The Instigator
Pro (for)
4 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Policy Debate On Putting Laser Ballistic Missile Defense System in Space

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/8/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,213 times Debate No: 22654
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (2)




Just looking for input on my case. Please tear this to shreds I really need to make this case better. Run topicality's (Topic is NASA should substantial increase funding to exploration into space.) K's, anything you want. For a quick break down...

Round 1: Opening arguments constructive speeches.
Round 2: Ask 5 questions to me and I'll answer them and ask 5 of my own which you should answer in round 3.
Round 3: Answer to round 1 points and second constuctives.
Round 4: Same as round 2
Round 5: NO NEW EVIDENCE only conclusions on why you have won.

Inherency [1/6]
The current BMD plan does not do enough to protect from ballistic missiles. And only benefits European countries.
James Jay Carafano, Ph.D. November 28, 2010
President Obama slashed the number of land-based interceptors planned to protect the U.S. homeland from ballistic missiles by 44 percent. Cuts included scrapping ballistic missile defense plan to defend the United States and U.S. allies against the threat of long- and medium-range ballistic missiles. These installations were to be completed by 2013. In its stead the White House elected to focus on more limited regional missile defense. Obama dubbed his "new" plan for Europe the Phased Adaptive Approach. In his effort to cheerlead for New START, Vice President Biden neglected to mention the limitations of this approach. Even if the Obama plan is implemented on schedule and at cost (questionable assumptions), Europe will remain vulnerable to long-range Iranian threats until 2020. The Missile Defense Agency is already two years behind the deployment plans.

Inherency [2/6]
The MDA funding has been cut substantially over this fiscal year.
Department of Defense, February 14, 2011
The Obama administration has released their defense budget proposal for the year. $10.7 billion is being allocated to BMD, with $8.6 billion going to the Missile Defense Agency. Just over $2 billion is apportioned to help implement the 'Phased Adaptive.' BMD funding says that $780 million will be put toward various BMD programs. Given the emphasis under the Obama administration on the mid-range threat to Europe posed by Iran—rather than any long-range threat to the U.S.

Harms [3/6]
If we do not create a space bound BMD System the impact will be out right nuclear warfare and the extinction of the human race.
Martin E. Hellman, 2008
Hiram Maxim, the inventor of the machine gun, declared, "Only a general who was a barbarian would send his men to certain death against the concentrated power of my new gun." But send them they did. Orville Wright saw a similar vision the airplane increased the ability to maim and kill. In firebombing raids on March 9, 1945, 25 percent of Tokyo was destroyed, 80,000 people were killed, and over 1 million left homeless.
History shows the folly in hoping that each new, more destructive weapon will not be used. And yet we dare to hope that this time it will be different. We and the Soviets have amassed a combined arsenal of 50,000 nuclear weapons, equivalent in destructive force to some 6,000 World War II's, capable of reaching their targets in a matter of minutes, and able to destroy every major city in the world.
Plan: The United States federal government should direct the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in cooperation with the Missile Defense Agency to develop and implement a space based BMD Laser.

Solvency [4/6]
This laser missile defense has been tested on ground before.
Missile Defense Agency, February 11, 2010
The Missile Defense Agency demonstrated the potential use of directed energy to defend against ballistic missiles when the Airborne Laser Test Bed (ALTB) successfully destroyed a boosting ballistic missile. The experiment, serves as a proof-of-concept demonstration for directed energy technology. The ALTB is a pathfinder for the nation's directed energy program and its potential application for missile defense technology. February 11, 2010, a ballistic missile was launched Within seconds, the ALTB used onboard sensors to detect the boosting missile and used a low-energy laser to track the target. The ALTB then fired a second low-energy laser to measure and compensate for atmospheric disturbance. Finally, the ALTB fired its megawatt-class High Energy Laser, heating the boosting ballistic missile to critical structural failure. The entire engagement occurred within two minutes of the target missile launch. use of directed energy is very attractive for missile defense, with the potential to attack multiple targets at the speed of light and at a low cost per intercept attempt compared to current technologies. a second solid fuel missile was launched and the ALTB successfully engaged the boosting target with its High Energy Laser, met all its test criteria.

