The Instigator
Krazzy_Player
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Dan4reason
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

Apollo 11 mission of the U.S is faked

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 5 votes the winner is...
Dan4reason
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/13/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,991 times Debate No: 48995
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (5)

 

Krazzy_Player

Pro

Resolution: Apollo 11 mission of the U.S is faked

I shall be arguing in favor of the above resolution. The BOP shall be shared. That is, I shall argue the above statement is true, my opponent shall argue that it is false and Apollo 11 mission is not faked

Rules

R1 is for Acceptance.
R2 is for Arguments and Rebuttals.
R3 is for Rebuttals.

No new arguments in R3.

A forfeit shall result in a full 7-point loss.

Thank you!
Dan4reason

Con

Thanks for this debate. Go ahead and make your case.
Debate Round No. 1
Krazzy_Player

Pro

Introduction

Apollo 11 was the space mission by United States which is said to be the first successful manned mission to land on the Moon, on 20 July 1969. The Apollo 11 space flight is also said to be landed the first humans on the Moon. Neil Armstrong (as depicted) became the first human to step on the lunar surface on 21 July 1969.The second astronaut to land on the Moon was Edwin.E.Buzz" Aldrin. However there are many claims that the whole of Apollo 11 mission could be a hoax or even some part of it. I'm trying to argue it may be hoax. [1] [2]

Space Radiation makes Moon trip impossible [1] [2] [3]


NASA produced a 30 minute online video, in which NASA space scientists repeat the comments made by Dan Goldin many times over during the 30 minute video, albeit, "We cannot visit the Moon or Mars because of deadly radiation beyond the magnetosphere, (500 miles from Earth)". Radiation plays a big part in space travel. Solar flares could have affected the astronauts at any time. The Apollo leaving Earth would travel through 2 specific areas of very high radiation called the Van Allen Belt. The first field is 272 miles out from Earth. The amount of radiation in the belts actually varies from year to year, but every 11 years its at its worst when the sunspot cycle is at its highest. And in 1969 to 1970 was one of the worst times to go, as this was the time where the radiation was at its peak.


The waving flag [3] [5]


Flag-Waving-Moon-Landing 9803 600X450
When the first moon landing was shown on live television, viewers could clearly see the American flag waving and fluttering as Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin planted it. Photos of the landing also seem to show rippling in a breeze, such as the image above which clearly shows a fold in the flag. The obvious problem here is that there’s no air in the moon’s atmosphere, and therefore no wind to cause the flag to blow.
The flag placed on the surface by the astronauts fluttered despite there being no wind on the Moon. This suggests that it was filmed on Earth and a breeze caused the flag to flutter. It is said that it may have been caused by indoor fans used to cool the astronauts, since their spacesuit cooling systems would have been too heavy on Earth.

Lack of Stars
[3]


<a href=http://history.nasa.gov...; />One compelling argument for the moon landing hoax is the total lack of stars in any of the photographic/video evidence. There are no clouds on the moon, so stars are perpetually visible and significantly brighter than what we see through the filter of Earth’s atmosphere.
Conspiracy theorists frequently point out that there are no stars in the Apollo photographs. Cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin, the first human to travel in outer space in 1961, commented that the stars seen from his Vostok spacecraft were "bright and clear cut." Conspiracy's contend that NASA chose not to put the stars into the photos because astronomers would have been able to use them to determine whether the photos were taken from the Earth or the Moon, by means of identifying them and comparing their celestial position and parallax to what would be expected for either observation site.

No Impact Crater
[3] [5]


Picture1
The claim goes as follows: had NASA really landed us on the moon, there would be a blast crater underneath the lunar module to mark its landing. On any video footage or photograph of the landings, no crater is visible, almost as though the module was simply placed there. The surface of the moon is covered in fine lunar dust, and even this doesn't seem to have been displaced in photographic evidence.
The fact there is no evidence of a pronounced crater beneath the engine nozzle of the lunar module (LM). Thus a crater should have been formed by the erosive action of the engine's exhaust stream. Pictures of the real site, however, showed no such crater, not even a big depression in the surface, as though the module was just “placed there.

