The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Winning
34 Points
The Contender
Johnicle
Con (against)
Losing
16 Points

It's time we set the moon alight.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/21/2008 Category: Science
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,671 times Debate No: 5765
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (9)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

Most people have seen footage of the lunar landings, but how many people have wondered why the astronauts didn't celebrate their safe arrival by lighting up a well-deserved cigarette?

Well, here's the reason: the moon's surface is highly flammable. A carelessly discarded cigarette could easily set the lunar soil alight. That's because it's composed of large amounts of oxygen (42%), aluminium (7%) and magnesium (6%), which as every chemistry student knows, makes a highly volatile combination of elements.

http://www.permanent.com...

Obviously, a major fire on the surface of the moon would have spelt disaster for the Apollo missions, but what if we launched some thermo-nuclear missiles at the moon and set it on fire today?

The answer is that it would be of great advantage to mankind.

Apart from being a bit of a laugh (which is just what we need in these times of economic gloom) it'll mean it will be light at night, which will bring the following benefits:

1. Enable more crops to be grown, thus alleviating world hunger;
2. Reduce energy consumption, thus helping the environment;
3. Cut crimes which generally take place in the hours of darkness.

Since any pollution caused by this extra-terrestrial bonfire would just dissipate into the emptiness of space, no harm can come of setting the moon alight, and we've got plenty of spare nuclear missiles, so what are we waiting for?
Johnicle

Con

There are multiple problems with your analysis and I will construct my case by pointing them out:

First, however, my points:

1) There is no net-benefit.
-What is the point of blowing up our moon when there is so much education and beauty yet to be enjoyed by it? I would probably get more entertainment from seeing a big flaming ball, but how long would it last? I don't want to be the one to tell my son or daughter that we used to have a big star (even though a moon isn't a star), until we blew it up for a few days of entertainment.

2) Russia (or anyone for that matter) could confuse the launch at the moon as a launch against them.
-Just like the cold war, if any missiles start flying far distances, this could be mistaken for an attack. A nuclear attack would be deadly!

3) This would complete the statement that Americans are selfish.
-By US making this decision, it leaves out all of the other countries. This furthers the proof that we are selfish and doesn't care about how other people think. There is no way we could get the hundreds of countries to buy into this destroying the moon. Thus the international tension would only increase.

4) Muslims worship Allah, AKA the Moon God
-Um… I don't think I need to explain how much more tension could be between America and the general Muslim faith. However, I will explain it anyway. IT WOULD BE BAD!

5) Any miscalculation could mean seeing the dark side of the moon (side we can't see) tumbling toward Earth. It would be the cruelest ‘Now you don't see it, Now you do' joke ever. The Earth is nearly knocked off of its orbit by nuclear weapons let alone the moon. Any sort of miscalculation could mean Earth's gravity becoming too great and having it tumble towards Earth.

Now against your ‘benefits':

Against 1)

It would NOT equal more crops.
-I mean really? Crops take months to grow they don't just grow over night. Furthermore, they grow from SUN LIGHT which is different from a nuclear fire.

The moon is sometimes on the sunny side of the earth.
-Even if you can (somehow) prove that the nuclear fire would equal the photons that travel to the earth from the sun, you have to see that if the moon stays in its regular orbit, then it would only help half of the time.

---------Extension of the argument: Imagine if there were two flaming balls that you had to look at while driving!
-I mean seriously, if there was a flaming ball (sun) in the West and another flaming ball (Moon) in ANY other direction, it would just be another problem with the drivers. This would increase the number #1 killer of teens and who knows, perhaps a nuke war would come from that.

The fire would eventually go out.
Even if there could be a longer crop while the moon was lit of fire, it would be useless after a while because the moon would eventually seize to exist.

Against 2)

1) I would normally be so pushy, but I would really like some evidence on this point. I don't see the connection.

2) It would take a LOT of energy savings to make up for the energy required to send a missile to the moon. You have the fuel for the multiple launches AND the nuclear energy inside.

Against 3)

1) Cross-Apply how the moon can be on either side (light or dark).

2) Cross-Apply how the moon would eventually dissipate into nothing. Thus, any possible decrease in crimes would be temporary at best.

3) The ONLY crime that happens more at night is rape. The rest of them are on a more consistent cycle during light hours. So by your logic, we would be increasing crime. (I can find evidence if you push for it. I ask you to push for evidence that isn't the typical crime at night Hollywood aspect.)

In the end, what am I waiting for?... Actual logic for doing this OTHER than some random form of entertainment. There are plenty of other things that can give me logic other then blowing up the moon.
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for taking up this debate and also for being imaginative enough to dream up some spurious objections to my eminently sensible and socially beneficial proposal.

Even though the voters can see for themselves what a great, fool-proof idea setting fire to the moon is, I feel my opponent nonetheless deserves the courtesy of a point-by-point reply.

1. The moon is already well mapped and, furthermore, will soon be subject to an in-depth survey being carried out my a moon-orbiting satellite which was launched from India yesterday. All this information can be stored for future generations.
http://www.spacetoday.org...

2. The moon is huge and will have enough fuel to keep burning long after the Earth has become uninhabitable due to global warming, don't you worry about that.