Solvency [5/6]
Increased funding in the development of missile defense lasers would cause for a quick creation and development of space based BMD.
Shawna Thomas and Carrie Dann, October 13, 2010
"If there is a rogue missile aimed at our country, we have 33 minutes to figure out what we're going to do," Raese said "We are sitting with the only technology in the world that works and it's laser technology. We need 1000 laser systems put in the sky and we need it right now. the system would cost $20 billion. Ellison, the chairman of the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, said that lasers have shown great promise in the field of missile defense but - at least at current funding levels for the development of such programs the development lasers would be accelerated by Raese's proposed budget infusion.


----U.S. safe from EMPs

Carafano 09 (James Carafano, Senior Research Fellow for National Security at Heritage, written July 8, 2009,, accessed Oct. 31, 2011, AL)

The Commission expresses confidence in the Ground-Based Interceptors (GBIs) currently deployed in California and Alaska, with ten additional interceptors slated for deployment at a third site in Poland. This system has demonstrated some capability against unsophisticated threats and should undergo additional system testing to determine its effectiveness against more complex threats that include technologies intended to help in-coming missiles penetrate the defense (so-called penetration aids). Further development and deployment...should depend on results of these tests and on developments in the ICBM threats facing the United States and its allies.

----GBI operational since 1999 and still no problems

Maas 11(peter maas, writer for New York Times, Oct. 14, 2011, Get Ready, Here Comes The Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle; Star Wars Missile Defense: The Sequel,, accessed Nov. 1, 2011, AL)

Since 1999, MDA has conducted seven hit-to-kill tests. Five have been successful. The most recent was on October 14, 2002, when a GBI from the Reagan Test Site in the central Pacific Ocean tracked and destroyed a target vehicle launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California at an altitude of 140 miles and a closing speed in excess of 15,000 miles per hour. MDA plans to perform approximately 17 more hit-to-kill intercepts over the next several years. Due to these successes, the GBI program has received enthusiastic support from the Bush Administration and the Republican-controlled Congress. MDA is currently installing six GBI missiles at Fort Greely in Alaska and four at Vandenberg Air Force Base Over 20 interceptors are scheduled for deployment over the next two years.

Inherency 2/3

----Space Bassed Interceptors shot missles down on Earth not Space

The 11 (, accessed 6/23/11, AL)

Space- the region beyond the earth's atmosphere occurring between the celestial bodies of the universe.The density is normally negligible although cosmic rays, meteorites, gas clouds, etc., can occur. It can be divided into cislunar space (between the earth and moon), interplanetary space, interstellar space, and intergalactic space

----Weponization illegal under OST

The Outer Space Treaty was considered by the Legal Subcommittee in 1966 and agreement was reached in the General Assembly in the same year(resolution 2222 (XXI). The Treaty was largely based on the Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, which had been adopted by the General Assembly in its resolution 1962 (XVIII) in 1963, but added a few new provisions. The Treaty was opened for signature by the three depository Governments (the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States of America) in January 1967, and it entered into force in October 1967. The Outer Space Treaty provides the basic framework on international space law, including the following principles: the exploration and use of outer space shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries and shall be the province of all mankind; outer space shall be free for exploration and use by all States;outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means; States shall not place nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies or station them in outer space in any other manner;the Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used exclusively for peaceful purposes; astronauts shall be regarded as the envoys of mankind; States shall be responsible for national space activities whether carried out by governmental or non-governmental entities; States shall be liable for damage caused by their space objects; and States shall avoid harmful contamination of space and celestial bodies.

----New Outer Space treaty illegalizes wepons in space

Outer Space Security and Development Treaty of 2011 (page 9, accessed Dec. 1, 2011, AL)

This Treaty bans the “weaponization” of space. The “militarization” of space,

which has occurred, requires a new definition for the purposes of this Treaty.

Militaries already provide enhanced intelligence and communication, observation and

data sharing, and can help to pave a safe way for humans to enter into the universes and for members of Cosmic Cultures to enter the Earth sphere safely.

