Can we live on the moon by 2025?
Debate Rounds (4)
Before I start my first argument, I want to make it clear that when I say "we", I mean the common people. It doesn't refer to astronauts.
First of all, we don't have the technology. No human being has gone even to Mars. How can we live in the moon in ten years? No one is even going to the moon. I know we have advanced greatly but we can't live on the moon in ten years.
Also, living does not mean staying for a few months. We have to make sure we can live there for centuries. Can we really do that? Isn't it better to live in a habitat the most similar to earth, like mars?
Finally, we do not have financial ability. Making a place to live on the moon would take trillions of dollars. Does America have the ability to invest in it? The US already has 17 trillion dollars of debt. Plus, dealing with issues like Ebola and ISIS is going to take a lot of money. The US can’t focus on trying to build a city on the moon. Can you make a city on the moon in 10 years? Even the ISS took almost 20 years to make and still they didn’t finish. No, we can’t live on the moon by 2025.
Thanks for reading my argument and wish good luck to Pro.
In rebuttal to your statement "we don't have the technology", yes we do. The only reason we haven't been back there since 14 December 1972 is that it is a huge financial cost with very little return. Of course if someone wealthy enough paid all expenses then yes, they could definitely go live on the moon, they would just have to wait for everything to be built.
In response to "Also, living does not mean staying for a few months. We have to make sure we can live there for centuries." Most of the Earth's population is less than a century old. Does that mean we haven't lived on Earth? I spent approximately two years in India, but no one has ever said that technically I never lived there.
Con's final paragraph with arguments seems to have a very closed world view. There are 196 countries in the world today , and yet con seems to think it only possible that the one in which he presumably lives in would have any input into going to live on the moon. It also does not necessarily have to be a country that spends the money, a company or wealthy individual could chose to do so instead.
" The US already has 17 trillion dollars of debt."
This is true, but seems to point to the fact that it is a country willing to spend a lot more than it actually has. This would, if anything, make it more likely to attempt to inhabit the moon sooner rather than later.
Con also brings up Ebola. " Prof Chris Witty of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine says the epidemic has already peaked in Guinea and will hopefully begin to decline across other countries in the near future."  This makes it seem unlikely that Ebola will be such a big issue that far in the future.
"Can you make a city on the moon in 10 years?" Hypothetically this would be possible, however the building of a city is not what is being discussed. You can for instance say that a hermit lives in the wilderness, but by definition he also lives in isolation.
Finally I would like to point out that "we can" does not equal "we will". I could argue that I can jump in front of a car next time I am crossing the road if I want to do so, however you will no that do so I haven't when I post my next round.
You said we have the technology. Can you point out how we can get to the moon and build a "house" with the adequate air, food, and water in ten years? The house not only has to be habitable, but it needs to be comfortable becuase the common people won't be trained as astronauts.
We need to make sure we can live on the moon for centuries because should the earth become inhabitable, we have to move there permanently.  We have to make sure we can survive on the moon.
I brought up the US because so far the United States is the most technologically advanced country in the world since the 19th century.  Plus, the US sent the first men to the moon. While Russia, India, and China are advancing in space technologically, the United States is in the best position to build a "house" on the moon. You also mentioned companies or wealthy individuals. Do they have the money and the technology? Plus, the earth is still habitable. They would not be interested in living on the moon; they would rather be interested on investing on earth.
Can you tell me how it is possible to build a city on the moon when it is even hard to go to the moon? Please give me sources for that opinion.
If we can live in the moon, why won't we? Because it would cost too much???
First of all, the Earth is inhabitable, as this is a synonym of habitable . However if the Earth should become uninhabitable, it should surely benefit from early explorers already having visited the Moon.
" You also mentioned companies or wealthy individuals. Do they have the money and the technology?"
The word wealthy should give you the answer to the first question, and I will put a link to privately owned space companies with the other links.
"Plus, the earth is still habitable. They would not be interested in living on the moon; they would rather be interested on investing on earth."
It is simply false to say that people would not be interested on living on the moon. Expanding our territories out of Earth is of huge interest to many people, unpractical as it may seem. Many islands today are populated not because people were forced to leave the continents, but because they wanted to see what was out there. As for companies, there could be many benefits to them being based on the moon, such as the fact that in a 0 oxygen environment metal fuses together instantly.
"Can you tell me how it is possible to build a city on the moon when it is even hard to go to the moon? Please give me sources for that opinion."
You forget that we are not debating the building of a city, rather the living of at least one person. Even if someone payed to be flown to the moon and lived on the rocket, he would still technically be living on the moon.
"If we can live in the moon, why won't we? Because it would cost too much???"
First of all it is important to state we are talking about living "on the moon" not "in the moon". It makes a big difference. Secondly, yes. As I have said before, it would be a huge financial cost, and people are not yet ready to pay it. However the average income in most countries, including the US  is going up, so it is getting more likely that people will want to pay up.
Finally I would like to remind con that we are debating weather we can, not weather we will. If con admits we currently are or most likely will be able to within the next ten years, then pro has won, regardless of how likely it is that we actually will.
 'The next ten thousand years' by Adrian Berry
You said if a person was living in a rocket, that would technically be the same thing as living in the moon.
