Member List
Calendar
F.A.Q.
Search
Log Out
Pokemon Forum - Pokemon Elite 2000  
 

Go Back   Pokemon Forum - Pokemon Elite 2000 » Other Boards » Discussion

Discussion This is for discussion about current events (news), issues, politics, and any other topics of serious discussion. For more casual talk, go to the Other Chat board. Proper sentences, spelling, and grammar is especially strict in this board.


Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #31  
Old 07-21-2012, 10:16 PM
Judge Dredd's Avatar
Judge Dredd Offline
Master of Shadows
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Gold 3438-5902-8014
Posts: 33,107
Default Re: [WAR XI] Debate Section

Quote:
Originally Posted by LS the Door Mat View Post
I am so sorry, but I am going to have to strongly DISAGREE. I can't believe someone on this forum is actually for Capital Punishment. It's surprising really.

Let me lay a scenario down for you(completely fictional one)

A man is caught after killing 9 people, injuring many others and laying chaos everywhere. This man, should just be sentanced to death instead of making him pay for what he has done? I think death is too simple of a solution, because let's think. What happens after you die? Nothing, or we don't know.

Why let him take the easy way out and just kill him when you can have him suffer and pay for the lives he has affected in a jail cell somewhere?



And to be honest, I think Capital Punishment is only enforced so that the government can silence anyone they want.

This is a debate section, where is the fun if people arnt willing to look at both sides?

Your suggestion would be to throw this man in jail for the rest of his life. You think that tax payers should be responsible from keeping this man well feed and safe for the rest of his life?? How is that fair for anyone.

Of course I want this guy gone, so there can never be a chance from him to harm someone again.

You know people in prison get treated better than homeless people right. I dont see you or anyone else running out and handing a huge percentage of your earnings to feeding them and making sure there safe in doors. Murder is the worst excuse to cover ones on conscience for ignoring everything else around them.
__________________
VPP

Dragonair: 33054
Dragonite: 33129
Level100: 33264

GCEA Link Page Pokemon Evolution List

Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 07-21-2012, 10:42 PM
LS's Avatar
LS Offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Tortuga
Posts: 5,042
Default Re: [WAR XI] Debate Section

Quote:
Originally Posted by Judge Dredd View Post
This is a debate section, where is the fun if people arnt willing to look at both sides?

Your suggestion would be to throw this man in jail for the rest of his life. You think that tax payers should be responsible from keeping this man well feed and safe for the rest of his life?? How is that fair for anyone.

Of course I want this guy gone, so there can never be a chance from him to harm someone again.

You know people in prison get treated better than homeless people right. I dont see you or anyone else running out and handing a huge percentage of your earnings to feeding them and making sure there safe in doors. Murder is the worst excuse to cover ones on conscience for ignoring everything else around them.
You do know that they have to stay in prison for life where they have no freedom or control of there lives...


And the taxpayers are paying for all those who are jailed, not specifically those who deserve capital punishment.xd

and there's many organizations that are helping homeless people and those in need so dont worry about that.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 07-21-2012, 11:04 PM
Judge Dredd's Avatar
Judge Dredd Offline
Master of Shadows
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Gold 3438-5902-8014
Posts: 33,107
Default Re: [WAR XI] Debate Section

Quote:
Originally Posted by LS the Door Mat View Post
You do know that they have to stay in prison for life where they have no freedom or control of there lives...


And the taxpayers are paying for all those who are jailed, not specifically those who deserve capital punishment.xd

and there's many organizations that are helping homeless people and those in need so dont worry about that.
what do you think the lifespan of a homeless person who has committed no crime is compared to a person who is given a life sentence? How do you think the federal/state government spends on helping the homeless compared to keeping men in jail for murder?

How can I not be worried.

Laws were put in place for a reason, if someone breaks that law they should be subject to the full extent of it.

When I was younger I say a documentary on s Singapore. The documentary talked about the extreme measures that Singapore goes through in dealing with crime. They have a term for how rough it is there called “Singapore Justice" at first I found it funny until I realized that this term is a crime deterrent by itself. Singapore has one of the lowest crime rates in the whole world. There is no system to be pushed through, there is only a direct punishment for a crime. When people know there is no way around getting punished they are less likely to break to the law.

