The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

America went to the moon

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/27/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 580 times Debate No: 94144
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




One reason that we can prove that we really did land on the moon is the proof in the dust. In the video of Apollo 16 the astronauts are riding a moon rover and the dust that comes up from the tire is floating something that could not happen if it was being videoed on earth. Also the Rocks that were collected on the moon Rock Samples Are Universally Acknowledged As Being Non-Terrestrial. Which means they had to come from the moon.


So for the first I will use it as an acceptance. I will also briefly touch on the points talked about by my opponent. Finally, I will add just a few constructive points.

So according to my opponent, the proof is in the dust. This actually is not entirely true. I will give you one scenario which could be created here on earth that would allow this.

The Anti-Gravity Scenario
It is very possible for to create an anti-gravity scenario. NASA has done it plenty of times, and it could be reproduced to provide this effect on the dust as well as the wheel off the ground.

Secondly she touched on the rocks and I have three main responses, first off:

Where are the rocks?
It is very interesting that these "moon rocks" have disappeared except a few of them. We had over 350 rocks which we supposedly distributed to countries, but now no one has any idea where they are? This is very suspicious especially since the moon mission was very important to the US.

No source
My opponent claims that these rocks are universally declared extra-terrestrial. My first question to her is where is your source. She claims that they are universally recognized as extra-terrestrial, yet we have nothing to go off of. Maybe she claims that they are extra-terrestial herself but until we have professional evidence, this argument must be thrown out.

Fake rocks
The funny thing is, the few rocks that we do know the whereabouts of, have been labeled as FAKE. Let's take a look at the moon rock that was given to Holland by Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong. The supposed moon rock was declared by scientists to be fake. This is a clear example of how the mission to the moon was fake.

Now that the refutation is done, we will look at two specific reason why the moon landing was a hoax.

The American flag flutters in the non-existent wind
One of the most famous photos of the moon the American flag next to the astronaut. But something is wrong. The American flag is in a breeze, and there is NO breeze on the moon. To check out the photo, click on this link. This is just one way of proving the moon landing hoax

Van Allen Radiation Belt
In order to get to the moon, the astronauts would have had to cross the Van Allen radiation belt. This would have cooked everyone of those astronauts on that spaceship. But what makes it even more suspicious is that they were not in the radiation belt for a few minutes, it was an hour and a half. This would have killed every last one of them.;

So in this round, not only did I refute both her points, but I also added two of my own which I hope will be refuted in the next speech. I eagerly await my opponent's response

Debate Round No. 1


The only time humans have crossed through the Van Allen belts was during the Apollo missions to the moon. The Apollo vehicles were traveling quite fast and only spent about 15 minutes in the most dangerous region and less than an hour total in the belts (each way). Their total exposure within the Van Allen belts during each leg of the journey was about 13 Rads and their shielding absorbed/deflected most of that. The Apollo crews experienced between 0.16-1.14 Rads during their mission.

My opponent claim that all the moon rocks were fake. They say "Some are just meteorites collected from Antarctica" others say "They were created in a Nuclear Laboratory." or even "Did you know only NASA people are allowed to study the moon rocks?" This is about all they say on the matter.Every meteorite has a 'fusion crust' around it that developed on its fiery journey through the Earth's atmosphere. None of the moon rock samples have a fusion crust. They therefore cannot be meteorites. If they were then why can't anybody produce a meteorite rock today that is chemically & structurally identical to a Apollo Moon Rock sample?The samples have been examined by thousands of geologists and chemists around the globe. Not one has cried "Fake" ever!


I would like to thank my opponent for a great debate so far, but this debate still goes to the Negative and I will show you why again in this speech

First off, I would like to repoint out that my opponent still has brought no sources into the round, rendering me with the arguments because I have been quoting professionals for every point I have made.

Radiation belts
If you go back and read the article I sited, the astronauts spent an hour and a half in this radiation belt. This proves my point, I have evidence to back up my statements, she has nothing. If you still don't believe me though, let's take a look at what NASA itself has to say about the Van Allen radiation belt.

Nasa admits it could not go through the radiation belt
NASA itself has admitted that it could not send a human being through the radiation belt without this human being fried or incapacitated. This simply proves everything that I have stated in this round. We have professionals and even NASA backing my argument while my opponent still has no one;

Rocks were fake
Once again, my opponent counters articles with opinions. "One who asserts must prove." My opponent has asserted much this debate round but hasn't proven it. She still hasn't shown where all the moon rocks are, and the moon that we do know where they are, are fake. She talked about getting a fusion crust, but all a scientist would have to do is determine what makes up a moon rock. There are four main ingredients (plagioclase feldspar, pyroxene, olivine,and ilmenite) which were not found in the rocks brought back.;

Silence is concession
Finally, in a debate round, silence is concession. My opponent has failed to talk about the anti gravity scenario whch she brought up and I refuted in round 1. She has still failed to bring up sources and talk about where the moon rocks even are. Finally, she did not even address the flag flowing in the non-existent breeze. Since my opponent has the burden of proof, if she fails to prove any of these points by the end of the debate, the Con wins the round.

I would to thank my opponent for an exciting round and wish her best of luck
Debate Round No. 2


The Lunar landings have been spotted by China"s Chang"e 2 lunar probe, the Indian Chandrayaan-1 probe, and various other independent (non NASA-funded) space agent. To celebrate the 40th anniversary of the landings NASA put together a series of remastered images and footage of the Apollo 11 mission. The images are stunning, and blow away the age-old criticism that the Apollo footage was somehow intentionally bad to obscure the fact it was filmed in a studio.


Well, in my closing statements I would like to point out a few things.

No evidence whatsoever
My opponent has continued to talk about things without providing any evidence. How are we supposed to know the Chang 2 lunar probe found this if she does not have any back up. Once again, "One who asserts must prove" My opponent has proven nothing to in this debate round, just here opinions

NASA stunning photos are not so stunning
One of the major photos shown in the 40th anniversary is the picture of earth from the moon. You can that pic here ( Stunning right? Not really. Where are the stars??? I mean not a SINGLE star. If they really went to the moon, why don't the pictures match up? It is because it was filmed in a studio. People would have noticed that the stars weren't where they were supposed to be so they left the stars out.;

Silence is concession once again
My opponent has dropped many arguments in the last round, Van Allen, fake rocks, non existent wind yet the flag is waving. We haven't seen responses for these and so the Con wins all those arguments and therefore the debate falls to the Con.

I thank my opponent for an amazing round and wish her best of luck in the voting stages.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by BigWhoop 6 months ago
Actually, some of the rocks were shown to be petrified wood!
No votes have been placed for this debate.