as the U.S. (3 mile island) and the former Soviet Union (Chernobyl) have had their share of growing pains. Most recently, another developed nation, Japan, experienced a calamity of catastrophic proportion. Are nuclear power plants compeletly safe? No. Now consider lesser developed nations that are seeking nuclear power, Iran and North Korea for example. Both are suspect for being politically unstable as well as using nuclear energy to develop nuclear weapons. Oversight can be a tricky thing when a more radical nation prefers not to be inspected or have other's watching over their shoulders as they attempt to develop energy, or secretly weaponry. This forces them to be sneaky, which may lead to shortcuts, which may lead to disaster. Security of nuclear facilities. There are high protocol, likely classified, to protect the integrity of nuclear facilities in developed nations. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for less stable nations. Can anyone, with any certainty, verify the count of every spent rod or piece of weaponry from the the Former Soviet Union, especially after the breakup of the former into 15 separate and independent nations? I would have to say no. Further, what would prevent well organized and well funded terrorists from acquiring nuclear materials in lesser developed nations? This too eats away at the safety argument. An article I discovered addresses nuclear waste in a different light than that of my opponent. Like my opponent, it identfied waste that was short term and had reduced effects with proper handling and recycling. Also, like my opponent it identified longer term waste. However; the safety of the longer term waste was the compelling factor. It is quite dangerous, ecologically unfriendly, and can take an estimated 1000 years to decay. http://www.scienceclarified.com... These are a few "what if" or otherwise hypothetical scenarios that challenge nuclear energy safety as well as historical examples such as 3 mile island, Chernobyl, and Japan. While precautions and protocol do exist, they are far from foolproof, and are not necessarily as safe as my opponent would have us believe. http://www.nirs.org... 3) Costs. My opponent has demonstrated that nuclear energy does indeed exceed the effectiveness of fossil fuels. It's common knowledge and widely accepted that once established, nuclear is more logical than fossil. It appears to be cleaner in emissions, and uses fewer resources in producing more energy. At first glance, this seems to make perfect sense. This leads me to ask a question. Why then isn't everyone using nuclear energy then? A Smithsonian study showed that only approximately 16% of the worl'd energy is nuclear based. Since it is demonstrably more effective as shown by my opponent's CBA, why aren't most nations using it? Simply put, the necessary precautions make it cost prohibitive. Many African and Central American nations struggle to even provide basic necessities to their citizens. Citizens in African nations do not enjoy clean water, adequate food, clothing, or shelter. Haiti and Honduras don't even have a pot to piss in. In fact, many nations have substandard living conditions to include plumbing and basic sanitation. Constructing a nuclear power plant is not in their foreseeable future. My case: At first glance my alternative seems to be a reinvention of the wheel. There are alternatives to nuclear energy though. All of which can be done at a fraction of the cost of nuclear energy, and boast a much better safety record. HYDRO: Every nation does have rivers. Dams can be constructed, and power can be retrieved via hydro energy. SOLAR: Especially with so many "experts" verifying the existence of greenhouse gases and global warming, you would think that would open the door even wider for good ol' solar power. Yes the sun shines all over the earth! Yes, solar panels are expensive, and yes, at present they need to be rather large to capture this energy. Why can't every roof be a solar panel? This is worth research and development money! Opportunity is knocking! (For my beloved Israelis, I am offering triple mitzvah points if you discover it first) Who among us on this earth will be the first to develop more efficient solar power for all to enjoy? WIND: The wind blows. Meterologists have ways to track weather and determine the most strategic locations to place wind energy generators. KINETIC GENERATORS: Quite possibly the world's best kept secret! These puppies are built at a nominal cost, and run virtually clean, quiet, and very efficient. This is probably the better answer to the energy crisis. We (Collectively) have put boo-koodles of investment money into so many things. It makes sense to look into research for the large scale, big picture. http://www.homestandbygeneratorsystems.com... In closing: While nuclear energy is a better alternative than fossil fuels, it has yet to replace them. Why? It is both dangerous, and cost prohibitive. I am suggesting that nuclear energy research monies be diverted toward large scale research of kinetic generators. Thank you!