"As evidenced by Singapore’s low crime rate, simply having a “law-bide or die” stance, backed up through examples, may be the most efficient and cheapest known way to prevent capital crimes." That quote best describes what I was talking about.


This is just one example of why true Capital Punishment works.
__________________
VPP

Dragonair: 33054
Dragonite: 33129
Level100: 33264

GCEA Link Page Pokemon Evolution List

Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 07-22-2012, 12:39 AM
Latio-Nytro's Avatar
Latio-Nytro Offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: ERROR! EXPLOSION IMMINENT!
Posts: 4,467
Default Re: [WAR XI] Debate Section

Team: Revolution Uprising
Stance: For

Let’s face facts: There are some actions someone can do that is absolutely, without doubt or question to the contrary, unforgivable. Torture, Rape, mass murder, Genocide, you get the idea; there are crimes that make the committers look like scumbags and the filth on a 3-toed hobo's foot.

Let’s say a man kidnaps, rapes and kills 9, well, 9-year old kids before getting caught by the police, and had to be forcibly dragged off. In the courtroom, this man is blatantly guilty, and acts like he's god almighty, basically insulting the entirety of the world over with his actions and not even caring about his innocence. Ultimately, this guy is a Psycho, and has to be removed from society-permanently, and the jury rules thus.

There are two options for this man: A life sentence, which would mean a horrendously long and crappy life in a Jail Cell that costs money to support and ultimately have him die in jail anyway, which, even for this guy, is absolutely inhumane, or just kill him, nice and cleanly, with a lethal injection and end this whack-job’s life for good?

D**mit, you end his life for good, that's what you do!

First off, even for criminals that should be horrendously tortured for their crimes, sending them off to the jail cells is still wrong. It's a degraded, humiliating form of life-and even if, somehow, the hypothetical psycho turns humane and truly remorseful for the crimes stated above, there is no way in hell that he could get out of it, and if he doesn't, he can do worse. I admit-having the guy repent ultimately is a reason why people do dislike the death sentence, but honestly, having him realize he's being tortured and having few-if any-ways to truly forgive himself, is just kind of sad. Especially when there was the alternative of killing him early on and not having him live through that. It's not like we torture them in there, but usually jail is a torture in and of itself, one we must make uncomfortable.

It's also NOT like we give the death sentence to everyone that enters the court-as always, it is an impartial jury that decides the case in it's entirety. It is a group of people, sane and level headed, coming from different backgrounds and having different mindsets but ultimately impartial, that will ultimately determine whether or not the person on-trial for the death sentence is...Well, someone that needs to die. We do not kill everyone willy-nilly left-and-right. The US has, in 2011, killed 43 people by execution. That's it. Really, we do not exercise this right as much as other countries. Moreover, only two countries in 2011 had issued and carried out over 100 executions-Iran and China being the two. Everyone else had under 100. Seriously. We reserve this punishment for the REAL scumbags.

'Scumbags,' in this case, is defined by someone who really just does not care for ANYONE other than himself and/or is just a madman that just likes doing crime and being punished. These people ruin lives, running about stealing, torturing, killing, raping, kidnapping, and doing all other sorts of horrendous things that would justify authority immediately putting a bullet in his head on-sight. These are the cases where the criminal has done so much, death should be a candidate for the criminal's fate based upon the very foundation of the filth of his works. There are also people that many already agree need MORE than death to ever say it's justice: Adolf Hitler, in example. Should he have been brought into court and been tried by the law, a man who allowed 10,000,000 people (approximately) to die, a massive fraction thereof being the Jewish people he so tortured at the Holocaust (not to mention the survivors, that were still utterly tortured), it would seem utterly absurd that he did not get the death sentence.

As another note: Many, many, many people fear death. There is a good reason why Humanity strives for Immortality: We are naturally afraid of dying. Would major criminals really crop up should criminals fear death? Physical harm is naturally unwanted and the threat thereof can prevent many a bad scenario. What of the ultimate physical harm, the end of life, death itself? Surely, however unlikely it is to be used, that will remove some crimes from the equation altogether? If it does (and it does, indeed, do this), then it would be a great justification: Crime, ultimately, is such that if an action would make more of it, however little, that is a reason to not do it.