----Lockheed Martin Corp. is doing plan and has failed all 4 times

Mintz 97 (John Mintz, staff writer for the Washington Post, written March 7, 1997,, accessed Dec. 2, 2011, AL)

An anti-missile missile being developed by Lockheed Martin Corp. failed its fourth test flight in a row yesterday, clouding the future of the $17 billion program and illustrating anew the technical difficulties in the missile defenses envisioned by President Reagan in the 1980s. The Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO), the military command conducting the test, said it hasn't determined why the Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile failed to hit its missile target at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. "The interceptor took off fine and the radar worked," said Lt. Col. Rick Lehner, a BMDO spokesman. "It just didn't hit the target." Test operators then blew up both missiles by remote control, he said. "Preliminary indications" are that an on-board computer that prevents the missile from shimmying malfunctioned, Lehner said. The three previous failures had prompted mounting concern about the program inside the company and the Pentagon. Last month, Pentagon acquisition chief Paul Kaminski said another test failure in the near future would prompt a major restructuring of the project. "I don't think we're going to see funding for ballistic missile systems that aren't working," Kaminski told Aviation Week & Space Technology then.

----Wepons in space causes Kessler Syndrome

Dutt 11 (Varun Dutt,Post-Doctoral Fellow in the Department of Social and
Decision Sciences at Carnegie Mellon University,, written Oct. 10, 2011, accessed Nov. 28, 2011, AL)

According to a recent NASA report, the space around earth is home to over 135 million small pieces of junk; another 300,000 medium size pieces (between 1 and 10 centimeters); and over 22,000 significant pieces of trash (over 10 centimeters across). Over 30 per cent of the debris can be attributed to the US alone, reports NASA. In 2009, a US Iridium commercial satellite and an inoperative Russian satellite collided, spreading debris everywhere. A report by the US National Research Council (NRC) says that the problem of space debris is getting worse and has passed a “tipping point.” According to the NRC report, we are currently reaching a critical capacity, known as the “Kessler Syndrome” (named after former head of NASA's Orbital Debris Program Office, Donald Kessler), in which debris collisions create more debris, which, in turn, is more likely to hit other objects

Debate Round No. 1


Cross Ex Questions

1. If 5 hit to kill test have passed and 7 have been conducted. What is to stop the other 2 (failed test) from being the ones which hit and kill millions?
2. Where is the credibility in the source
3. are you aware my plan dose not weaponize space only defends from weapons in space?
4. are you aware I am using lasers to defend and not interceptors.
5. Is Lockheed Martin Corp. a government agency?


1. That's still a 29% failure range. You would need more tests to lower that #.
2. It's a dictionary source that everyone can view on the internet.
3. It's the same thing. There will be the same outcome as in World War 1 and arms races.
4. They're the same thing. You say they are destroying missles from space. So they are intercepting missles.
5. They work with the NAvy and Air Force in Defense. It's part of the air force so yes.

My questions
1. What's your inherant barrier?
2. How much will this cost?
3. Who is your advisor?
4. How many are you making?
5. How long will it take to build?
Debate Round No. 2



1. We need to cut funding on useless projects for funds.
2. 20 Billion Dollars
3. NASA in cooperation with the MDA
4. 1,000
5. 2 Years developmental time and 3 years to implement the plan.

Road Map

1. Answer to my opponent's arguments
2. Advantages

1. Inherency
a) My opponent offers no warrent as to why we are safe from EMP's and ICBM's but only shows that "The Commission expresses confidence in the Ground-Based Interceptors (GBIs) currently deployed in California and Alaska" Which will most likely leave the east coast open to all threats and shows no proof we are safe.
b) My opponent says that the GBI's work with no problem but the card itself says that 2 out of 7 test fail. When dealing with nuclear disasters you must have 7 out of 7. You can not leave any chance with the survival of the human race. And that is what the con wants to do. Also this is 20 one use interceptors while my plan is 1,000 multi use low maintenance lasers.
c) is not a credible source and all arguments from this source should be ignored.
d) To answer to the weapons in space argument I say first this is not a weapon and is a defensive mechanism to stop weapons use. Also I present this evidence...
Space is already used for weapons of war. Our plan purposes a way to protect us from such weapons.
The Heritage Foundation, September 26, 2011
Space is being used today for defense purposes. The use of satellites contributes tremendously to successes on the battlefield. There seems to be a cry against the weaponization of space, but it is already being used for these purposes. Intercontinental ballistic missiles use space to deliver their warheads. The world has 20 countries with nuclear weapons technology. When these nuclear warheads are placed into ballistic missiles, they use space for the delivery. For the national security of the United States, it is necessary to explore, design, and develop many types of space-based defense systems to eliminate the threat of nuclear missiles. Space-based missile defense systems are one key element to providing a missile shield against a rogue nuclear missile attack.
e) The Lockheed Martin Corp. evidence is invalid due to it being from 1997 and things have changed drastically since then 15 years later and there is a need and the potential.
f) As for space debris issue...

