Resolved: Countries ought to prohibit the production of nuclear power
Negative
Framework:  I negate. My value is morality, the value criterion is utilitarianism. I prefer it for three reasons

1.            The nature of consequences at first lead to one’s own suffering but then creating more bliss for them in the future.
   Chappel, 09. "Consequentialism - Bibliography - PhilPapers."Consequentialism - Bibliography - PhilPapers. University of New York, 2009. Web. 18 Aug. 2016.         
   Consequentialism is the view that morality is all about producing the right kinds of overall consequences. Here the phrase “overall consequences” of an action means everything the action brings about, including the action itself. For example, if you think that the whole point of morality is (a) to spread happiness and relieve suffering, or (b) to create as much freedom as possible in the world, or (c) to promote the survival of our species, then you accept consequentialism. Although those three views disagree about which kinds of consequences matter, they agree that consequences are all that matters. So, they agree that consequentialism is true. The utilitarianism of John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham is a well known example of consequentialism. By contrast, the deontological theories of John Locke and Immanuel Kant are nonconsequentialist.

2.                    Independence of considerations of future happiness or life, death is ontologically the worst possible evil since it destroys the subject itself
Paterson, 03 – Department of Philosophy, Providence College, Rhode Island (Craig, “A Life Not Worth Living?”, Studies in Christian Ethics, http://sce.sagepub.com)
Contrary to those accounts, I would argue that it is death per se that is really the objective evil for us, not because it deprives us of a prospective future of overall good judged better than the alter- native of non-being. It cannot be about harm to a former person who has ceased to exist, for no person actually suffers from the sub-sequent non-participation. Rather, death in itself is an evil to us because it ontologically destroys the current existent subject — it is the ultimate in metaphysical lightening strikes.80 The evil of death is truly an ontological evil borne by the person who already exists, independently of calculations about better or worse possible lives. Such an evil need not be consciously experienced in order to be an evil for the kind of being a human person is. Death is an evil because of the change in kind it brings about, a change that is destructive of the type of entity that we essentially are. Anything, whether caused naturally or caused by human intervention (intentional or unintentional) that drastically interferes in the process of maintaining the person in existence is an objective evil for the person. What is crucially at stake here, and is dialectically supportive of the self-evidence of the basic good of human life, is that death is a radical interference with the current life process of the kind of being that we are. In consequence, death itself can be credibly thought of as a ‘primitive evil’ for all persons, regardless of the extent to which they are currently or prospectively capable of participating in a full array of the goods of life.81  In conclusion, concerning willed human actions, it is justifiable to state that any intentional rejection of human life itself cannot therefore be warranted since it is an expression of an ultimate disvalue for the subject, namely, the destruction of the present person; a radical ontological good that we cannot begin to weigh objectively against the travails of life in a rational manner. To deal with the sources of disvalue (pain, suffering, etc.) we should not seek to irrationally destroy the person, the very source and condition of all human possibility.82
 

One’s own moral obligation to do what is logically right is rational
Moehler, 16. "Michael Moehler, The Scope of Instrumental Morality - PhilPapers." Michael Moehler, The Scope of Instrumental Morality - PhilPapers. Philosophy Documentation Center, 2014. Web. 18 Aug. 2016.
3.                   A similar line of thought starts from the idea that morality is at bottom two things. First, abstractly, to be moral is to do one’s rational best to do what is objectively right. Second, more concretely, to be moral is to care about people. Now, rationality and objectivity are impartial; they do not favor one person over another. Hence to be moral is to care about people equally or impartially, so far as one can, which means trying to benefit people as much as one can. So consequentialism is correct.

Contention 1: The Economical Benefits
  Ramley, 13. "The Promise of Nuclear Energy." Vol. 410, The Energy Crisis: Reality or Myth. Sage Publications, Nov. 2013. Web. July-Aug. 2016.
Nuclear Energy is the most effective type of energy to use. The World Nuclear Association/WNA January, 2016. The Pakistanis assert that their nuclear expansion program is intended for the production of energy. Pakistan's plan to produce nuclear energy to meet the country's energy needs is similar to the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) findings in its study of Pakistan's electric power needs. According to the IAEA, given the high price of oil, nuclear production of energy is an economical substitute for producing fossil energy not only in industrialized countries but in developing countries too. That the production of nuclear energy is economical in any given country, especially in the developing world, is an open question. The capital cost estimates of nuclear reactors as determined by the IAEA ($437 per KW for a reactor of 1000 MW in the United States) differ substantially from the estimates calculated by the Center for Policy Alternatives at MIT ($700 per KW for a reactor of 1000 MW in the United States).1 