Finally, I must point out the facts and fallacies of those posting before me-but of course.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LS the Door Mat View Post
Let me lay a scenario down for you(completely fictional one)

A man is caught after killing 9 people, injuring many others and laying chaos everywhere. This man, should just be sentanced to death instead of making him pay for what he has done? I think death is too simple of a solution, because let's think. What happens after you die? Nothing, or we don't know.

Why let him take the easy way out and just kill him when you can have him suffer and pay for the lives he has affected in a jail cell somewhere?
Because suffering isn't the first option. Torture, in any case scenario, is an action that should not be forgiven, no matter who does it. It may not intend to be torture, but it tortures the mind mentally. That asides, who says it's the easy way out for them to be in a jail cell? Like you said, it's either nothing or something we do not know about-that is not to say that, in theory, the place where the man would go to would be a place where he is tortured for his crimes. Would this not be a worse place than any human contraption? Also, would nonexistence, not being at all, be a worse punishment than any human contraption? There really is no answer to that question. If theology exists, most of them would say that crimes of such a nature would make the doer go through a punishment of some variety.


Quote:
Originally Posted by LS the Door Mat View Post
You do know that they have to stay in prison for life where they have no freedom or control of there lives...
First and foremost, we do not stick prisoners in jails and prisons to TORTURE them, we do so to rehabilitate them. Those stuck in life sentence are there for almost no reason whatsoever-even if they do rehabilitate, they will not be able to demonstrate this. It's really just a shame. The alternative-death-could be considered preferable. We also comfort people as they are dying: We sterilize the wounds, ease up the criminal about to be killed, and ultimately inject them, in the case of fatal injection, for instance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LS the Door Mat View Post
and there's many organizations that are helping homeless people and those in need so dont worry about that.
It's not always a homeless person doing the crimes, people of middle or upper class standing could be doing the murders as much as the poor man does: Murders are done over grudges, over petty arguments, over other crimes they may have done...Really. We do everything in our power to prevent crimes while still being a humane society, but ultimately we cannot stop every crime. Some do deserve the punishment of execution. Murder isn't the only crime that can be punishable by death, too.

In conclusion...Really. Being sentenced for life in prison is rarely the answer. Sometimes, just executing the criminal at hand is a better option, provided the reasoning behind the execution is just and fair. There is nothing cruel and unusual about it-life ends eventually. It is wrong to, without reasoning behind it, end life early, but that is what we have a system of law for. Men that end life earlier than it should, in turn, should have their own life ended earlier than it should. Some criminals deserve to die, simply.

This confirms the noted statistic that only Iran and China have killed more than 100 people in 2011.

This was continuously used througout this post.
__________________
The Avatar is from 5TailedDemonLizard!

Houndour@4051: Hatch@4066, Houndoom@4123, Level100@4351.

The Nonexistant White Nuzlocke! BEHOLD IT AND DESPAIR!

FEAR THE MOODY BIDOOF!!!
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 07-22-2012, 01:00 AM
Sight of the Stars's Avatar
Sight of the Stars Offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Top of Mt. Everest. -shivers- Cold.
Posts: 4,043
Send a message via AIM to Sight of the Stars Send a message via Skype™ to Sight of the Stars
Default Re: [WAR XI] Debate Section

Team: G.U.N.
Position: For Capital Punishment

Quote:
Originally Posted by LS the Door Mat View Post
I can't believe someone on this forum is actually for Capital Punishment. It's surprising really.
:I In the words of JokesterJesse:
Quote:
Originally Posted by JokesterJesse View Post
tragic a real heart breaking story.
Okay, I'm sorry. I've been keeping my nose out of this debating business because I don't see something I'm willing to prove someone wrong about, and I tend to have my reasons easily swayed even though my positions stay the same. Besides, debating would mean I'd have to have some sources for some facts. And I'm too lazy for that.

But THIS singular comment, ladies an gentlemen... THIS has brought me from my little hole of 'mind-my-own-business-land'.

Let's take a moment to give a slow clap for this comment.



