The Instigator
cafoltzy
Pro (for)
The Contender
Nordung
Con (against)

Did Americans ever land on the moon?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
cafoltzy has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/1/2017 Category: Places-Travel
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 1,033 times Debate No: 99514
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

cafoltzy

Pro

1st round=acceptance

The topic deals with the claim that Americans landed on the moon in 1969. I say they {we} never did (against.)
Nordung

Con

I say that Americans landed on the moon and this has many reliable sources to prove it.
Debate Round No. 1
cafoltzy

Pro

Thank you for accepting...

I want to start out by recognizing the date that we "landed on the moon." 1969... 1969! The first mobile laptop wasn't even made until 1981! To understand and invent such technologies that would enable us to explore space would have been years past the brain power of 20th century scientists and engineers. Not to mention having the ability to build an aircraft that can cut through Earth's atmosphere without catching fire and burning.

And can we also examine the whole purpose of getting to the moon? We were in a space race with Russia! It was the whole getting to the moon part that would stun people. Something America could do that no other country could. I don't want to sound like I'm trampling on the American government. It was just a bit of flattery between the different countries. And everyone has to admit that they like to be the best they can in everything. Even I do!

This is where I end my argument for right now. I have many other supporting details if you wish to continue on this topic.
Nordung

Con

Let me begin...
The computing power on Apollo's computers was actually quite ancient to that of the computers back then. Although, this is but one small factor in landing the aircraft on the moon, the computers were built in a way which enabled the radioactive rays of the suns to not damage it....Therefore, the size of the computers did not matter in the engineering and physics of the Apollo.
Your other point of ...
"having the ability to build an aircraft that can cut through Earth's atmosphere without cathcing fire and burning"
This was all based on the skills of the engineers and designers of the aircraft and the size of laptops back then are irrelevent to the building of the spacecraft. Furthermore, although this may be contraditing myself, all spacecrafts and satellites burn when they enter back into the atmosphere, but their materials (usually titanium) keeps them intact.

Back to Pro*******************************************************************************
Debate Round No. 2
cafoltzy

Pro

I want to start off by saying that the whole laptop was just a little comparison for lack of a better word. Yes, computers have been around before "we landed on the moon" but I'm talking about a laptop. A portable computer wasn't even made yet but somehow a humongous aircraft that could travel outside of Earth was? On to my argument...

So lets say Americans did go to the moon... there is still an unanswered question in the back of all our minds.... why haven't we been back? Yes, there are pictures of the moon and other planets but they are from robots. Not people. I mean come on, if they {we} really landed on the moon, why aren't we expanding on this amazing discovery? Why aren't there videos all over the internet of different studies involving the moon? Why haven't I lived long enough to actually witness a successful launch with people into space? I understand the expense involved in space travel but really... by now we should have gone to the moon at least one more time. So why haven't we been back to the moon? Did Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin confront a scary alien that told them if they came back it would zap the Earth with a big laser? I highly doubt that last part but then again if you think we went to the moon, you might as well start believing in aliens as well.

And to add to that expense part in the last supporting detail, how in the world did they {we} find the money for the fuel? If space travel is so expensive now, where did they find the money for fuel back then? For the external tank of a shuttle, I believe it costs around $376,389.58 and for the liquid oxygen, it costs $94,972.50. Plus the $1,380,000 for the actual rocket propellant. And these costs are even excluding hydrogen and oxygen used for cooling and other uses. So did they sell hugs for $1 to gain this money or did they conveniently win 5 lotteries? This whole launch to the moon must have costed somewhere around 200-300 million dollars. A small film produced by Hollywood may cost 650-1000 dollars. Which one would have been easier to pull off? You tell me.
Nordung

Con

Back in the Apollo years, NASA's budget was nearly 5% of the government's budget, but today, it is less than 1%. On this significantly smaller money budget, NASA is also trying to build their rockets cheaper, and safer, and also building them to hold more weight. On this much smaller budget, that is no easy task. Back then in the Apollo years, it was absolutely necessary for the US to spend hundreds of millions, even billions, to land a spacecraft, and humans on the moon. This was the national security at risk, as this was in the period of the cold war. Today, without a compelling reason that everyone can understand and agree to, it is an incredibly hard sell to get the resources to complete this huge endeavor.
Source: http://www.space.com...

Going back to the argument of the portable computer, we weren't exactly building the rocket to be "portable" right? Rather, the Apollo, was "a humongous aircraft" (Pro), and the size of computers back then is therefore irrelevant to whether a big aircraft landed on the moon or not. Also, third party evidence has already PROVED that Americans have landed on the moon, so basically , there is nothing to debate about to be honest. My source is Wikipedia and before you say that Wikipedia is an unreliable source, the page has citations for every piece of information, of which, all are reliable.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org...

Make sure to read this source before making any future arguments and/or rebuttals.

Back to Pro**************************************************************************************************
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Nordung 1 year ago
Nordung
Well said pro.
Posted by cafoltzy 1 year ago
cafoltzy
Nordung,

I do have a life outside of my computer and sometimes living it is more important than debating. I'll try my hardest the respond the quickest I can.
Posted by Nordung 1 year ago
Nordung
Strange, I thought that you would be more diligent in debating, but rather you have been inactive for quite some time....
Posted by cafoltzy 1 year ago
cafoltzy
sboss18.... mistake on my part. A bit of careless thinking
Posted by sboss18 1 year ago
sboss18
Why are you Pro if you're against the resolution?
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.