3. Don't worry about the Ruskies or America's reputation either. All the nuclear powers could enter into a spirit of international co-operation, as is the case with the space station, and jointly develop and launch the moon-bound nuclear missiles.

4. Although it is true that the crescent moon is an Islamic symbol, Allah doesn't actually live on the moon himself, so Muslims will not have to fret about his house getting burned down as a result of my proposal. http://www.godallah.com...

5. The only reason that I propose to set light to the moon using nuclear weapons, rather than say, a can of petrol and a box of matches, is that the amount of heat required to provoke an exothermic chain reaction whereby the frozen oxygen trapped in the lunar soil is combusted can only be achieved by a nuclear explosion. The weapons will not, however, be powerful enough to knock the moon off its orbit. Think about it like a boy with a flamethrower standing by a railway track. He might be able to set light to the passing trains, but they will continue to travel along the tracks, albeit in big balls of flames.
http://www.mikeblaber.org...

6. The light from the burning moon will not be as powerful as the sun, but nevertheless, it will help plants photosynthesise, albeit at a reduced level.

7. Yes, the moon is sometimes in the same part of the sky as the sun during the days and not up all night either, but it will be up at night somewhere on Earth.

8. As far as teen-killing motorists getting confused by two flaming orbs in the sky at the same time, I would suggest that people that dim-witted shouldn't de driving in the first place.

9. We have already built the nuclear missiles and given that the escape velocity of the Earth is 7 miles per second and that the missiles are relatively light, the amount of energy required to overcome gravity and propel the warheads to the moon would be negligible in the greater scheme of things.

10. I have already conceded that the moon would not be up all night every night, but surely any reduction in crime is welcome?
Johnicle

Con

Johnicle forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
brian_eggleston

Pro

Arguments extended - let's torch the celestial son of a b#tch!
Johnicle

Con

Johnicle forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
I defaulted PRO due to forfeits.
Posted by PoeJoe 8 years ago
PoeJoe
Rereading this five months later, I think I'm going to change my argument from CON to PRO. Besides the fact that CON forfeited, PRO /did/ provide counterarguments that -- however ridiculous -- were undisputed.
Posted by Rickymadeja 8 years ago
Rickymadeja
What about the moons effect on the tides?

It's effect on our length of day?

If we just destroyed, the length of the earth day would be drastically reduced; effecting all life. and possibly making the Earth ininhabitabl.
Posted by PoeJoe 8 years ago
PoeJoe
Don't mind me and my mop.

Conduct - PRO - CON forfeited two rounds.
English - TIE - Minor mistakes ("if there was"/"survey being carried out my a moon-orbiting satellite") on both sides. Nothing substantial though.
Argument - CON - CON made several serious and practical objections. PRO unsuccessfully avoided them.
Sources - PRO - Only one to provide a source.
Posted by brian_eggleston 8 years ago
brian_eggleston
That's cool Johnicle...you have to get your priorities right!
Posted by Johnicle 8 years ago
Johnicle
I apologize for forfeiting... I have actual debate cases that need to be written + lots of homework + Kmart :( .... I enjoyed the debate tho. Thanks
Posted by mikaelthemycologist 8 years ago
mikaelthemycologist
If the moon did burn away (which i think that it would not) that would be very bad. You see, the moon helps keep the Earth on a 23.5 degree axis. Without it, the Earth would wobble. Also tides would stop. When the Earth would tilt it would change the climates of all many places on Earth. This would in fact, destroy the farming industry, and make growing crops nearly impossible. And an impact of a comet, might obliterate the Earth's orbit of the Sun.
Posted by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
Conduct: Pro
- Con forfeited two rounds. Also, Pro is absurdly hilarious.

Spelling/Grammar: Pro
- No mistakes on either side, but as per usual Pro has a special way with words.

Convincing Arguments: Con
- Con offered a number of reasonable and creative factors as to why we should not nuke the moon. Pro's response was not enough to negate Con's points.

Sources: Pro
- Pro was the only one to use sources, and they were relevent to his case.

Note: I laughed through most of this debate.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"
Oxygen? (or at least a high enough concentration of it) - Negative
"

did you even read the first round? *sigh*
Posted by NickyB 8 years ago
NickyB
How about the fact that you can't light a fire on the moon?

Fuel? - Check
Ignition? - Check
Oxygen? (or at least a high enough concentration of it) - Negative
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
brian_egglestonJohnicleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: I was surprised to learn that the moon is so flammable. I was taught it was made of green cheese. Thermo-nuclear fire is exactly what makes sunlight, so clearly crops would grow.
Vote Placed by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
brian_egglestonJohnicleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by PoeJoe 8 years ago
PoeJoe
brian_egglestonJohnicleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:60 
Vote Placed by peace-maker 8 years ago
peace-maker
brian_egglestonJohnicleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Rickymadeja 8 years ago
Rickymadeja
brian_egglestonJohnicleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Vote Placed by ournamestoolong 8 years ago
ournamestoolong
brian_egglestonJohnicleTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Vote Placed by Johnicle 8 years ago
Johnicle
brian_egglestonJohnicleTied
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 
Vote Placed by robert.fischer 8 years ago
robert.fischer
brian_egglestonJohnicleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
brian_egglestonJohnicleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:43