Paralleling Events
[4]


It is uncanny the way that the production of 2001: A Space Odyssey parallels the Apollo program. The film production started in 1964 and went on to the release of 2001: A Space Odyssey in1968. Meanwhile the Apollo program also began in 1964 and culminated with the first moon landings on July 20 1969. Also, it is very interesting to note that scientist Frederick Ordway was working both for NASA and the Apollo program and was also Kubrick's top science adviser for 2001: A Space Odyssey.


The Coke bottle conundrum



The Coke bottle conundrum. As we know, food and liquids consumed by astronauts have to be specially prepared and packaged before being taken into the vacuous environment of space. So the suggestion that an everyday Coke bottle may have rolled passed the camera and was caught on film while Armstrong and Aldrin were out on the surface of the Moon, is simply too fantastic for words. Although common sense triggers a knee-jerk reaction to any notion that the Apollo 11 landing astronauts could have or would have smuggled a carbonated drink such as Coca-Cola to the Moon in such a ‘messy’ form, we should allow ourselves a moment to weigh up the real implication of this alleged sighting, that the lunar environment was faked, and the whole mission was a studio-based fabrication.


Technology [1]

Bart Sibrel cites the relative level of United States and USSR space technology as evidence that the Moon landings could not have happened. For much of the early stages of the Space Race, the USSR was ahead of the United States, yet in the end, the USSR was never able to fly a manned craft to the Moon, let alone land one on the surface. It is argued that, because the USSR was unable to do this, the United States should have also been unable to develop the technology to do so.

Samples collected [3] [5]



Why does this rock have a letter 'C' on it? There is also a 'C' on the ground in front of the rock. The use of the letter C on film props is well known by the people in Hollywood and is used to show where the centre of the scene should be. Thus it is not the actual stone collected from the Moon.

Sources


[2]http://rationalwiki.org...
[3]http://listverse.com...
[4]http://realitysandwich.com...
[5]Youtube video
Dan4reason

Con

Thanks for this debate. I will go ahead and address some of my opponent's points.

Flag Waving

The illusion of the flag waving is partially due to the fact that the camera capturing the flag kept moving. The astronauts also accidentally bent the horizontal rods holding the flag creating the illusion of the rippling flag in the photos (1).

No Star Visible

The Moon's surface reflects sunlight and the glare would have made the stars hard to see. They also filmed their mission was a fast exposure camera which would limit incoming background light. Pictures were being taken at 1/150 of a second and in that amount of time, stars would not show up (1)

No Landing Crater

The Lander's engines were throttled back before the lander hit the moon and the lander did not hover long enough over the moon long enough to form a crater or kick up some dust (1).

Letter C on a rock

Looking at the image of the rock in my opponent's photo, this "letter" could have easily been a natural characteristic. 'C' is a highly basic letter and can easily be formed naturally. What are we going to say next? The face on the rock is real?
http://www.debate.org...

Lethal Radiation

First off, let me point out that we send people to the international space station all the time and they don't die from the radiation. Also the Astronauts received one tent of one percent of the radiation needed for a lethal dose. Their exposure was 11 millisieverts and the lethal dose is 8,000. You need to spend four months in the Van Allen Radiation Belts to receive a letal dose. These are areas for especially high levels of radiation. These astronauts only spent an hour in the belts (2).

Technology

The Soviet Union Fell behind in the space race because they are not nearly as wealthy as we are and they didn't have the resources we did. Their program was in disarray and their directors kept getting fired. They lacked organization and quality control (4).

The Coke Bottle

If you actually look at the video all you see is some sort of flashing line in the sand. There is no coke bottle anywhere (7). Take a look at the attached video yourself.

Arguments for Moon Landing

The Soviet Union did not contest the landing. If the landing was obviously faked don't you think the Soviet Union would have been all over that (5)?

Also the fact that the pictures match what we think the moon would be like so well is another piece of evidence and the fact that nothing in the pictures can be used against the moon landing is evidence in itself (5).

If the moon landing was a hoax, a lot of people would have been needed to pull this thing off. Astronauts, photographers, bureaucrats, and people at NASA would have been needed to maintain the conspiracy. The fact nobody has come out to challenge the landing is rather astounding if it is a conspiracy (5).

Also, we had several other moon landings in quick succession. This is a far bigger conspiracy to pull off. We had six moon landings and it seems ridiculous why we would spend billions of dollars on such a hoax (5).