Oh my god, look, guys, it's a debate! God forbid if there's someone going against your opinion!

V______V

I perfectly agree with Judge Dredd. "This is just one example of why true Capital Punishment works." Let us note the key word in this statement: "TRUE".

Ever read Animal Farm? It's the exact same concept. TRUE, textbook Communism is the perfect government. This isn't relevant to the argument? Of course it is, I'm using it to show how the concept is exactly the same.

Quote:
You do know that they have to stay in prison for life where they have no freedom or control of there lives...


WOW I NEVER KNEW THAT.

I know the sarcasm isn't needed, but you deserved it.

I think that capital punishment is perfectly plausible. First you let them rot in jail and regret what they've done for the rest of their lives and then you kill them. Pretty simple concept. Of course, there's the possibility of false accusations and such, but there's really not much else you can do unless new evidence is found on their case. You can't blame that on the Capital Punishment. Blame that on people. -shrug- That's all I have to say on the matter at the moment.
__________________
.previously known as White Wolf of the Snow.
Quote:
[12:38:59 AM] GallantlyGlaceon: ...So how do we do this? XD
[12:39:20 AM] Sight of the Stars: it's nothing really big, just usually a note in your sig that's all like 'paired with soandso'
[12:39:44 AM] Sight of the Stars: just be like "SIGHT OF THE STARZ IS MAH BIZNITCH"
[12:39:57 AM] GallantlyGlaceon: XDDD
[12:39:59 AM] Sight of the Stars: and I'll be like "GALLANTLYGLACEON IS MAH HOE."
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 07-22-2012, 03:59 AM
Winter's Avatar
Winter Offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Banora, munchin' on dumbapples...
Posts: 4,527
Send a message via Skype™ to Winter
Default Re: [WAR XI] Debate Section

Team: Eggman Empire
Position: Against

Okay, while I understand that people feel strongly about killing those who commit serious crimes such as murder, capital punishment simply is not the right answer. I don't mean that the person who murdered or committed whatever act they did deserves to rot in prison or be tortured--I mean that while yes, some probably should not be allowed to continue living, it has been proven many times that it actually costs MORE to have Capital Punishment carried out than it would to have the person put in prison for life without chance of parole. It makes more economical sense to not carry out Capital Punishment, and since it is rarely sought out and carried through anyway, it isn't going to serve as an example or deter others from committing these very same acts.
__________________

Banner by me! | My dA | My FF.Net
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 07-23-2012, 02:19 AM
WebMaster's Avatar
WebMaster Offline
BEAST MODE!!!!!!
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 381
Send a message via AIM to WebMaster
Default Re: [WAR XI] Debate Section

Alright. Here are the results for this week

Best "for": Judge Dredd. +2 points to team Awesome
Best "against": LS the Door Mat. +2 points to Team .
Best argument: Latio-Nytro. +2 points to Revolution Uprising

Before we continue, I wanna just remind everyone that using condescending pictures or language is not advised.

Topic 5: Nuclear Power. Is it a more efficient source of energy or do the potential risks outweigh the benefits of using it?
__________________
URPG Member, Approver, Ranger, Referee, and Judge
My stats
http://bmgf.bulbagarden.net/f401/web...5/#post2992282
AIM: WebDragoon1337

Last edited by WebMaster; 07-23-2012 at 02:23 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 07-29-2012, 12:06 AM
Judge Dredd's Avatar
Judge Dredd Offline
Master of Shadows
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Gold 3438-5902-8014
Posts: 33,107
Default Re: [WAR XI] Debate Section

Name:Judge Dredd
Team:Awesome!
Side: Against


For people to argue over weather Nuclear Power is bad or good would be a waste of time. The issue should be looked at as the "Now or then" argument. What I mean by that is, Nuclear Power is currently the cheapest source of energy. Costing a mere 1.76 cents/kilowatt-hour, compared to coal which costs 2.21 cents/kilowatt-hour. With a country still reeling from a rescission money is the main issue currently. With the world population increasing at such a rate how can one turn away energy cheap energy...That is the now...