They Incorrectly Conflate The Kessler Syndrome Like A Japanese Anime – This Card Is From Kessler
Kessler, Johnson, Liou, And Matney 10 – Donald J. Kessler, Nicholas L. Johnson, J.-C. Liou, Mark Matney, Retired NASA And Current NASA Personnel, February 10 2010, "The Kessler Syndrome: Implications To Future Space Operations," 33rd Annual AAS Guidance And Control Conference, Online:
The Kessler Syndrome includes exaggerated components. , once initiated, "…. billions of other pieces [would be generated] in a very short time [and] the Earth would be surrounded by debris …. completely cut off from space." In general, collisional cascading is a slow process, but very much depends on the population density and size of the objects in orbit. Current population densities would require decades to produce a significant change in the small debris environment, and much longer to approach a condition where the Earth might be "completely cut off from space".

This card shows that this is a fake "fact" found in an anime and fixated.

2. Advantages
Great to protect against arms race
Stephen Peter Rosen 03 (PhD from Harvard University in 1979 and is currently the Beton Michael Kaneb Professor of National Security and Military Affairs in the Department of Government, Harvard University) Spring 2003 "An Empire, If you Can Keep It," The National Interest, , LN Academic, UK: Fisher
Rather than wrestle with such difficult and unpleasant problems, the United States could give up the imperial mission, or pretensions to it, now. This would essentially mean the withdrawal of all U.S. forces from the Middle East, Europe and mainland Asia. It may be that all other peoples, without significant exception, will then turn to their own affairs and leave the United States alone. But those who are hostile to us might remain hostile, and be much less afraid of the United States after such a withdrawal. Current friends would feel less secure and, in the most probable post-imperial world, would revert to the logic of self-help in which all states do what they must to protect themselves. This would imply the relatively rapid acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Iran, Iraq and perhaps Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Indonesia and others. Constraints on the acquisition of biological weapons would be even weaker than they are today. Major regional arms races would also be very likely throughout Asia and the Middle East. This would not be a pleasant world for Americans, or anyone else. It is difficult to guess what the costs of such a world would be to the United States. They would probably not put the end of the United States in prospect, but they would not be small. If the logic of American empire is unappealing, it is not at all clear that the alternatives are that much more attractive.

Advantage: Space BMD's Capable of Shooting Down EMP

No defense against EMP—need space BMD to protect us from collapse of America (would work well with an impact card that says US collapse = world collapse, I can't find one though)
Timmerman ‘8 (Kenneth R. Timmerman, journalist, political writer, and writer on weapons of mass destruction in the middle east, 2008 July 29th, Newsmax, )
, we have no defense against such an attack. We need space-based missile defenses to protect against an EMP attack Kyl believes that the only way to eventually deter Iran from launching an EMP attack on the United States is to deploy robust missile defense systems, including space-based interceptors. The United States "needs a missile defense that is so strong, in all the different phases we need to defend against . . . that countries will decide it's not worth coming up against us," Kyl said. "That's one of the things that defeated the Soviet Union. That's one of the ways we can deal with these rogue states . . . and also the way that we can keep countries that are not enemies today, but are potential enemies, from developing capabilities to challenge us."


1. my opponent stated that his inherent barrier is spending but here is a paragraph from Mastering Competitive Debate by Dana Hensley, "Money isn't an inherent barrier to solving the problem. If the only change needed to the status quo programs is additional funding then the affirmative is not inherent. Inherency must come from the structure of programs or the lack of Programs." As you see here my opponent doesn't have an inherent barrier therefore he isn't inherent and in policy debate the Con only needs one stock issue in order to win, but for the sake of debate I'll continue.
2. My opopent states that his plan will cost $20 Billion. In today's economy we can't afford that type of money. Here's some cards to back me up.

