The unique nature of radioisotopes was not dicussed. However, the group did talk about how a nuclear bomb works and how the radioisotopes cause such a gigantic expolsion. Those in favor said that nuclear weapons are important in the nattion's self defense. By having nuclear weapons, we would have more power over countries that did not. Those against said that there are too many negatives to having nuclear weapons. They would create more enemies with countries that the U.S. gets along with now. No one survives a nuclear war; all civilization is wiped out. Furthermore, nuclear bombs kill all other life on the planet, such as plants and other vegetation, leading to a nuclear winter. I do not agree in making nuclear bombs part of the nation's defense.
I felt that this video lacked the expression and also basic explanation of a radioisotope's unique nature. The pro-members of the group discussed how nuclear bombs are vital to our nation's overall safety and defense. The con-side of the group's debate expressed how nuclear weapons lead to harsh consequences such as: devastation, war, and nuclear winter. I felt that the pro-side held a better argument, since it is true that too much power in the wrong hands could end the world. Overall a nice video with a lot of acting passion.
This gorup adressed the nature of radioisotopes in nuclear weapons very much. The argument in defense said that they were important for self defense of the country because if we did not have the weapons and other countries got them we would have no way to protect ourselves. The argument in prosecution said that nuclear weapons create enemies and wars. They could destroy all life and create nuclear winters. I agree with the prosecution side. 640640
Although it was difficult to hear this video, I don't think the group identified the actual meaning of radioisotopes.
The defense argued it would be necessary for our defense to have nuclear weapons.
The prosecution argued the deadly and hazardous effects of having nuclear weapons especially if countries went into war.
The prosecution side mare more sense to me because the defense side lacked convincing arguments and the prosecution really showed the potential deadly effects.
The uniqueness of the radioisotope was discussed in some sense like what a nuclear weapon is and thier effects, but what happens to the radioisotope and such was not discussed. The positive and negative aspects were discussed well though. The positive, or pro-nuclear weapon argument was basically that if other countries had nuclear weapons we should too just in case we are attacked we will be prepared. The negative, or con aspect to the conflict was more dynamic. Reasons to aviod nuclear weapons would be the loss of many lives and effects on nearby humans for generations to come, a very long nuclear winter, and an increased number of enemies. I agree their is not a real need for nuclear weapons as it destroys an entire area plus a radius of environment, ecosystems, and kills everyone there.
The group did not explain the unique nature of a radioisotope. The Defense of Nclear weapons stated that the weapons are necessatry for the nations defense. The weapons allow for an advantage over those who do not have them, or to compete with others that do. The prosectution believed there were too many negatives to nuclear weapons. The weapons would creat more hostility to our nation. From a nuclear explosion, all life would be obliterated. I believe the people in favor of no nuclear weapons had a stronger argument, the risks outweigh the benefits.
This group somewhat addressed the unique nature of a radioisotope but not totally. There was a lot of talk about nuclear weapons but it lacked a very clear explanation as to what exactly a nuclear weapon is. Though they did not totally explain what it is they did explain how it works. Arguements in the defense of nuclear weapons that are very crucial are, that nuclear weapons are very important to our seld defense and if this country was attacked, nuclear weapons would allow us to retaliate. The downfalls of nuclear weapons are that they kill any people or animals within a certain radius because of the radiation put into the air. Also nuclear weapons could cause the U.S to have more enemies because countries willl fear us or want our weapons. I feel that the world world be better without nuclear weapons because then if there was a war people could only die through tradition warfare ways and they would not died from radiation when they are miles away from battle.
Although I could not hear the video too well, I am fairly certain that the group did not address the unique nature of radioisotopes for this particular technology to exist. The defense stated that the reason why we should have nuclear technology is so we can be well protected against other countries. However, the defense said that having nuclear weapons could make us a prime target. The defense also said that nuclear weapons could destroy whole cities, and ultimatly human life. I am in favor of the defense and say that nuclear weapons should not be used. They have too much ability for total destruction.