My argument here will be brief and I will restate something that I might have misunderstood. If your thesis is : CAN we, according to nowadays technologies, achieve a leisure society in the next decades? Then the answer is yes on all fronts, except for the specific case that requires moral and creativity. Those, as for example, judges, advocates, policeman, musician, film makers/producers, etc, will still be in need of several years of practice and education. Therein lies the problems: Why would you bother if you are offered the possibility to achieve your life without as much as the tough of work crossing your mind? Why would you work for beings that passes their whole days achieving nothing? Why would you even be tempted to receive the education as you can afford a whole life of leisure? Another fact is that we might trust A.I. for basic security (and even more complex) functions. Personally, I do think they could achieve the whole security functions. Now, could you tell me one instance of where we had a nuclear power facility working without any personal to watch over? What would happen with a system breakdown, or a lack of power at a moment where it needs to be watched? This is a considerable roadblock, as a society without moral jurisdiction or entertainment will quickly fall into chaos. However, if your debate is based on: WILL we achieve it in the next few decades, then I'm afraid it won't happen, as too many factors would require massive amounts of change within the current society. First of all, China and India were mere examples of WHY it cannot happen. The fact is that you create a paradox, as being independent to money due to self-serving industry would require an enormous amount of money to create at first aspect. Energy creation and water filtering requires facilities that cannot be created and maintained, at first, by open-source project. As for a quick example, even if you consider heating carbon in an helium chamber to be easy, it cannot be done at home, as the prerequisite are not what we could call affordable for many that lives in in-development countries. As for food production, many of the enhancing soils capabilities do require GMO, which we do not know long-term effect on living organism, or technology that are, for the most part, still in the experimental phase. As for the medical AI, it does still require a doctor to enter the answers to the specific questions this one will need to establish a diagnostic, but this may indeed change in the next years.

Before I start my argument, I want to say that I don't deny climate change, I just disagree with some points made by people like Deeznutsisreal. Some research shows (https://climate.nasa.gov...) that our greenhouse gas emissions could be exacerbated by solar irradiance. The earth also goes through natural warming phases (https://www.theccc.org.uk...) and that could make what we are producing worse. In Round 2, I hope to see Deeznutsisreal's sources and better grammar.

I was focusing on the USA, but things that benefit the world community ultimately can benefit the US, and so those can be considered. My opponent questions "Would our economy severely decrease if we discontinue use?" Simple answer is yes. Coal power 48% of our electricity [1], and provides about 174,000 jobs in the US [2]. Simply simply discontinuing the use of coal would put tens of thousands out of a job, and cut our electric grid almost in half. The blackouts would cripple most other businesses, since just about every business needs the lights on to work. Bringing in other energy sources (such as nuclear, solar, wind, and others) could minimize our personal use of coal, however the mining of coal for sale to other nations should still be allowed, since it will save 114,000 jobs (mining and transporting) and provide a massive amount of income for the US via exports, in upwards of $87 billion dollars [3][2]. Which is over $760,000 per worker (so the economics for it providing good paying jobs are there at market value). My opponent has brought up that coal harms our environment. I disagree with the word "harm." It doesn't "harm" the environment, it changes it. Some animals and plants are negatively impacted, some are positively impacted. The burning of coal releases CO2, which all plants need to survive, it is like their oxygen. So the burning of coal is basically giving plants "oxygen." The Ringtail cat, or Miners cat, is another animal that has benefited greatly from mines and miners. [4] Using the mines as safe spots from its predators and places to catch its prey with easy. [1] http://www.eia.doe.gov... [2] http://www.sourcewatch.org... [3] http://www.globalcoal.com... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org...