Most nuclear waste stays radioactive for thousands of years. This waste is being stored underground. As the use of nuclear power goes up, so does the amount of nuclear waste. As the population raises,more and more land is being taken up. Do you see where I am going? Nuclear Power works in the now because its cheap and they have places to store it.. Future generation wont be so lucky. As our population swells the amount of waste will start to become hazardous to future generations. Not only will it be effecting our children's children, it will effect the overall damage to planet will be catastrophic.

As far as storage goes, they have suggested shooting in space or burying it inside of mountains. People will also say that they have almost perfected safe storage of nuclear power now, so there is no need for such extreme measures. This may be simi true based in areas that have the money to store it properly but what happens in places that don't have the money.

Two major disasters have happened because of the use of Nuclear Power. The Fukushima disaster in 2011, a scary little fact here. Some parts of our eastern cost were hit with more radiation than some parts of Japan. Than we look at the Chernobyl disaster, a city that will be unlivable for a thousand years.

Last but not least, any country that has nuclear power and the ability to create nuclear weapons.
__________________
VPP

Dragonair: 33054
Dragonite: 33129
Level100: 33264

GCEA Link Page Pokemon Evolution List

Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 07-29-2012, 02:37 AM
Latio-Nytro's Avatar
Latio-Nytro Offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: ERROR! EXPLOSION IMMINENT!
Posts: 4,467
Default Re: [WAR XI] Debate Section

Latio Nytro
Revolution Uprising
For Nuclear Power

We're closing in on a kind of...Issue. Nuclear Power. It's INFAMED as a way to make mutants, a dangerous substance to work with, environmentally unfriendly in many, many aspects, and more. Nuclear Waste being dangerous, and the power of nuclear bombs being a looming source of discomfort for some, are both serious issues.

However...There's this. You see, based on a bi-product released into the environment, a power plant based on coal versus a nuclear plant will wield more-yes, MORE-radiation than a nuclear plant over 50 years. With a minor leakage on the nuclear plant. Moreover, the only bi-product in that regard is water, released into the air as steam. I'm serious. The Nuclear Waste does NOT go out into the environment out of its own accord, apparently.

On another note...We have this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judge Dredd View Post
Nuclear Power is currently the cheapest source of energy. Costing a mere 1.76 cents/kilowatt-hour, compared to coal which costs 2.21 cents/kilowatt-hour.
Yes, that is completely true. COMPLETELY TRUE. Not one word of those two sentences are wrong. Also noteworthy: Assuming we don't change our usage of fossil fuels, they'll become unsustainable. That would cause some...Err...Rather terrible repercussions economically. Using Nuclear Power could be the difference between further ecologic and economic disaster then, and ecologic and economic prosperity then.

They're also more efficient. One uranium pellet will generate 17 MBTU. To put that into perspective, that take 1780 pounds of coal to generate, or 149 Gallons of Oil. One pellet is less than 5% of a Kilogram. Even with a $100/Kilogram cost, it becomes much less relevant. That is cost efficiant. To add onto that, if the price is doubled, then electricity's price rises about 5%. Anywhere from a 30% to a 70% percent rise, by contrast, can be expected from doubling the price of natural gas or coal. Who wants that?!

Moreover, nuclear energy is quite unique. So much power in such a relatively small mass means that applications are broad. The U.S.S Nautilus is our first Nuclear Powered Ship. The U.S.S Enterprise (NOT RELATED TO THE ENTERPRISE OF STAR TREK FAME) is our first Nuclear Powered Aircraft Carrier. Meanwhile, Civilian uses have been astounding. Smaller generators can power Malls, Schools and even Solitary Homes. Albeit at the time there isn't a particularly safe method to do so, public transportation is also possible.

...And, of course, I must point out fallacies in reasoning in my current opposition, which so far includes only Judge Dredd.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Judge Dredd View Post
Most nuclear waste stays radioactive for thousands of years. This waste is being stored underground. As the use of nuclear power goes up, so does the amount of nuclear waste. As the population raises,more and more land is being taken up. Do you see where I am going? Nuclear Power works in the now because its cheap and they have places to store it.. Future generation wont be so lucky. As our population swells the amount of waste will start to become hazardous to future generations. Not only will it be effecting our children's children, it will effect the overall damage to planet will be catastrophic.