This group had a very tiny description of how the nuclear bomb works but nothing about what radio isotopes do after the explosion. The defense said that its necesarry to have nuclear weapontry to have a trump over the enemies. The prosecuters say that the tecnology is harmful to the environment and could just make matters worse when it comes to enemies. I agree more with the prosecution because its harmful to the environment it leaves harmful waste behind which causes cancers and if no one had the weapons we wouldn't need the trump weapon of that type of destruction.
The unique nature of a radioisotope was barely discussed. The advantages are that nuclear weapons are very important to our defense. It gives the country power over countries that lack nuclear weapons. On the other side, nuclear weapons cause massive destruction, destroying everything in a certain radius. In a nuclear war, nothing would be left, and more enemies than allies would be made. The negative side of nuclear weapons proved to be more stronger, as they are too dangerous for society.
This group did not specifically discuss the unique nature of radioisotopes and how they make this technology possible. The defense of nuclear weapons said that they are vital to our defense since so many other countries have them, and that it is good to have a trump card to avert nuclear attacks. The prosecution said that they are extremely hazardous to all life, they create the possibility of unnecessary harm, they could make more enemies for our country, and terrorist groups could get their hands on them. The prosecution is more convincing to me.
I think the group did not address the unique nature of the radioisotope. In the defense they argued that weapons are needed to protect us from another country if we went to war. The prosecution argued that it was harmful to us and the enviorment and negative effects to the country The argumentation of the prosecution made more sense because, to me he seemed like he had more info and more believable.
This video was quite unclear and the unique nature of radioisotopes was not discussed.
Overall the defense to Nuclear Weapons include Nuclear Bombs are quite important to the overall safety of our country. The prosecution tells us nuclear winter, war and devastation could be a result to this technology.
I felt the prosecution had a more convincing argument, as human life is threatened.
14 comments:
The group did not address the unique nature of a radioisotope.
Pro: They are vital to our self-defense. We could be attacked without repercussion.
Con: Everything within a certain radius is obliterated, nuclear winter, increase in enemies.
I felt the con side had a better argument
The unique nature of radioisotopes was not dicussed. However, the group did talk about how a nuclear bomb works and how the radioisotopes cause such a gigantic expolsion. Those in favor said that nuclear weapons are important in the nattion's self defense. By having nuclear weapons, we would have more power over countries that did not. Those against said that there are too many negatives to having nuclear weapons. They would create more enemies with countries that the U.S. gets along with now. No one survives a nuclear war; all civilization is wiped out. Furthermore, nuclear bombs kill all other life on the planet, such as plants and other vegetation, leading to a nuclear winter. I do not agree in making nuclear bombs part of the nation's defense.
I felt that this video lacked the expression and also basic explanation of a radioisotope's unique nature. The pro-members of the group discussed how nuclear bombs are vital to our nation's overall safety and defense. The con-side of the group's debate expressed how nuclear weapons lead to harsh consequences such as: devastation, war, and nuclear winter. I felt that the pro-side held a better argument, since it is true that too much power in the wrong hands could end the world. Overall a nice video with a lot of acting passion.
This gorup adressed the nature of radioisotopes in nuclear weapons very much. The argument in defense said that they were important for self defense of the country because if we did not have the weapons and other countries got them we would have no way to protect ourselves. The argument in prosecution said that nuclear weapons create enemies and wars. They could destroy all life and create nuclear winters. I agree with the prosecution side. 640640
Although it was difficult to hear this video, I don't think the group identified the actual meaning of radioisotopes.
The defense argued it would be necessary for our defense to have nuclear weapons.
The prosecution argued the deadly and hazardous effects of having nuclear weapons especially if countries went into war.
The prosecution side mare more sense to me because the defense side lacked convincing arguments and the prosecution really showed the potential deadly effects.
