I negate resolved: Countries ought to prohibit the production of nuclear power. 

Definitions
Nuclear power: power, esp electrical or motive, produced by a nuclear reactor. (The free dictionary)
Country: an area of land that is controlled by its own government. (Merriam Webster)

Countries in this resolution should be interpreted as not one or two specific countries, but generally why any country should prohibit nuclear power. 

Prohibit: To forbid by authority of law. (Dictionary.com)
Ought: moral obligation

My Value is Morality because the word ought implies a moral obligation. Morality is the degree to which something is right or good. (Merriam Webster)

My criterion is protecting life

Protecting life is most consistent with government obligations. 

Professor Goodin writes in 1990:
Robert Goodin, Professor in philosophy, Australian National Defense University, THE UTILITARIAN RESPONSE,
1990, p. 141-2 (PDNSS1636)
“Public officials are obliged to make their choices under uncertainty and uncertainty of a very special sort at that. All choices - public and private alike - are made under some degree of uncertainty, of course. But in the nature of things, private individuals will usually have more complete information on the peculiarities of their own circumstances and on the ramifications that alternative possible choices might have for them. Public officials, in contrast, [They] are relatively poorly informed as to the effects that their choices will have on individuals, one by one. What they typically do know are generalities: averages and aggregates. They know what will happen most often to most people as a result of their various possible choices. But that is all. That is enough to allow public policy-makers to use the utilitarian calculus. - if they want to use it at all - to choose general rules of conduct. Knowing aggregates and averages, they can proceed to calculate the utility payoffs from adopting each alternative possible general rule.”

2. Protecting life best respects each individual’s moral equality. Professor Hare explains in 1984,

Richard M. Hare, Professor of Moral Philosophy of the University of Oxford, (1984), University of Minnesota Press, Utility and Rights, p. 106-107
“It is hard to see what this could mean, except, in Bentham’s words, to ‘count everybody for one and nobody for more than one’ But Mackie attacks the utilitarians for doing this. It is rather mysterious that critics of utilitarianism, some of whom lay great weight on the ‘right to equal concern and respect’ which all people have, should object when Utilitarians shows this equal concern by giving equal weight to the equal interests of everybody, a precept that leads straight to Bentham’s formula and to utilitarianism itself.”

Contention 1: Nuclear power is good for the environment
Nuclear power has the lowest impact on the environment of any energy source because it does not emit pollutants or greenhouse gases

By David Biello on December 12, 2013, “ How nuclear power can stop global warming” http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-nuclear-power-can-stop-global-warming/

The low-carbon electricity produced by such reactors provides 20 percent of the nation's power and, by the estimates of climate scientist James Hansen of Columbia University, avoided 64 billion metric tons of greenhouse gas pollution. They also avoided spewing soot and other air pollution like coal-fired power plants do and thus have saved some 1.8 million lives.

Nuclear Power is environmentally preferable to fossil fuels. 

UCS, 2016 Union of Concerned Scientists, “The Hidden Costs of Fossil Fuels”, http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/the-hidden-cost-of-fossil.html#.V8L8W5MrJxg
Among the gases emitted when fossil fuels are burned, one of the most significant is carbon dioxide, a gas that traps heat in the earth's atmosphere. Over the last 150 years, Burning fossil fuels has resulted in more than a 25 percent increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. Fossil fuels are also implicated in increased levels of atmospheric methane and nitrous oxide, although they are not the major source of these gases.
Since reliable records began in the late 1800s, the global average surface temperature has risen 0.5-1.1 degrees Fahrenheit (0.3-0.6 degrees Celsius). Scientists with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded in a 1995 report that the observed increase in global average temperature over the last century "is unlikely to be entirely natural in origin" and that "the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate."
Climate scientists predict that If carbon dioxide levels continue to increase, the planet will become warmer in the next century. Projected temperature increases [it] will most likely result in a variety of impacts. In coastal areas, sea-level rise due to the warming of the oceans and the melting of glaciers may lead to the inundation of wetlands, river deltas, and even populated areas. Altered weather patterns may result in more extreme weather events. And Inland agricultural zones could suffer an increase in the frequency of droughts.