As far as storage goes, they have suggested shooting in space or burying it inside of mountains. People will also say that they have almost perfected safe storage of nuclear power now, so there is no need for such extreme measures. This may be simi true based in areas that have the money to store it properly but what happens in places that don't have the money.
Those places usually don't have nuclear power plants. It can easily be assumed that any country introducing Nuclear Power would also REQUIRE that costs being taken in would include a method of safe storage. I must also point out that you have stated that we've pretty much perfected the art of Nuclear Waste Disposal: We seal them in radiation-proof containers VERY WELL TESTED to make sure none of that harmful radiation comes out outside of it. Then you point out it would lead to ecological disaster. The only Bi-Product we cannot advert entering the environment safely and is completely impossible to avoid from using Nuclear Power is water, in the form of steam. Water, in terms of the environment, is harmless. The other product-Nuclear Waste-can be safely disposed of thanks to our perfection in the technique of nuclear waste storage, and albeit definitely harmful, is rendered harmless by said storage techniques.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Judge Dredd View Post
Two major disasters have happened because of the use of Nuclear Power. The Fukushima disaster in 2011, a scary little fact here. Some parts of our eastern cost were hit with more radiation than some parts of Japan. Than we look at the Chernobyl disaster, a city that will be unlivable for a thousand years.
Disasters caused by errors made in handling, receiving, and extracting any and all sources of power are almost impossible to avoid: Oil Spills, for example. They are HUGE ecological disasters, and their impact lasts FAR longer than we'd ever wish. While Nuclear Power can be a much more dangerous power source due to its very nature, over time we discover new ways to handle nuclear power, and eventually the risks of such things could become almost nonexistent. This is true for all power sources in general, but that's not really important for this argument, now is it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Judge Dredd View Post
Last but not least, any country that has nuclear power and the ability to create nuclear weapons.
There is an explicit reason why the Cold War never became World War 3. Neither the USA or the Soviet Union wanted to start a Nuclear War, and everyone was tiptoeing around the possibility, using indirect force and political actions to gain favor over direct confrontation-because they didn't want to use nuclear missiles and they didn't want to get hit by nuclear missiles. They could destroy the whole world with nuclear war, and they d**m well knew it. The Cold War ended because both sides were scared s**tless by the threat of being attacked by the other side with nukes. It was no joke, and the arms race was devoted strictly to making sure that the retaliation from one side wouldn't become weak enough that the opposing side could destroy it.

Nuclear power can have its risks, and by far, the creation of nuclear weapons through the extraction of weapons-grade Plutonium in Nuclear Waste is a very, very cold reality (though, on the flipside, the same process can be used to remove the fuel-grade Uranium as well, thereby drastically reducing the radioactive power of nuclear waste, thereby making it less dangerous). However, the Government would have a steel grip on these kinds of ultra-dangerous materials. We're not talking about Marijuana-We're talking about F***ING NUKES that can remove entire cities off the map. That is dead serious.

Ultimately, Nuclear Power has its pros and cons like any other, and quite frankly the pros do outweigh the cons. The reason why it's being so thoroughly debated is because of the fact that it is the same power that can make nuclear warheads, and disasters like Chernobyl. However, with proper care and precautions, I believe Nuclear Power can be a safe option for the world at large.

This was the only site I used in the whole article. (Look Ma, no Wikipedia!)
__________________
The Avatar is from 5TailedDemonLizard!

Houndour@4051: Hatch@4066, Houndoom@4123, Level100@4351.

The Nonexistant White Nuzlocke! BEHOLD IT AND DESPAIR!

FEAR THE MOODY BIDOOF!!!
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 07-29-2012, 03:21 AM
Grassy_Aggron's Avatar
Grassy_Aggron Offline
Nutjob Personified
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: I...I don't know! WHERE DO I LIVE?!
Posts: 8,809
Send a message via AIM to Grassy_Aggron
Default Re: [WAR XI] Debate Section

Name: Grassy_Aggron
Team: Guardian Units of Nations
Side: For

Nuclear power. We either love it, hate it, or just flat out don't know what it is. What is nuclear power? It's using fission - splitting atoms apart - to generate heat and electricity. It's really powerful!

