CreateDebate



Welcome to CreateDebate!

CreateDebate is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.



Be Yourself

Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.

Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.


Twitter
Twitter addict? Follow us and be the first to find out when debates become popular!


pic
Report This User
Permanent Delete

Allies
View All
None

Enemies
View All
None

Hostiles
View All
None

RSS Sitopren

Reward Points:13
Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
83%
Arguments:11
Debates:1
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.
1 point

Since all npps belong to giant energy groups, this technology won't lower the energy price, but rather advance the monopolism, which is bad for consumers. On the other side, adding to the high cost of building npps and reactors, covered by national subsidy, energy companies are neither fully liable for environmental damages nor responsible for properly disposing hazardous waste. Consequently, the cost of nuclear energy isn't comparable with fossil fuel power, just by referring to the little fuel consumption.

Supporting Evidence: The price tag of nuclear power (www.foeeurope.org)
0 points

There's no need to ask the dog! As we don't regard contracts agreed with minors, handicapped ones and elder people as valid, dogs aren't legally competent either. Thus, animals should enjoy their freedom, as long as they don't hurt us. A human-dog interaction should be allowed, if it is of a cooperative, mutually beneficial nature, but never, if the dog is ruthlessly treated as object.

1 point

If the ban (or a restriction) could successfully decrease the demand of tobacco, its value would surely decrease too. There wouldn't be any point to use inflating materials as currency (so we don't use it today, do we?). Rather, we should give farmers of developing countries the opportunity to grow more important crops to prevent local hunger. I admit that this alone isn't a reason to ban tobacco products, but such an environmentally damaging (huge consumption of water, exploitation of forests) industry must be substantially restricted.

Supporting Evidence: "World Agriculture & Environment" by Jason Clay: Tobacco (www.panda.org)
1 point

It's simply unsustainable and irresponsible to produce a huge amount of unreusable, unrecyclable waste with a half-life of more than 20000 years. The significant radiation in the surroundings of NPPs is proven, which means a serious risk of cancer. A research in Florida showed a 37% increased radioactive Sr-90 isotope in teeth of children in the six counties close to the NPPs Turkey Point and St. Lucie.

2 points

There's no safe disposal site for nuclear waste anywhere in the world. Actually, in order to prevent contamination of natural resources, radiation should be sufficiently cut by the storage material alone. As long as it's not the case, there isn't any place on the Earth where you may simply store such highly radioactive material.

2 points

A nuclear power plant is only possible with a very huge amount of national subsidy (if Obama didn't explicitly want to support the technological development, he wouldn't have had any reason to decide on helping the construction of a new one). The apparent cheapness is only reasoned by the high fossil fuel prices. The price of a reactor makes an affordable personal car with nuclear technology absolutely impossible (while the fuel could be somehow cheaper, the maintenance cost wouldn't be affordable either).

2 points

Nuclear power doesn't replace oil at all. Oil is mostly used to heat, as motor fuel and in chemical industries. I even agree that oil should also be replaced by some more sustainable alternatives. However, nuclear power will never be such an alternative. It's neither safe nor cheap nor simple nor make us independent from imported fuel. There is absolutely no way to "clean" a whole radioactively contaminated region.

2 points

The frequency isn't so high, otherwise the whole Western countries would've been heavily contaminated and made almost unlivable. We shouldn't even try, because a disaster in a nuclear power plant isn't comparable with the worst case at a coal power station, a hydroelectric plant or any other safer alternative we can think of.

1 point

Animals which have sense and emotions should never be treated as objects. It would be too arrogant to call them objects, while human beings are nothing but animals. Allowing such practice will surely hurt the human society itself, since differences among us could be nearly as big as that between us and other animals (thus we don't always understand other people).

1 point

The overconsumption of tobacco in the industrial nations cause a wrong usage of a significant amount of valuable land in the developing nations, frequently suffering from hunger. For example, in Malawi, as FAO reports ( http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/006/Y4997E/y4997e0i.htm ), alternative crops have been unable to replace tobacco, which has a high world market price, making Malawian product reasonably competitive. In order to restore worldwide sustainable agriculture, the over-valuation of tobacco should be properly adjusted by restricting its consumption.

About Me


Biographical Information
Gender: Male
Marital Status: Single
Political Party: Green Party
Country: Germany
Websites: sitopren's soup

Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here