The uniqueness of the radioisotope was discussed in some sense like what a nuclear weapon is and thier effects, but what happens to the radioisotope and such was not discussed. The positive and negative aspects were discussed well though. The positive, or pro-nuclear weapon argument was basically that if other countries had nuclear weapons we should too just in case we are attacked we will be prepared. The negative, or con aspect to the conflict was more dynamic. Reasons to aviod nuclear weapons would be the loss of many lives and effects on nearby humans for generations to come, a very long nuclear winter, and an increased number of enemies. I agree their is not a real need for nuclear weapons as it destroys an entire area plus a radius of environment, ecosystems, and kills everyone there.
The group did not explain the unique nature of a radioisotope. The Defense of Nclear weapons stated that the weapons are necessatry for the nations defense. The weapons allow for an advantage over those who do not have them, or to compete with others that do. The prosectution believed there were too many negatives to nuclear weapons. The weapons would creat more hostility to our nation. From a nuclear explosion, all life would be obliterated. I believe the people in favor of no nuclear weapons had a stronger argument, the risks outweigh the benefits.
This group somewhat addressed the unique nature of a radioisotope but not totally. There was a lot of talk about nuclear weapons but it lacked a very clear explanation as to what exactly a nuclear weapon is. Though they did not totally explain what it is they did explain how it works. Arguements in the defense of nuclear weapons that are very crucial are, that nuclear weapons are very important to our seld defense and if this country was attacked, nuclear weapons would allow us to retaliate. The downfalls of nuclear weapons are that they kill any people or animals within a certain radius because of the radiation put into the air. Also nuclear weapons could cause the U.S to have more enemies because countries willl fear us or want our weapons. I feel that the world world be better without nuclear weapons because then if there was a war people could only die through tradition warfare ways and they would not died from radiation when they are miles away from battle.
492400
Although I could not hear the video too well, I am fairly certain that the group did not address the unique nature of radioisotopes for this particular technology to exist. The defense stated that the reason why we should have nuclear technology is so we can be well protected against other countries. However, the defense said that having nuclear weapons could make us a prime target. The defense also said that nuclear weapons could destroy whole cities, and ultimatly human life. I am in favor of the defense and say that nuclear weapons should not be used. They have too much ability for total destruction.
This group had a very tiny description of how the nuclear bomb works but nothing about what radio isotopes do after the explosion. The defense said that its necesarry to have nuclear weapontry to have a trump over the enemies. The prosecuters say that the tecnology is harmful to the environment and could just make matters worse when it comes to enemies. I agree more with the prosecution because its harmful to the environment it leaves harmful waste behind which causes cancers and if no one had the weapons we wouldn't need the trump weapon of that type of destruction.
The unique nature of a radioisotope was barely discussed. The advantages are that nuclear weapons are very important to our defense. It gives the country power over countries that lack nuclear weapons. On the other side, nuclear weapons cause massive destruction, destroying everything in a certain radius. In a nuclear war, nothing would be left, and more enemies than allies would be made. The negative side of nuclear weapons proved to be more stronger, as they are too dangerous for society.
This group did not specifically discuss the unique nature of radioisotopes and how they make this technology possible. The defense of nuclear weapons said that they are vital to our defense since so many other countries have them, and that it is good to have a trump card to avert nuclear attacks. The prosecution said that they are extremely hazardous to all life, they create the possibility of unnecessary harm, they could make more enemies for our country, and terrorist groups could get their hands on them. The prosecution is more convincing to me.
I think the group did not address the unique nature of the radioisotope.
In the defense they argued that weapons are needed to protect us from another country if we went to war.
The prosecution argued that it was harmful to us and the enviorment and negative effects to the country
The argumentation of the prosecution made more sense because, to me he seemed like he had more info and more believable.
This video was quite unclear and the unique nature of radioisotopes was not discussed.
Overall the defense to Nuclear Weapons include Nuclear Bombs are quite important to the overall safety of our country. The prosecution tells us nuclear winter, war and devastation could be a result to this technology.
I felt the prosecution had a more convincing argument, as human life is threatened.
798320
Post a Comment