Now, building plants is easy. They pay back the costs of being built within the first two months of operations. We also hear a lot of hubbub over CO2, right? The nasty little gas - carbon dioxide - that traps heat over the earth, and is produced especially by coal and gasoline. You know, the big cause of Global Warming, right? Well, get this. Nuclear power is, for the most part, free of emissions. Most of them come from the processes of enriching the Uranium. In this instance, one power plant was examined from Sweden (named Vattenfall) produced 3.3 grams per KW-Hr of produced power. Natural gas is 400 grams, while coal is 700 grams for the same output. In fact, Vattenfall uses less CO2 for nuclear power than the other types of energy it produces, such as wind and solar energy, and those are already very clean!

Oh, and running out of Uranium? They suspect there are 85 years worth, with another 500 years speculated to exist. So, that's a total of 585 years. And now there are studies to use Thorium, which is three - THREE - times more abundant than Uranium. That's about 1755 years of power with Thorium (585 x 3)! Add on the fact they are finding uses for spent fuel rods and depleted Uranium stocks used for enrichment, and that's a lot...

As for waste? Power plants create Plutonium, which is considered waste. Highly radioactive waste, yes. However, there are plans to use Plutonium as a source of power. Waste is first cooled for 20-40 years in water, then stored under the ground in multiple barriers to protect from leakage (it has been proven a natural reactor in Gabon, West Africa has remained contained by nature for 2 billion years). This COULD be an issue, if not for plans to create reactors that could use that waste as a source of fuel. Fusion-Fission Hybrids use neutrons from plasma to drive nuclear transmutation, and it's believed 6 of these would be enough to deal with all the waste from 100 regular reactors.

Very High Temperature Reactors (VHTR) are also an idea. Using the waste of a single load from a reactor over four years, it would deliver all the energy needed over the 60 year life of a VHTR. It would destroy almost all of the waste, and would help deliver ten times the energy of the original fuel. That is a LOT of ENERGY, and with getting rid of the waste it's now even more clean.

Fun fact: A nuclear power plant produces 30 tonnes of waste a year if not reprocessed (it usually is). Compare that to a coal plant, which produces 300,000 tonnes of ash per year. Hmm, another point for being clean.

Now, safety?

They are very safe, having learned from the faulty construction of both Chernobyl and the Three Mile Island incident.

Ways to control radiation include inserting control rods, which reduces neutrons that cause fission, and the generators themselves are created so that as they get hotter beyond optimal temperature the efficiency of reactions decreases, so it begins to slow down automatically. There is always a way to cool a reactor, usually water is used but sodium or sodium salts is an alternative. There are several barriers between the core and people; many are encased in thick walls of concrete, with further ones inside to shield workers. There might even be a vacuum building which is connected to it, with a negative atmosphere. Any radiation that leaks floods that building, as high pressure always goes to low pressure.

There are multiple back up components for a reactor, independent systems (two or more performing the same function), monitoring of the station, and the fact if one system fails it will have no effect on other systems.

Radiation doses to workers are controlled via remote control of equipment in the core of the reactor, physical shielding, limit on time a worker spends in a highly radioactive area, and monitoring of doses in the work environment.


The issue of nuclear weapons isn't what is being discussed here. They're already created, people will continue to create them - but whether people use them is another story. With everything I have stated, nuclear power is far more efficient than any other source we have currently. Add on the fact that there are plans to use the waste as another fuel source, and it's a highly profitable and productive source of electricity for a growing world. The lack of pollution it creates is great for the environment. And while incidents do happen, they are for the most part safe. If anything, they are more safe compared to other plants due to the nature of the fuel involved. Mistakes can and do happen, but blaming the entire source is foolhardy - a bit like saying just because that Prius crashed into a shop, every single Prius created is going to have the same fate. What is neglected to say is that the Prius didn't kill anyone and the safety measures involved saved lives.

The fact Nuclear Power is cleaner than even Solar or Wind is also a good factor to consider, and it isn't reliant on sunny weather or a windy area, which severely limits those sources.

