Download Affirmative Strategies

Debating Nuclear Power on a Global Scale
W. James Taylor
Asst. Dir. of Debate
Kansas State University
Resolved: Countries ought to prohibit the production of nuclear power.
Nuclear power holds both the promise and peril for the future of the human species and entire
planet. That climate change is happening is an undeniable fact. Climate-deniers employ
unscientific and often irrational responses. “Global warming is not real. It’s cold outside!” This
is the “logic” of climate deniers. Moreover, “global warming” is not a term most climate
scientists even use! The issue is the rapid nature of climate change overwhelming our ability to
adapt. To this end, climate-deniers have no real argument.
Even though many disagree over the extent of climate change and its impacts, we know it is real
and must be confronted. Given that the primary culprits for climate change are pollutants such
as CO2, and that the majority of CO2 is emitted from the generation of electricity, it seems
appropriate for decision makers to debate different methods to reduce CO2 from these sources.
Perhaps the most debated and controversial strategy for reducing these pollutants and the effects
of climate change is nuclear power. A full explanation of how nuclear power works is beyond
the scope of this essay. For a detailed discussion of this, please consult:
The Union of Concerned Scientists
http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_technology/how-nuclear-power-works.html#.VZqlXflViko
Duke Energy
https://www.duke-energy.com/about-energy/generating-electricity/nuclear-how.asp
NuclearInfo.net
http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/HowPowerPlantsWork
Aside from the scientific process of nuclear power, there are several relevant features we can
highlight to understand the more relevant issues under this resolution. This involves the nuclear
fuel cycle, or the process of nuclear power production. The World Nuclear Association (2015)
describes the “nuclear fuel cycle” as:
World Nuclear Association, Staff Writer, June 2015, “The Nuclear Fuel Cycle,”
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Introduction/Nuclear-Fuel-CycleOverview/, ACC. 7-6-2015
“The various activities associated with the production of electricity from nuclear reactions are
referred to collectively as the nuclear fuel cycle. The nuclear fuel cycle starts with the mining of
uranium and ends with the disposal of nuclear waste. With the reprocessing of used fuel as an
option for nuclear energy, the stages form a true cycle. To prepare uranium for use in a nuclear
reactor, it undergoes the steps of mining and milling, conversion, enrichment and fuel
fabrication. These steps make up the 'front end' of the nuclear fuel cycle. After uranium has spent
about three years in a reactor to produce electricity, the used fuel may undergo a further series of
steps including temporary storage, reprocessing, and recycling before wastes are disposed.
Collectively these steps are known as the 'back end' of the fuel cycle.”
This mirrors common definitions of nuclear power production. It involves an entire process:
uranium mining is only relevant as a stage insofar as it is used in nuclear power production.
Likewise, it makes no sense to exclude discussion of nuclear waste because it is necessarily a
part of production. Understanding the basics of the process can help debaters argue the
(un)/topical nature of the Affirmative. Moreover, it will allow debaters to make smart
distinctions in evidence.
Affirmative Strategies
Affirmatives on this topic has very little flexibility in terms of what they can defend. The section
above on definitions should make it clear that the Affirmative must defend a ban on all nuclear
power. This may be worldwide or just in the United States. The major flexibility for the
Affirmative lies in choosing the specific elements of nuclear power production they want to
criticize. The sample affirmative offers an example.
Uranium mining has devastated the lives of many indigenous people in the United States. Most
of the uranium mined in the United States comes from lands adjacent to Indian reservations. The
Navajo peoples have experience “ground zero” for uranium pollution. This pollution is different
from pollution like CO2. The effects of CO2 are spread out and generalized across the climate.
Uranium pollution, which comes from several parts of the mining and milling process, has
seeped into ground water, the air, soil, even the very walls of their homes.