----Average Joe is rating econ as poor

The Economic Collapse 11 (Uh Oh: 90 Percent of Americans Rate Economic Conditions in the U.S. As “Poor”,, accessed Oct. 26, 2011, AL)

Uh oh – are we rapidly reaching another major economic tipping point? According to a new CNN/ORC International Poll, 90 percent of the American people believe that economic conditions in the United States are “poor”. This represents a significant increase from when the same question was asked in June. Back then, 81 percent of the American people considered economic conditions to be “poor”. To put this in perspective, only 11 percent of Americans rated economic conditions in the U.S. as “poor” back in January of 1999.The Federal Reserve and the Obama administration keep telling us that we are in the middle of an “economic recovery”, but obviously what average Americans are experiencing on the street is a different story. Millions of families have been absolutely devastated by mass layoffs, heartless foreclosures or bad debts. All of the recent polls show that satisfaction with government is at an all-time low and anger at Wall Street and the financial community is rising to dangerous levels. In the United States today, the economy is the most important issue for most Americans. When you have 9 out of 10 Americans rating economic conditions as “poor”, that is a very troubling sign.

a. Most of our nations enemies are in Asia so therefore we needed the missiles on the west coast instead of the east because we have no western nation enemy.
b. You have no evidence saying yours is better, you have the burden of proof and I have the burden of presumption so until you post evidence stating the accuracy of SBI then we can assume it's an utter failure.
c. It's a dictionary it's reliable.
d. Do you denny it's a lesser?
f. Your card is from 2010 but mine is from 2011. We should take my card over yours.
a. China is keeping NK under raps and the UN is keeping the middle east under raps we're the best nation in the world.
b. Do you Deniy the fact U.S. is a world power.

My Attacks.
My opponet drops the fact that weponizing space is illegal.
2. He states SBI have been tested but on the ground thus making it a GBI.

Debate Round No. 3



1. Why do you feel that this will fail in space?
2. Why is Cost not an inherent barrier
3. Is 20 billion dollars worth the human race? (Yes or No)
4. Is it possible the economic status has changed from 2011-2012? (Yes or No)
5. How do you plan to protect against a nuclear attack of the 500 weapons without this plan if one happened right now


1. It's never been tested in space only on Earth.
2. It's in the rule book.
3. yes
4. yes
5. Other countries have these systems so the even can shoot them down.

My questions
1. Do you reallize SBL are illegal?
2. Is it 20 billion total or 20 billion for all?
3. Do average Americans matter?
4. What is the U.S. military power?
5. What is the DOD yearly funding?
Debate Round No. 4


1. They are 100% legal you have posted no proof that lasers are illegal.
2. 20 Billion and everything will be done along with 1,000 built
3. Yes
4. In the plan they will run it (MDA)
5. $671 billion and cut 20% from 2011

Reminder that no new evidence or cards are allowed.

I have won on this because I have proven that there is not a current plan in my Carafano 10 card. this is my inherent boundary sorry I did not understand what the question meant. So as you can see I have upheld my inherency and proven the plan is needed.
My harms were left untouched meaning the con concedes global nuclear war is harm. With this in mind this means he agrees that a nuclear war will break out and kill everyone. Because I have protected my inherency this means that my opponent concedes to the fact that without something being done the human race will go extinct.
All of my opponents arguments toward my solvency do not mention this laser defense. So this means he must concede that lasers will work. Lastly he attacks the cost. But he mentioned in cross ex that saving the human race is worth 20 billion dollars and as i have proven this plan will save humanity so my opponent has already agreed that my plan is worth the cost.

Refuting Last Arguments
a. My inherent barrier is the current plan dose not do enough to protect the Untied States
b. My opponents card only talks about how people feel about the economy and has no warrant also in cross ex he mentioned it is possible the economy could have gotten better.

Answers to his answers of my answers(lol)
a. My plan protects us from every country that is why there are 1,000
b. My opponent did not attack their accuracy until the point where I could not make an argument to answer but in my solvency I mention this has been tested and works. Along with the fact that lasers can reach space as seen by long range lasers which can hit reflectors on the moon. It is just consecrated light and if the light of the sun reach earth so can this light.
c. Dictionary's are not reliable when they are online and unpublished.
d. I do not even understand what he wrote.
f. Not when the card mentions that the Kessler syndrome is just a fiction of a anime.
a. No card of proof
b. They are a world power and such require defense from missiles.