Lastly, I will give my Big Bang Theory proof. You can bounce lasers off reflectors which has been set up on the moon. This was "demonstrated" in the sitcom the Big Bang Theory (3). Check out the video. It is pretty awesome.

Also we can still see the flag from the moon landing from space (6).
https://www.youtube.com...

Rock samples are acknowledged by the scientific community as being non-terrestrial. There is no peer reviewed article that claims that they are non-terrestrial.

1: http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
2: http://ca.news.yahoo.com...
3: http://en.wikipedia.org...
4: http://www.astronautix.com...
5: http://www.askmen.com...
6: http://www.space.com...
7: http://www.theguardian.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Krazzy_Player

Pro

Rebuttals


The Waving Flag

My opponent states that waving flag is due to the camera capturing the flag waving,however we can clearly see that there is wind blowing the flag for few seconds. The moon has gravity, 1/6 as strong as Earth, to make that easy for the mathematically challenged, an object weighing 300 pounds on Earth will weigh about 55 pounds on the moon. The 1/6th gravity isn't exactly the 50/300 ratio that simple minds want, but to say the gravity is. The Earth's gravity is hard for many. All gravity is its acceleration, and things accelerate towards the less massive moon slower than toward the more massive Earth. If there were other reasons the flag wouldn't have moved like wind instead it would have waved slowly like in the lunar atmosphere.

Lack of Stars

There is nothing to do with the reflection, If we go by my opponent's theory then there would be no stars visible even on Earth. According to NASA reports, AApollo missions used Nikon F 35mm cameras with a special f1.2 aperture 55m lens in order to take photographs in low light conditions of the solar corona, Zodiacal light and other phenomena that are difficult to photograph in a terrestrial Environment. Therefore stars should have been clearly visible. [1]

No Impact Crater
Crater should have been formed by the erosive action of the engine's exhaust stream. The exhaust stream was strong enough or concentrated enough to excavate a crater, and can be proved scientifically. The transfer of kinetic energy from the engine exhaust to the lunar soil was sufficient to produce an obvious crater. This analysis is correlation between the energy of the exhaust gas and the volume of soil displaced. The energy of the exhaust gas has been determined to a reasonably high degree,the obvious crater must have been formed, If we go by to my opponent's theory, the shuttle would have been crash landed on Moon.

The C rock

If the letter 'C' was formed due to natural characteristic, then there would been huge differences, the clear 'C' shouldn't have appeared. We can clearly guess which is natural and man made. The picture which I produced in Round 2 is clearly man made.

Radiation

The period 1969 to 1970 was one of the worst times to go, as this was the time where the radiation was at its peak.The Van Allen radiation belts are doughnut shaped regions of space in the Earth's magnetic field that trap very high energy protons and electrons.A big staple of the HBs is the claim that radiation in the van Allen Belts and in deep space would have killed the astronauts in minutes during that particular period. They interviewed a Russian cosmonaut involved in the USSR Moon program, who says that they were worried about going in to the unknowns of space, and suspected that radiation would have penetrated the hull of the spacecraft.

Technology

My opponent claims the USSR fell behind due to lack of wealth resources, however this claim is totally false. USSR was the first to start Space missions including the first unmanned missions on Moon. The USSR technology was far ahead than United States during the period. They had many successful Space missions compared to United States. [2]


The Coke bottle conundrum

My opponent's video some what proves my claim instead of his theory. If you watch carefully Armstrong clearly kicks some bottle and can be easily said that it is no photographic light effect, besides what is the use of photographic light effects for filming the documentary of Lunar examination. Thus my opponent's video is not much use here.


"The Soviet Union did not contest the landing."

My opponent claims USSR did not contest landing. If this was the case how come they were the pioneer in "Space missions".
The Soviet government pursued two programs in the 1960s: manned lunar flyby missions using Soyuz 7K-L1 spacecraft launched with the UR-500K (Proton) rocket, and a manned lunar landing using Soyuz 7K-L3 and LK Lander spacecraft launched with the N1 rocket.