I think you reasoning is circular.A. You believe that a full diet is evil.B. You want to restrict your diet to plant source foods only.C. You want people to remove animal food sources from their diet and then study and work hard to find ways to get a healthy diet on only plant based sources.To this circular argument I respond: Balanced diets with animal and plant sources are a better choice for most people.Let’s look at the premise of your debate.You say plant based diets are better.You say AFS are unnecessary as those nutrients can come from supplements or plant sources.This is not an argument for plant based diets. You need to convince me of the resolution, not teach how to make up for the limited nutrition of a PBD.Lets look at your arguments.1. You claim that dairy is unnecessary (round 1) in not relevant to the debate. You say “it takes an informed person to eat a well-balanced . . . diet” (round 2 point 4)I say dairy is part of a well balanced diet (so does th Canada food guide[1] and the American Dietary Guidelines[2]) 2. You speak about eliminating dairy, and then claim “Excess animal protein actually increases risk of osteoporosis” The calcium from dairy decreases risk of osteoporosis and has a place in a healthy diet Studies show fracture risk correlation increases with plant protein and decreases with AFS [3] Total protein: - risk reduction 3.6 times Animal protein:- risk reduction 4.5 times [4] Vegetable protein:- risk INCREASE 2.9 times [4] Carbohydrate:- risk INCREASE 4.9 times3. You speak about micro-nutrients (Round 2 point 2) and reference a web page[5] that says “At the molecular level, biochemistry becomes physics. The atoms in a chemical bond share a pair of electrons that create a magnetic attraction.” I would not trust any page that calls covalent bonds a MAGNETIC attraction. What kind of fringe science is this? Even if it were true that every nutrient I need is available by selecting just the right mix of plants to eat (which it is not), it is far less costly (time and money) and more efficient (dietary uptake issues) to includes fish, dairy, eggs and meat in a balanced diet.4. In response to my evidence from the National Institute of Health you responded “Wrong. Being FEMALE is linked to iron deficiency. “ I had not bothered mentioning iron deficiency specifically (which is often a fact of PBDs). I stated that “Vegetarian diets are linked to menstrual problems in young women.". Some references that ALL state a link between vegetarianism and health problems in women. Check the references here http://ajcn.nutrition.org... 4. You state “it takes an informed person to eat a well-balanced, ethical diet, regardless of whether it is a PBD or ABD” Finally we agree. Thanks for forfeiting the debate. A balanced diet with dairy, fish, eggs, and meat can easily do as well or better than a PBD.5. You have theBOP to show that a PBD is as good or better than a full balanced diet. You have not done this. Then you give me the debate by saying those who need dairy are in developing countries (round 2 after point 5) If animal source food is helpful, then a good full source diet is better than a restricted diet. 6. Again you bring up B12. You seem to be advocating supplements to overcome the deficiencies of a PBD. “Vitamin B12 is naturally found in animal products, including fish, meat, poultry, eggs, milk, and milk products. Vitamin B12 is generally not present in plant foods”[6]You state “Economics and sustainability are very much a part of what makes PBD a better OVERALL diet than ABD, in addition to superior nutrition. I take the ethics & responsibility of individuals in account, because well, they are relevant to diet.”Economics and sustainability- Harvesting local foods is good for the local economy.[7] Today I ate local vegetables, corn, eggs and fish. How would shipping oranges from Florida and pineapple from Costa Rica be good for anyone? The Wiki on pineapple says [8] “Three-quarters of pineapples sold in Europe are grown in Costa Rica, where pineapple production is highly industrialised. Growers typically use 20 kg of pesticides per hectare in each growing cycle”Ethics. Lets say a bottle of vitamin supplements costs $25 for a 2 month supply, or $150 per year. Even people strongly pro PBD say it costs more to eat an ethical vegan diet.