Answers to his attacks
1. I did not drop the point only mention THIS IS NOT A WEAPON IT DOSE NO HARM!!!
2. Yes. But not a GBI of the kind you are talking of.

he never answered sufficiently as to how the country would protect from 500 nukes. He only mentioned other country's would help but if they are the country's attacking us they will not help.


All my points are dropped, and all of his arguments have been dis-proven by me. I can not stress enough that this is a multi-use defensive laser. THIS IS NOT A WEAPON AND DOSE NOT BYPASS THE LAW!!!!! I have won this debate and I have proven that this plan is needed to handle the human extinction and my opponent conceded to many of my points.


I actually did bring up the fact SBSP is illegal (1st round)

Inherency- I easly won this. Why? He dropped the fact it is against the Debate hand book for funding as an Inherent barrier therefore he doesn't have Inherency. As Con in a policy debate I only need to win one area to win the debate, but for the sake of debating I'll continue.

Harms- Can I clue you in on something. Nobody uses Harms anymore it's just a brink for an advantage. Example: China won't give us more REMs, we should mine astriods, if we don't we have nuclear hollicost. Second of all the hasn't been a war involving a nuke since WW2 and we've gone through many wars and we're still here.

Solvency- I actually refuted this as well in my 1st round yet again. With the fact that the millitary has tried to do this but has failed all 4 times. You can't solve when something fails every time you do it.

Advantages- He dropped advantages after the 2nd round you can't do something without an advantage.

1. Countries can use this as a wepon. It's in space right. It's a lasser right. It shoots right. So what makes you think NK won't use it to light SK up.
2. He agrees so therefore since his whole arguement is based off of a couple pieces of eveidense they're now null and void.

I've won every stock issue and in policy the Con only needs to win one.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
Lannan always uses weird formatting.
Posted by innomen 4 years ago
My very first debate in real life, while in college, was on SDI circa 1983. No one would actually believe me if I told what happened.
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Lannan, you really need to post some sort of analysis after you read a card before diving straight into the next card. Without some sort of analysis, a judge can't tell a) how the card interacts with the resolution, or b) how the card interacts with your opponents case, which makes it near impossible to judge without arbitrary judge intervention.
Posted by a_holy_cow_pie 4 years ago
you could go for the "development" aspect rather than exploration, which is what you state in your plan text...
Posted by Carvar 4 years ago
Bomb that is exactly what I mean by topicality and the answer is EXPLORE MEANS TO INVESTIGATE, STUDY OR ANALYZE

Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Explore: 1a. to investigate, study, or analyze : look into <explore the relationship between social class and learning ability>

So this is exploration because we have never done this before and are only further exploring what we can do with space.
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago
How is this space exploration? Sending a laser system into geosynchronous orbit is not exploring space...this is a part of space that has already been explored. (I'm not so sure about the science behind this)
Posted by lannan13 4 years ago
I'm thinkin' about it. But my case in negation is to long backup the cross-x or somethin
Posted by Carvar 4 years ago
I am supporting the plan Plan: The United States federal government should direct the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in cooperation with the Missile Defense Agency to develop and implement a space based BMD Laser.
Do to the harm of nuclear war I say the plan must be activated due to the fact in the staus que not enough is done and my plan solves the harms.
Posted by Carvar 4 years ago
I am supporting the plan Plan: The United States federal government should direct the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in cooperation with the Missile Defense Agency to develop and implement a space based BMD Laser.
Do to the harm of nuclear war I say the plan must be activated due to the fact in the staus que not enough is done and my plan solves the harms.
Posted by RoyLatham 4 years ago
You should have a resolution that reads as an affirmative statement. I don't know what you are supporting. something like, "The United States should build an effective missile defense system." then list supporting contentions with the arguments and evidence. If you are just soliciting comments and ideas, use the Forums rather than a debate challenge.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
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 Checkmark--1 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 liked the Q&A spect of the debate. Pro's weakest point is that conventional BMD is effective enough. Con didn't do enough to press that. there must be some reason why the laser BMD was seemingly dropped after testing, perhaps con could have found that. Pro had annoying wall-of-text formatting, but Con's wretched boldface underlining was extremely annoying so much so it distracted from his case. Both sides should use complete sentences and avoid debate jargon.
Vote Placed by drafterman 4 years ago
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: I'm going to go with Con for the stated technical reasons plus the fact that using a weapon for defense doesn't make it not a weapon.