"Also the fact that the pictures match what we think the moon would be like so well is another piece of evidence and the fact that nothing in the pictures can be used against the moon landing is evidence in itself"

The main problem here is about that there are many defects in pictures and it seems liked faked. Experts have examined all the pictures taken and revealed many defects. [1]


"If the moon landing was a hoax, a lot of people would have been needed to pull this thing off. Astronauts, photographers, bureaucrats, and people at NASA would have been needed to maintain the conspiracy. The fact nobody has come out to challenge the landing is rather astounding if it is a conspiracy"

The fact is many people have questioned and NASA almost every time avoided those questions. As earlier in R2 there is not 1 or 2 but so many conspiracy exists and it cannot be denied completely.

Conclusion

I have provided sufficient evidence for many of the "Moon Landing hoax" conspiracy theories and they have not been refuted sufficiently. Lack of Stars, No Impact crater, the 'C' rock and many conspiracy about the Apollo 11 mission raises many questions and it cannot be denied.


Also, If debris from the Apollo missions was left on the Moon, then it would be visible today through a powerful telescope, however no such debris can be seen. The Clementine probe that recently mapped the Moons surface failed to show any Apollo artefact's left by Man during the missions. Where did the Moon Buggy and base of the LM go? [3]

Therefore even most of the Apollo 11 mission raises many questions including the video footage, photographs etc and there is a high percentage of probability that it is faked.

Sources

[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk...

Dan4reason

Con

Lunar Ranging Experiment and Photographic Evidence

As mentioned in the last section, we have taken photographic of the flag that was placed during the moon landing. There are a lot of nations that don't like us and would be happy to take a photo of the same area to prove that in fact no flag exists.

Also, as mentioned before, the astronauts left a device for bouncing lasers off the moon so we can take data on its movements. According to my link, all you need to do is have a good laser to bounce off the moon. Educational and Scientific institution have lasers and so do governments. Even the Soviets used these lasers. These are the people who lost the race and would have great incentive to disprove the moon landing.

He also did not address the fact that no scientist who has analyzed the moon samples have ever claimed that they were fake. Frankly, the evidence for the moon landing is overwhelming.

I do admire my opponent for making the best case he can but unfortunately, he never addressed my very strong evidence for the moon landing. He just rehashed some of the rather weak evidence against it. So lets look at some of this evidence.

Phantom Coke bottle

This is a really weak argument. If you actually look at the video it is very fuzzy. The supposed "bottle" is nothing more than a line of light moving around on the video. How do we get a Coke bottle out of a line of light? How do we even know it was a bottle? My opponent argues that this could not have been a photographic light effect because it would have no use, but what if it was some sort of glitch in a fuzzy video taping in the 1960s? This is like looking at some blip in a video camera in the dark and claiming its a ghost.

Phantom Letter C

My opponent claims that the letter C in the image could not have been formed naturally. No supporting arguments were given to back that up. The letter C on the ground is obviously just a curved shadow. The letter on the rock could have been some sort of curved formation, shadow, or scratch.

Killer Radiation

The only evidence my opponent gives that radiation would have killed the team is an interview with a Russian decades ago. That is not good information. In the last round, I actually gave statistics. heir exposure was 11 millisieverts. A lethal dose is 8,000 millisieverts. If my opponent want to claim that the radiation was enough to be harmful, then where are his statistics?

Soviets did not Contest Landing

The only response that my opponent brings is that the Soviets were trying to get a moon landing themselves. This does not answer the question of why the Soviets did not contest the landing if there is so much evidence against it.

Covering up conspiracy

I argued that six moon landings would have required a lot of people to keep a secret. My opponent's only response is that a lot of people have asked questions. However these are conspiracy theorists. Where are the people within NASA who had direct knowledge of what is going on?

The Clementine probe and no artifacts (new argument from opponent)

My opponent claims that the Clementine probe did not pick up any trace of the moon landing (although I have already shows photographic evidence of the landing). The source used by my opponent is ufo-aliens.co and its title is The Faked Moon Landings!!! The webpage has no sources and looks very suspicious. Take a look at the source (1).

It is impossible for an optical telescope on the earth to pick up structures 5 meters wide. The lunar lander would have been about .003 arcsecs on the telescope and the minimum is .02 arcsecs (2). Earlier I claimed that we do have photographic evidence of the landings. This was only gleaned out of some very good recent photos and was mostly shown from analyzing the shadows in the images (3).