Living on the moon means directly on the moon, not floating in the air. That fact contradicts your other claims. Will wealthy companies use trillions of dollars trying to live on the moon? That is if they have trillions of dollars. We will not be able to live on the moon within the next ten years. Could you tell me a case where a company or an individual actually announced they were going to invest if it was possible technologically? You are arguing based on assumption. If the earth becomes uninhabitable, and we moved to earth, not all the earth's population would fit comfortably there. Plus, you need to make sure we can stay healthy there. Simply building a giant glass dome with air is not enough. We're trying to build a structure bigger than ISS in ten years on a place no one has visited for 40 years. And I assure you, building the ISS would be much easier. In order to build a house on the moon, we must repeat the process of moving material from the earth the moon like more than a dozen times. Can we achieve that in ten years, considering we start building this year? No, absolutely not. I think you are way too optimistic. We didn't even send a human being to mars! No, even though we might have the money and the technology, it just takes too much time. In 20 years, I quite believe it is possible, but it is utterly impossible in 10 years.
(It would be funny if North Korea manages to accomplish it.)
Living on the moon means directly on the moon, not floating in the air. "
First of all, if your rocket is landed on the Moon you would not be floating. Secondly if a rocket is on the moon then what ever is on the rocket is also on the moon, it would be ridiculous to say that it wasn't.
"That fact contradicts your other claims."
I see no contradiction.
" Will wealthy companies use trillions of dollars trying to live on the moon? That is if they have trillions of dollars. "
As trillions of dollars is merely an arbitrary amount that you suggested might be the expense I see no reason why I should prove that companies earn this much, however con might be interested to learn that "the top twenty biggest organisations gross more than $5 trillion dollars each year".
" Could you tell me a case where a company or an individual actually announced they were going to invest if it was possible technologically?"
 A company called Golden Spike is planning to "sell manned trips to the moon by 2020".
"We're selling to nations, corporations and individuals," Stern told SPACE.com. "Get in line " and I think it's going to be a long one."
As getting to the moon is the main expense, an individual could pay extra to be allowed to stay up their with supplies to last them several years.
"You are arguing based on assumption."
As I am giving so many more sources than con, I think it would be fair to say that the finger would be better pointed the other way.
" If the earth becomes uninhabitable, and we moved to earth (I assume you meant the moon) not all the earth's population would fit comfortably there. "
Whether or not the entirety of Earth's population could fit in the Moon is irrelevant to this debate. If such a situation were to take place it would be preferable to have some survivors than none.
"Plus, you need to make sure we can stay healthy there."
Healthy is a very non-specific word. If it means bacteria free then no one is healthy as  "You Carry Around Enough Bacteria To Fill A Large Soup Can". As there are currently no bacteria on the Moon, living there would be a sure way to reduce the risk of catching bad germs. Also  "More than one-third (34.9% or 78.6 million) of U.S. adults are obese" and the weaker pull of gravity would put less pressure on the heart reducing the risk of a heart attack. So while there are health concerns related to living on the Moon that need to be addressed, there definitely are also benefits.
"Simply building a giant glass dome with air is not enough. We're trying to build a structure bigger than ISS in ten years on a place no one has visited for 40 years."
Con is under the illusion that it is necessary to build accommodation for many people to live on the Moon before anyone can. This simply isn't true. What I am proposing is that it would be possible to build a small area for around three people to inhabit on the Moon.
" In order to build a house on the moon, we must repeat the process of moving material from the earth the moon like more than a dozen times. Can we achieve that in ten years, considering we start building this year? No, absolutely not. I think you are way too optimistic."
We only need do it once, making the rest of that section irrelevant.
"We didn't even send a human being to mars! "
Us not having gone to Mars has nothing to do with not having built accommodation on an extraterrestrial body that we have visited.  "The average distance between Earth and Mars is over 200 times as far as it is from the Earth to the Moon." This would make going there a much bigger event than going to the moon.
"No, even though we might have the money and the technology, it just takes too much time. In 20 years, I quite believe it is possible, but it is utterly impossible in 10 years."
Con almost admits that we have the resources, but says it would take too long. As he has not given any valid reason for why it should take more than 10 years, that argument should be dismissed.
We DO have the money and technology to send one or more individuals to live on the Moon. While they may not necessarily stay there for the rest of there lives, it would be long enough to consider it "living".
We CAN use these resources to build accommodation on the Moon by 2025.
The fact that there would be little economic return does NOT mean that we can't do it, merely that it would be less likely. Remember that my position in this debate is not that it is likely we will be living on the Moon, simply that we can.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by republicofdhar 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: I have to give this one to Pro. Con said several times that he "feels" as though it is impossible. I personally think it is 100% possible to live on the moon by 2025, if enough time, money and effort (I do not wish to understate this, it will be colossal) is dedicated. There is, however, no impetus, as Pro has acknowledged, to do this. Con makes this argument as well, but it says nothing about our ability to reach the moon. What I believe Con wanted to debate is "Will we / Is it likely that we will live on the moon by 2025?" The burden was on Con to defend his proposition that we are incapable of it with our current resources, without simply saying that he feels that it is "utterly impossible". Con also did not define clearly in the first round that he expects the beginning of a civilisation on the moon, rather than simply someone living in a rocket, as Pro addressed. Pro's sources included links to planned space missions, so I think his sources were more relevant.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.