[9] An "ethical PBD" seems too costly for most of our world A PBD does not equate to an ethical diet. Depending on what you believe constitutes ethical you have to work hard and learn much because people want to tell you their product is ethical. It may not be. This my be a marketing trick. Are you in favor of GM foods? Monsanto has many products that fit the PBD definition[10] From my POV ethical food include: Local harvest, less chemicals, sabbath practices for workers, not a cash crop in an area of worker poverty, and the list goes on. Many plant based foods have unethical sources.You make some statements that help me understand your position. When you speak of “Obese American dietary problems” (round 2 after point 5) it makes me think you are comparing a moderate PBD to the insanity of morbid obesity and junk food diets. Almost any diet is better than Coke, chips, Big Macks and twinkies. A good balanced diet is better than a PBD that has to wash down supplements and seek far away specialty foods to just get proper nutrition. Pro starts out round 1 by stating “ I'm not citing sources because I don't feel like looking all of them up -- however, I do feel confident that my opinions have been fairly well-researched. “He then starts round 2 by stating that referenced material from round 1 is wrong.It is difficult to have a debate if you claim referenced items are wrong but give no referencesSeveral times you say “ You also missed my statement” . . .Without good references, I don’t believe your statement just because you said it. If you have no (valid) references, I can not believe your assertions.Are you getting your info from fringe web sites or supermarket tabloids? Let me close with a quote[11] Reference please? We haven’t found such statistics in a search of the medical database.In spite of claims to “stacks of studies,” there is actually very little scientific literature that carefully compares mortality and disease rates in vegetarians and nonvegetarians. In 1991, Dr. Russell Smith, a statistician, analyzed the existing studies on vegetariansim and discovered that while a number of studies show that vegetarian diets significantly decrease blood cholesterol levels, very few have evaluated the effects of vegetarian diets on overall mortality. His careful analysis revealed no benefit from vegetarianism in terms of overall mortality or longevity. In fact, Smith speculated on the possibility that the available data from the many existing prospective studies were left unpublished because they failed to reveal any benefits of the vegetarian diet. He notes, for example, mortality statistics are strangely absent from the Tromso Heart Study in Norway, which showed that vegetarians had slightly lower blood cholesterol levels than non-vegetarians. [1] http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca...[2] http://www.health.gov...[3] http://www.ajcn.org...[4] http://stan-heretic.blogspot.ca...[5] http://www.fi.edu...[6] http://ods.od.nih.gov...[7] Feenstra, G. (2002) Creating space for sustainable food systems: lessons from the field. Agriculture and Human Values. 19(2). 99-106.[8] https://en.wikipedia.org...[9] http://www.theveganrd.com...[10] http://www.pbs.org...[11] http://www.westonaprice.org...

I've switched to smaller text.0. EMP range can be tweaked based on the amount of energy one is fed.The EMP's, once again, are not targeting civilian life. They are only for established systems that may hinder this one.STUXNET is being used to hijack the Earth's energy reserves. It is not a monitoring device. The plan to use EMP's for "all other tech" refers to all other tech that threatens an open-source world(finance and militia)1.There are several mines around the world being run autonomously today. The issue, as you stated, is the threat they pose to the workforce. Therefore, many of these "automatic" mines aren't really automated to repair themselves, sort through the materials mined, or log how MUCH they mine.In our program, these mines will be automated to the fullest extent, even in separating and storing the materials. Even in repairing themselves and monitoring how much they mine.Distinguishing between different rare metals and minerals requires refined detection, of which most high powered sensors have the ability for.2 & 3."The renewable farms have to be built first"No. I have all the oil, coal, and nuclear energy to build as many farms as I need.4.The EMP's will be detonated simultaneously so that the communications grid used by "nation defense" in every nation goes dark. They won't be able to communicate the threat in the first place.The EMP's can wipeout the grid in seconds. The submarines can be hijacked via STUXNET.5. The volunteers hepling program the autonomous systems and infrastructures will not ask for payment. Any payment they recieve would be useless upon completing the project, since everything would be free and accessable by default. 