The "Waving" Flag

I recommend you guys actually check out the video my opponent posted. They had rods holding up the tip of the flag. When they were setting it up, there was some fluttering but that was a result of moving the flag. The astronauts were twisting the flag pole back and forth to get it into the ground creating angular momentum. Since there was not enough atmosphere to push against the flag to reduce the angular momentum from the twisting, the flag will be flapping beyond when the pole stopped being twisted. That is what we see in the video (4).

Lack of Stars

The moon is much lighter than the earth is and is more reflective. Another consideration is that it was daytime on the moon when they took the pictures so there was a lot of light reflecting off the moon into the sky. And yes while they did use that camera, however the way that they used their camera limited incoming background light. If the astronauts had aimed a long exposure camera at the sky and let it sit there, we would have been able to see stars. Since they were taking pictures of each other in the bright white suits designed to reflect sunlight, the camera could not get a good crisp picture of them and also pick up the fainter stars in the background. This is why they used the camera to limit incoming light (4).

No Landing Crater

The engines were throttled back just before the landing so that is why the pod is not crash land. Plus keep in mind that the moon is a rock with a thin layer of dust on it. So even if there was a whole lot of exhaust stream it is unlikely it would have sheered away lunar rock (5). A lot less is needed to land on the moon because it has less gravitational pull than the earth does, as my opponent stated, 1/6 of earth.

Russian Technology

I have a source clearly detailing the major problems with the Russian space program. Their directors were being fired all the time. They lacked organization and quality control. Plus if the Soviets didn't get to the moon because it was impossible, then why didn't they challenge the moon landing? Why didn't they prove that there were no reflectors on the moon?

Conclusion

While there are a lot of arguments against the moon landing, they rely on very weak evidence and refutations are easy to find. There really is no way to refute my Laster Reflector argument.

1: http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk...
2: http://stupendous.rit.edu...
3: http://www.space.com...
4: http://ca.news.yahoo.com...
5: http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
I would have either voted in con's favor, or cast a null vote due to the strength of my bias in favor of the moon landing being real. However if the first option, possibly awarding sources to pro, just for making the case so strong (meaning 2 points to pro, but 3 to con).
Posted by JohnFrazer 3 years ago
JohnFrazer
Much has been made of pre-Apollo failures to get anything onto the Moon, and that the USSR was having similar problems. Note that while some Apollo missions were (supposedly) on the way, Soviet probes were also flying, and that the USSR had a deep space tracking network similar to the US. They could very closely track everything that was going on.
If it's agreed that the Space Race and race tot he Moon were "battles" of the cola dwar for technical dominance of the world, you have 3 choices:
Either
1) The Apollo missions were flown as depicted by NASA.
2) The missions were faked by the US, and they succeeded in spoofing the USSR into believing we had made it, and they shut down their own Moon program.
or
3) The missions were faked, but the USSR was in collusion with the US to make the public believe it was faked.. Hence the entire history of the last 120 years is fake, and the fake Apollo Moon landings were only a part of it.

Everything going on around and on the Moon could have been tracked by the USSR; a ship in orbit, a ship landed, the rover driving about, and the suits of the astronauts and any instruments they set up, were all broadcasting telemetry. For instance, techpubs are available online, and the ascent stage engine of the LEM had 1 separate telemetry channels, all broadcasting any time it was turned on.
So despite extra lights on the stage where they were faking the astronauts, and an air vent left on to make the flag wave, or a stage prop rock or coke bottle left sitting where it could be seen, the US faked all the radio traffic from the Moon in perfect timing and organization with what NASA live TV had going on in the stage.
The USSR had every reason to want to blow the whistle, yet apparently, aside from waving flags and stage lighting, we faked the really hard parts perfectly.
And somehow we didn't have technology to send people, yet we could fake all of this perfectly, back in '69. It's doubtful we could do as well today.
Posted by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
Ragnar
Does that mean your vote for arguments would have gone to Con?
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Been insanely busy... https://www.youtube.com...
First of all, for a debate like this next time I suggest a more attainable resolution; like "is more likely than not faked."