The condition of the environment has a direct effect on lives. 

15 MARCH 2016 | GENEVA, World Health Organization, http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2016/deaths-attributable-to-unhealthy-environments/en/

An estimated 12.6 million people died as a result of living or working in an unhealthy environment in 2012 – [which is] nearly 1 in 4 of total global deaths, according to new estimates from WHO. Environmental risk factors, such as air, water and soil pollution, chemical exposures, [and] climate change, and ultraviolet radiation, contribute to more than 100 diseases and injuries.

A relatively clean energy source is key to making sure the death toll does not rise. 

 Contention 2: Renewable Energy is too expensive. 

By Ashutosh Jogalekar on August 22, 2013, http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/the-olinguito-a-new-species-that-looks-house-cat-crossed-with-a-teddy-bear/

The study projected that the typical nuclear generator in North America could produce power at $50 to $75 per megawatt-hour, depending on assumptions about construction costs and interest rates, against $70 to $80 for coal-fueled power. Wind-powered electricity would cost from [around]  to $90, but there are limits to how much it can be scaled up. A megawatt-hour of solar power still costs in the hundreds."

The cost of renewables hurts the poor and increases poverty.

Bjorn Lomborg, APRIL 29, 2014, The Australian, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/renewables-pave-path-to-poverty/story-fni1hfs5-1226898730123

Similarly, environmentalists boast that households In Britain have reduced their electricity consumption almost 10 per cent since 2005. But they neglect to mention that this reflects [there has been] a 50 per cent increase in electricity prices, mostly to pay for an increase in the share of renewables from 1.8 per cent to 4.6 per cent.

Britain’s 3 percent increase in renewables caused thousands of deaths. 

Fuel Poverty: The Deadly Side of Renewable Energy July 16, 2015 By E. Calvin Beisner
http://cornwallalliance.org/2015/07/fuel-poverty-the-deadly-side-of-renewable-energy/, Cornwall Alliance

Over a decade ago, The United Kingdom began a rigorous policy of shutting down coal-fired power plants and replacing them with wind farms and solar arrays to feed its electricity grid. The direct result was skyrocketing electric rates across the country. The indirect result was rising rates of “fuel poverty” (also called “energy poverty”), defined as when a household must spend 10 percent or more of its income simply on home heating. That doesn’t include lights, refrigerator, washer and dryer, dishwasher, vacuum cleaner, television, computer, or anything else–just home heating, just in the months when it’s required. And the result of increased fuel poverty was increased “excess winter deaths” (EWD). Don’t misunderstand. EWDs are normal—they’re the excess deaths that occur in winter months compared with the rest of the year simply because colder weather weakens people’s immune systems, so people already vulnerable (the elderly, those with life-threatening chronic diseases, etc.) are more likely to die in cold than in warm weather. Ordinary EWDs like these usually shorten someone’s life only by days or weeks. But fuel poverty-driven EWDs are different. They’re excess winter deaths that wouldn’t have occurred except that those who die couldn’t afford to heat their homes. Had they been able to, they might have lived for years longer. So an EWD caused by fuel poverty can rob someone of years of life. And that’s what’s been happening all over England and Wales. Last winter saw an estimated 40,000 EWDs, the most since 1999–2000 (48,440) and topping the flu-induced spike of 2008–9 (36,450). In each of the last five winters, England and Wales recorded an average of about 27,860 EWDs. Research by the World Health Organization concludes that from 30 to 40 percent of EWDs in Europe and Great Britain over that period are attributable to fuel poverty. If that is so, then fuel poverty caused an average of 8,358 to 11,144 deaths in each of those winters in England and Wales alone.

Remember that these deaths that happened in a single winter was the result of a 3% increase in the share of renewables in one country. Imagine the death toll that would result from a entire shift to renewables.