I will not go through the very gory details about what happens to a person’s body when exposed
to radiation from uranium. It is one of the most and heart-wrenching aspects of American
history. Dispossessed from their culture heritage and land, forced to endure the systematic
degradation of their culture, and treated not as second class citizens, but as disposable bodies
sacrificed for energy—so we can all charge our laptops and watch the latest cute kittens videos.
Without uranium, there would be no nuclear power. It is the essential part of the nuclear fuel
cycle that cannot be divorced from the other aspects of production. This is an example where the
Affirmative still has to defend banning production, they just pick a specific area to highlight.
There are several other areas that could be ripe for Affirmative examples.
One area concerns renewable energy. The Affirmative could area that banning nuclear power
means we would scale up renewables to fill the gap. Some argue that the push for nuclear power
itself is preventing the transition to renewables. However, the most likely scenario would be that
fossil fuels would merely fill the gap.
Affirmatives could also argue that the end result of production is objectionable. Radioactive
nuclear waste is a huge problem in the U.S. The volume of waste continually outpaces our ability
to find or build storage facilities. The facilities are prone to geological disturbances, terrorist
attacks, and human error ending in a massive radiation disaster. In effect, the entire country
could eventually become radioactive because we have exhausted storage capacity to a terminal
point.
Whatever approach Affirmatives decide to take (and there are many others) they will have to
defend the prohibition of nuclear power production. It is crucially important to make sure that
the specific example chosen can either outweigh Negative arguments or explain why these
examples are simply more important than the reasons why nuclear power is good. This could
concern the specific values and criteria chosen. I would caution against life/survival and
weighing consequences. In a situation where the Negative will likely argue that nuclear power is
essential to prevent extinction, as well as a slew of reasons nuclear power can be good, values
like dignity or justice make be good options.
NEGATIVE ANALYSIS
This resolution is a field day for the Negative! Because the Affirmative must a prohibition on
nuclear power, Negatives get to pick any aspect of nuclear power to outweigh the Affirmative.
Nuclear power can be important to economic growth, reducing pollution, foreign technology
exports, as well as being a model for energy worldwide. You literally get to pick your area and
show why it is more important than the Affirmative!
As the Negative, it is important to maximize your flexibility. Therefore, you should think about
the values Affirmatives might run and develop 1NCs to specifically rebut them. For example, if
the Affirmative value is Justice, Negatives might argue that people in lesser developed countries
need nuclear power to develop social infrastructures. This would claim that privileged people in
major industrialized countries trying to ban nuclear power violates justice because it holds their
lives hostage to lesser development. In other words, the Affirmative would be sustaining global
divisions of wealth and prosperity.
The sample Negative case takes a stable, middle of the road, approach. Climate change will be
the most likely reason why nuclear power is good. The status quo is flooded with reliance on
fossil fuels that spread multiple forms of pollution. What we hear about most often in carbon
dioxide (CO2). Just forget about saying “global warming”. That terminology just confuses
people into being climate deniers. Say “climate change”, and qualify it as “disastrous”,
“catastrophic”, etc.
The value included here is Life (meaning survival). I always found this to be the easiest value to
defend. Most people cannot identify as much with more abstract values, such as justice. Lots of
people win rounds on those arguments, but all the reasons why the criteria (utilitarianism or
consequentialism) is usually a bad idea (“It justifies the worst atrocities, etc.”) pale in
comparison to the very real consequences of climate change experienced every day.
Another benefit to nuclear power is the current push for massive expansion. The goal here is to
phase out dirty coal plants that emit massive amounts of SO2 and CO2. Negatives will argue
that banning nuclear power means we would fill in the gap with fossil fuels, making our current
climate and pollution predicament even worse. Renewable energy is not developed enough to
meet electricity needs once nuclear power goes away.
Whatever value, criteria, and strategy you choose, it is important that you control the topicality
aspect. You want to make sure the Affirmative will be defending an outright ban and that
“production” encompasses the entire fuel cycle. Some Affirmatives, such as the sample, make
the second argument for you. The name of the game is to maximize your flexibility to craft a
specific response to the Affirmative case.
Good luck!