Extensions:
● If they prohibit the use of nuclear energy, when what will take its place, not in terms of power and electricity but in terms of economical developments, since it states here how it’s available to both industrialized and developing countries, perhaps offering employment in each one, reducing poverty. But the best point that it states here is that it can be a substitute for fossil fuel, maybe even perhaps conserve fossil fuel for later on and reduce the chances of global warming.
●
Contention 2: New Nuclear Technology
 Bullis, Kevin. "Safer Nuclear Power, at Half the Price." MIT Technology Review. Energy, 12 Mar. 2013. Web. 18 Aug. 2016.
A new safer, a more effective version of nuclear technology developed. Kevin Bullis’ article “Safer Nuclear Reactor At Half the Price” published in March 2013 told.  Generally, modern small reactors for power generation, and especially SMRs, are expected to have greater simplicity of design, economy of series production largely in factories, short construction times, and reduced siting costs. Most are also designed for a high level of passive or inherent safety in the event of malfunction. Also many are designed to be emplaced below ground level, giving a high resistance to terrorist threats. A 2010 report by a special committee convened by the American Nuclear Society showed that many safety provisions necessary, or at least prudent, in large reactors are not necessary in the small designs forthcoming. Since small reactors are envisaged as replacing fossil fuel plants in many situations, the emergency planning zone required is designed to be no more than about 300 m radius.
Transatomic Power, an MIT spinoff, is developing a nuclear reactor that it estimates will cut the overall cost of a nuclear power plant in half. It’s an updated molten-salt reactor, a type that’s highly resistant to meltdowns. Molten-salt reactors were demonstrated in the 1960s at Oak Ridge National Lab, where one test reactor ran for six years, but the technology hasn’t been used commercially.
High costs, together with concerns about safety and waste disposal, have largely stalled construction of new nuclear plants in the United States and elsewhere (though construction continues in some countries, including China). Japan and Germany even shut down existing plants after the Fukushima accident two years ago (see “Japan’s Economic Troubles Spur a Return to Nuclear” and “Small Nukes Get Boost”). Several companies are trying to address the cost issue by developing small modular reactors that can be built in factories. But these are typically limited to producing 200 megawatts of power, whereas conventional reactors produce more than 1,000 megawatts.

Extension: Nuclear power was too dangerous to use in the past, facilities have improved since then, bringing up extra precautions for every single possible type of security risk as stated in the contention, the opponent will state any other better, possible sources of energy used besides nuclear power, however, he also has to state the accountability that there are facilities out there with the precaution of any type of security risks, if he doesn’t state any of those, then technically I win over security, plus as it says here in the third contention about how before around the time of the Fukushima accident that the facilities produced 200 megawatts, now with new technology, can maintain 5 times the power. 

Contention 3: Reprocessing             Development
Suchitra, 06. "Questionable Benefits of Reprocessing." Vol. 41, No. 47. Economic and Political Weekly, 1 Dec. 2006. Web. July-Aug. 2016.
Nuclear waste can always get recycled by the right method and process.
“Reprocessing” by Amelie Rordy, July 2008. Fuel is reprocessed, as is that from UK, French, German, Japanese and Russian reactors, HLW comprises highly-radioactive fission products and some transuranic elements with long-lived radioactivity. These are separated from the used fuel, enabling the uranium and plutonium to be recycled. Liquid HLW from reprocessing must be solidified. The HLW also generates a considerable amount of heat and requires cooling. It is vitrified into borosilicate (Pyrex) glass, encapsulated into heavy stainless steel cylinders about 1.3 metres high and stored for eventual disposal deep underground. This material has no conceivable future use and is unequivocally waste. The hulls and end-fittings of the reprocessed fuel assemblies are compacted, to reduce volume, and usually incorporated into cement prior to disposal as ILW. France has two commercial plants to vitrify HLW left over from reprocessing oxide fuel, and there are also plants in the UK and Belgium. The capacity of these Western European plants is 2,500 canisters (1000 t) a year, and some have been operating for three decades.

Just recently, we even developed the technology to convert landfill gas into a fuel our fleet vehicles can run on.
Blocks:     (terrorism) “Small Reactor Designs” by Dr. Steven Chu (Secretary of Energy) in August 12, 2012 stated, Small light water reactors are designed to capitalize on the benefits of North American modular construction, ease of transportation and reduced financing, making them a good option for areas where large nuclear reactors are not needed. These designs typically are smaller than 300 megawatts electric and could replace older fossil-fired power stations of similar size. Designs under development include:
(Accidents) High-temperature gas-cooled reactors could be used for electricity generation, but they would be especially well-suited to providing process heat for industrial purposes, including hydrogen production. These reactors also could be used in the development of tar sands, oil shale and coal-to-liquids applications. The small nuclear reactors would reduce the life-cycle carbon footprint of all these activities. Designs under development include:
(Threats) Liquid metal or gas-cooled fast reactor technologies hold the promise of distributed nuclear applications for electricity, water purification and district heating in remote communities. Fast reactors also could provide sustainable nuclear fuel cycle services, such as breeding new fuel and consuming recycled nuclear waste as fuel, and could support nonproliferation efforts by consuming material from former nuclear weapons, thus eliminating them as a threat.
 (contention 1: Benefits)            My opponent will obviously state of how dangerous nuclear energy can be, however the one thing he can’t refute is the alternative energy source for nuclear energy. Definitely, wouldn’t be coal since it’s the dirtiest form of fossil fuel energy according to Legum, 13, not oil since it’s more dangerous and from the same article over 750 incidents occur, killing at least 60 people. The World Nuclear Association, 16,
WNA. "Javascript Required!" Chernobyl. World Nuclear Association, June 2016. Web. 18 Aug. 2016
each year at least 134 cases of nuclear accidents happen annually killing at least 30 people for each one.