I admit there are oddities to it, but things like the coke bottle, why would they not re-film the thing after said blooper?
Posted by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
No those are my words. And the video which you are arguing made me say those words. That's video is just stupid.
Posted by Dan4reason 3 years ago
Dan4reason
Did someone break into your account?
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
No, I never heard of it until you mentioned it.
Posted by Dan4reason 3 years ago
Dan4reason
Thanks for the thorough review. Its good to see the effect of my arguments from an objective source. By any chance did you watch the Big Bang Theory video? I watched the episode from the video some time ago and it discussed the laser argument and that is the reason I knew to include it.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
RFD continued,

Con's case,

Soviets didn't contest moon landing- I didn't give any weight to this argument. Who cares if the soviets didn't contest the landing. Maybe they were fooled. Maybe the Russians were in on it. Even if they knew the landing was fake they might shut up about it, because fear would help with a public demanding more funding for the space program.

The pictures look how they should- this wasn't a convincing argument either. Obviously if it's a hoax an attempt will be made to make the pictures look like they should.

Massive cooperation- Here con argues that somebody would have squeezed about goading this. I just dismiss this outright. Patriotism could be a powerful motive for these people shutting their mouth. This argument just isn't convincing at all.

Other landings- here con argues other landings took place in succession after that. This is some weak evidence in my opinion. It does deserve some slight weight, because it shows some of the current technological abilities of the time, but legit landings don't prove a fake one didn't happen.

See flag from space- I felt like this argument was canceled out by pro's argument that the flag can't be seen from Earth.

Reflectors- this was very strong evidence for Con that went completely unchallenged.

Conclusion- Con gives strong evidence of the moon landing with his reflector argument. The weak parrelel filming and Letter C argument, don't quite overcome this one. Sorry Pro. Good luck to both of you in future debates.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
RFD,

I looked at the case presented by both sides piece by piece.

Sources were weak for both sides so I treated all sources as equally credible. Including the one from the alien site.

Pro's case;

Radiation- Con did a good job of showing that the astronauts weren't exposed to radiation long enough for it to be considered lethal or even harmful.

Waving flag- The evidence for this, just wasn't very convincing. There is about 100 different things that could explain the waving. Con gave enough examples of possibilities to undermine this piece of evidence.

Lack of Stars- I totally bought Con's reflection and brightness argument as to why the stars aren't visible in the photograph. The camera issue aside, even with the best cameras it's hard to see stars in those conditions.

Impact crater- This wasn't very convincing evidence either. When you take into consideration the hard surface and thin layer of dust on the planet, a lack of an impact creator is to be expected. Another piece of evidence con did a good job refuting.

Paralleling events- This wasn't ever properly refuted, but it's not that strong of a piece of evidence anyway. This piece of evidence remains in Pro's favor.

Technology- pro argued the Americans were behind the Russians and used less money in their space program. However, I found Con's arguments that the Russian space program was in shambles convincing. Not that it has to be. Other explanations could have just as easily sufficed.

Coke bottle- sorry it looked like a flash of light to me. I'm not sure what I was seeing there, but it looks like what con referred to as ghosting.

The letter C- this is some very weak evidence in pro's favor. It looks artificial but probably isn't. I think this is just one of those natural phenomenon, that our brain tries to make something out of. Con gave some explanations, that explained why the letter C could just be a naturally occurring thing.

Continued in above post.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Krazzy_PlayerDan4reasonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Easy vote to decide as Cons argument followed logical reason while Pro relied on believe me as it must be true statements with no evidence to back them up. A good argument is not made by appeal to unknown by then inserting your hypothesis without any facts. For this reason Con gets argument points. Source points go to Con, as Pro used sources that are not mainstream science and contradict current views that makes sense rationally.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 3 years ago
Actionsspeak
Krazzy_PlayerDan4reasonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had stronger arguments, and made better refutations.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
Krazzy_PlayerDan4reasonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: See comments for RFD.
Vote Placed by MrDelaney 3 years ago
MrDelaney
Krazzy_PlayerDan4reasonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con responded to every argument presented by Pro, but Pro did not attempt to rebut all of Con's arguments. Overall Con's arguments were simply stronger.
Vote Placed by Geogeer 3 years ago
Geogeer
Krazzy_PlayerDan4reasonTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Under a shared burden of proof it would seem that con has the better arguments. Being able to bounce a lasers off a man made object is quite a conclusive argument however it introduced after pro concluded his argument and is thus of minimal weight. That the Soviet Union did not contest the landing is better evidence along with the "Coke bottle" being an imaging artifact. Both debaters were civil and presented highly readable arguments with points being sourced.