Similar concept here ^^

Sources:

Yoink and Yoink. Same website, different areas used.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 07-29-2012, 03:55 AM
Judge Dredd's Avatar
Judge Dredd Offline
Master of Shadows
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Gold 3438-5902-8014
Posts: 33,107
Default Re: [WAR XI] Debate Section

Quote:
Originally Posted by Latio-Nytro View Post
Disasters caused by errors made in handling, receiving, and extracting any and all sources of power are almost impossible to avoid: Oil Spills, for example. They are HUGE ecological disasters, and their impact lasts FAR longer than we'd ever wish. While Nuclear Power can be a much more dangerous power source due to its very nature, over time we discover new ways to handle nuclear power, and eventually the risks of such things could become almost nonexistent. This is true for all power sources in general, but that's not really important for this argument, now is it?


So your going to say what happened in Japan was an error cased by handling? Because last time I checked mother nature kinda did that. Which seems to be completely ignored. With the climate changes due to global warming, weather fronts and "Natural Disasters" have been increasing. I dont know about you, but I dont want to be anywhere near a Nuclear Power plant when one of these super storms destroys it. Something about a melt down or a massive Nuclear Explosion kinda makes me feel uneasy.




There is an explicit reason why the Cold War never became World War 3. Neither the USA or the Soviet Union wanted to start a Nuclear War, and everyone was tiptoeing around the possibility, using indirect force and political actions to gain favor over direct confrontation-because they didn't want to use nuclear missiles and they didn't want to get hit by nuclear missiles. They could destroy the whole world with nuclear war, and they d**m well knew it. The Cold War ended because both sides were scared s**tless by the threat of being attacked by the other side with nukes. It was no joke, and the arms race was devoted strictly to making sure that the retaliation from one side wouldn't become weak enough that the opposing side could destroy it.

Nuclear power can have its risks, and by far, the creation of nuclear weapons through the extraction of weapons-grade Plutonium in Nuclear Waste is a very, very cold reality (though, on the flipside, the same process can be used to remove the fuel-grade Uranium as well, thereby drastically reducing the radioactive power of nuclear waste, thereby making it less dangerous). However, the Government would have a steel grip on these kinds of ultra-dangerous materials. We're not talking about Marijuana-We're talking about F***ING NUKES that can remove entire cities off the map. That is dead serious.
[/QUOTE]

There is something i think you should read, and believe me nuclear power goes hand in hand with the production of nuclear weapons.


In human terms, the cost has been astronomical. Bio-statistician Rosalie Bertell has estimated that "The global victims of the radiation pollution related to nuclear weapon production, testing, use and waste conservatively number 13 million."

In 1984 the United Nations Human Rights Committee noted that "It is evident that the designing, testing, manufacture, possession, deployment and use of nuclear weapons are among the greatest threats to the right to life which confront mankind today," and concluded that "The production, testing, possession, deployment and use of nuclear weapons should be prohibited and recognised as crimes against humanity."
Human Rights Committee General Comment 14(23) on Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, November 2, 1984.
__________________
VPP

Dragonair: 33054
Dragonite: 33129
Level100: 33264

GCEA Link Page Pokemon Evolution List

Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 07-30-2012, 02:07 AM
WebMaster's Avatar
WebMaster Offline
BEAST MODE!!!!!!
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 381
Send a message via AIM to WebMaster
Default Re: [WAR XI] Debate Section

And here are the results for the final week of debate

Best "for": Grassy Aggron + 2 points for G.U.N.
Best "against": Judge Dredd + 2 points for Team Awesome
Best argument: Grassy Aggron + 2 points for G.U.N.

And that conclude our WAR debate. Thank you all for participating! Be sure to check the final results for the WAR winners
__________________
URPG Member, Approver, Ranger, Referee, and Judge
My stats
http://bmgf.bulbagarden.net/f401/web...5/#post2992282
AIM: WebDragoon1337
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 11-11-2013, 06:51 PM
tombzg56 Offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 13
Default Re: [WAR XI] Debate Section

The entries do not only invite films but it also covers animation, documentary, kids, and short films for the competition.
________
Cheap flight tickets to Lagos
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Style Design: AlienSector.com