6.STUXNET controls all nuclear systems and may very well disable them.War threats are of no consequence. This program is not being carried out by America or any other private business and they will not be awarded credit for the system update.I also fail to see the threat of wiping out every desert. Is there any civilization anywhere that wouldn't benefit from this system?7.Money, or rather profitable gain, does not cause incentive for creativity.In most cases, it actually hinders the creative process. I can prove this with studies funded by the Federal Reserve, but I'll let you do your own research."That's the problem with your society. No one has [an incentive] to do anything anymore." Precisely. Nobody is forced to do anything anymore. So is my system totalitarian or not?"If you are prepared for hundreds of years of energy, then no one will bother going to school in the meantime since they don't even have to work, and even if they get a basic education, who'll bother going to university, and who'll run the universities?"You have an interesting view of universities in terms of what they provide and why people attend them. They are not for turning learners into workers. Those are training centers and they aim to specialize individuals rather than generalize them. Specialization is offensive and puts a serious limit on what the brain is capable of learning. Unfortunately many government approved training centers are being advertised as "Universities". In our system, universities will have unlimited resources at their disposal, unhindered creative drive, and will not rely on accreditation. If you don't like University #35, then try out University #36. Education will be open-source and not totalitarian, as it is under today's system."It ends up like Idiocracy's commercially stupid population."I just watched this film for the purpose of the debate. Idiocracy shows a world where technology is somehow stupider than the civilization using it. My system uses only the best technology. This movie also has a part where the government finds the world's smartest man to solve all their technical problems, instead of relying on voting. Only then do things start to improve for the population.My system eliminates commercialization and the workforce both. "We weren't made by anyone, so we decide our own purpose and destiny."The fact that we exist means that we were in fact made.Whether we were made by divinity or nature, or whether these creators are one and the same, our bodies and minds have certain rules they must obey. If you do not get enough energy, you will die. There is not much of a decision there."And soylent green will never taste as good as normal food. It's an end to pleasure."Overstimulation makes the brain fire neurons and neurotransmitters more often, causing immunity and lowered response intensity. In short, overstimulation = inhibited pleasure. Like living off of food and hoping to get pleasure from it after doing it 3 times a day, every day, for 10 years.A Soylent diet not only assures an optimum daily intake of energy on an individual level, it allows people to only eat foods they take PLEASURE in and only as often as they want.9.For the 3rd time, the EMP's will not be used against civilian homes.The structure of the homes is a very serious problem. All humans need a senes of safety. It is one of the foremost preliminary steps in satisfying Maslow's pyramid.11.A black market wouldn't be very popular if it's slogan was ""We'll take out thoes pesky sensors so you have to navigate your car yourself". This system initiates no force once it has been programmed. The only force being used is to take the resources and energy needed for a worldwide access system, where anything can be mined, constructed, shipped, repaired, updated, or replaced on a whim.People won't be forced to have sensors in their vehicles, but this is a service very few would turn down.12.Nobody is making things for computers. Computers are making things for us.I've said 3 times now that there is no human labor force, and there is no force of human labor.Machines DO work for free and there's no task done by humans that machines cannot do faster, smarter, and with more accuracy. Including triple-bypass surgery.This entire system is automated, from the mining of resources, to the assembly, to the shipping, to the waste management and recycling.The only jobs left are the ones that require human creativity, such as software updates, personalization, product design, etc;Overall:I didn't start this debate to sulk over the purpose of live in a system that provides everything to everyone.On one side, you debate the feasability of the program, whether it's national defense, lack of resources, or shipping problems.On the other side, you attack the productivity of mankind in this system once it has been accomplished, whether it's creativity, incentive to repair the system, etc. I'd like to address these two concerns more at length in a futher debate, perhaps someting along the lines of "Dystopia or Utopia?". I'm confident that I can convince you not only the feasability of this program, but the positive effect it would have on the global population. I also apologize if I ever came off as condescending or insulting. I respect that you know enough about politics and technology to debate me on this.