The Instigator
lannan13
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
Ore_Ele
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Resolved: The United States Federal Government should mine astoids.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
lannan13
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/28/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,344 times Debate No: 67588
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (15)
Votes (4)

 

lannan13

Pro

I would like to thank Ore_Ele for accepting this debate and having this rematch of my 3rd debate on this site 3 years ago on the same topic. Now I'll lay down a few rules and such before we begin our debate. This is our redo debate after a few errors that occured in our last debate.

Rules
First Round is acceptance and definitions.
Second Round is for Contentions, no rebuttles.
Third Round is for Rebuttles.
Forth Round is for Rebuttles and Conclusions. (No new arguments)
No semantics
No Trolling.

Should- Usedtoexpressobligationorduty (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)
Mine- a pit or tunnel from which minerals (such as coal, gold, diamonds, etc.) are taken (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)
Asteroids- any of the small rocky celestial bodies found especially between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)
Ore_Ele

Con

Alright, take two!

I accept and am honored to be able to pop the 300th cherry for Lannan.

Since the definition of "small" and "rocky" can be subjective, I believe a clarification for Asteroids is in order. It is also distinguished from Planets, Moons, Dwarf Planets, and Comets.

Here is the IAU distinguishing [1][2] since it established definitions in the mid 2000's.

[1] http://www.differencebetween.info...
[2] http://www.iau.org...
Debate Round No. 1
lannan13

Pro

Contention 1: Funding

The US governmental funding for asteroid mining is key, the International Space Study has found that with the current technology the US federal government must fund asteroid mining as they have found that the original investment period for the ROI takes to long for investors to see benefits. Thus the Private sector would lose interests. (https://isulibrary.isunet.edu...) Also at this stage in the game it is crucial that the US federal government funds asteroid mining, because throughout history the Federal government has funded new projects in the early stage in order to get private companies and competition against each other's going. Just look at the Panama Canal. The US will be able to get an early advantage over our foreign competitors in technology, raw materials, and new science personal.

We all know that the technology exists, but all we need now is a large sum of government funds to get the program off the ground. (http://www.scienceclarified.com...)

The Federal Government needs to be involved in the early stages of new projects to help get them going and to show that doing such a project is worth it. I turn to my example of the Rail Roads and the Panama Canal the Federal Government passed a bill in 1862 to help rail roads get a huge kick start and helped them get involved. (http://www.ourdocuments.gov...) This lead to the many rail roads popping up everywhere and after the government started breaking up monopolies they helped make riding the Rail affordable. As for the Panama Canal, it was a gold mine. it meant cheaper shipping and receiving goods faster. The thing was that no one wanted to do it due to the malaria in the region (just ask the French) and because the Federal Government stepped in there the project got completed and good became cheaper. (http://www.infoplease.com...)

Private companies do not want to chance it yet, because private investors don't want to wait too long as they think that they might not see a return on investments. In order to compensate the time that it takes. (https://isulibrary.isunet.edu...) So we can see that the United States Federal Government must kick-off the project here. NASA is a research and development organization so their production of the technology and oversite is very important as they are our nation's space administration and this is their field of expertise.

Contention 2: Why we need it

95% of the world's REM (Rare Earth Metals) supply belongs to China. China is starting to crack down on REM exports to the US leading to almost chaos. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk...) You may think no big deal, but if it goes any further it will lead to US crackdown on China and with the US trying to put leverage on the US China will most likely do the same leading to an economic down of the US and then China then the world. Why is this you may ask? It is the fact that the US is entirely reliant on China and the fact that China is also too reliant on the US if one falls they both do. We currently use Rare Earth Elements to make electronics from the cell phone you have and your TV to military satellites. We get a lot of our Green technology from them to like pollution controls, LED light bulbs, and Hybrid cars. (http://www.business-standard.com...)

Prices of REMs have increased by well over 100%. China, who owns 95% of the world's REMs supply has begun to clamp down on the exports due to new environmental regulations and their new crack downs on illegal mining laws. There will be a 48% increase of demand of REMs by next year and the shortages of some of these key metals are not helping the prices. (http://www.business-standard.com...) Others show demands are expected to rise by 60% by next year due to increased demands in electronics and hybrid cars. China is shockingly going to start seeing some supply shortages themselves and will either have no choice to hike prices or stop exporting all-in-all. (http://www.globemetalsandmining.com.au...)

Here's a fun fact of the day, did you know that the diamond mined in South Africa is practically worthless. The only reason that it is worth so much is that South Africa withholds a lot of their diamonds from the global market to increase their value. Much like OPEC and how much oil that they decide to export a year. This is what the US would do. The US would release small amounts onto the Global Market to create a profit and drive down US national debt. The US would keep the rest in the US where they would be made into different things or just stay in warehouses like South African Diamonds. Remind you that once we start this project that we will increase jobs by the thousands and create an industry worth over a trillion dollars which beats the US marine time industry. (http://www.space.com...) and (http://blog.chron.com...)


Contention 3: China War

We all know that REM are what we use in batteries, cell phones, and even military technology. So it is key that the wealth gets spread around. Since China is hoarding them the US could try to force China to give them up. This is very likely to happen since nation's in the past of done this type of thing. Look at Japan when they attack the US due to the US oil embargo on them. This will lead to a possible WW3 and this scenario is likely to happen because once you run out of REMs then you're out. (http://www.roitov.com...) This is a war that will hurt many nation and has a potential to go nuclear and the world will likely end due to this episode. (“The Asian Ascent: Opportunity for Peace or Precondition for War?,” International Studies Perspectives, Volume 7, Issue 1, Pages 36-42)Contention 3: Economic pay back!It's $195 billion per asteroid! (http://www.space.com...) Think about the trade of it'll take $2.7 billion to mine while the profit is $195 billion. With this kind of profit the US will be able to finally start to pay off it's debts which will increase trade interest with the US from other nations.

China has indeed stopped exporting REMs to Japan ("The new resource wars: what if china stops exporting rare elements?") Now imagine if China did that to the US. This would cause an inevitable resource war with China since, as I stated already, China owns almost all of the world's REMs. This would be terrible on the Global Market as two Trade Titans have a trade war over REMS. International Relations experts have warned against this stating that it would no doubtfully cause a War. We do not need to be reminded of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff.

Contention 4: US Deficit

The value of the US dollar is plummeting as the the US debt increases. (http://useconomy.about.com...) With the asteroid mining program we will be able to pay off our debt. How's that you may ask? It's very simple, the average asteroid holds over $100 billion in REMs. (http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com...) When we subtract the cost of $2.6 billion to mine it, lets round it up to $10 billion for transportation and refining the ore We can see that we can make a $90 billion profit from an average asteroid. US debt will be gone soon enough as the US will become the OPEC of Rare Earth Metals.

Ore_Ele

Con

I would like to thank my opponent again for this debate. I will get into my arguments of why the USFG should not be mining asteroirds.

===Here on Earth===

All the minerals and metals that can be found on asteroids are also found here on Earth, and in sufficient quantities for our needs [1], mining firms estimate that we still have thousands of years left worth of material on Earth. And we continue to find new reserves every year [2]. When it comes to the USA and Rare Earth Elements (REE or REM), we have over 1,300 years supply within our own soil [3]. There are countless more reserves within our oceans [4] and along the bottom of them [5][6][7]. With all these riches right here in our own soil and international waters, there becomes no need to look at higher cost and higher risk operations outside our atmosphere. Speaking of costs, lets go to the next section.

===Cost===

The cost to launch the Space Shuttle to space is about $450 million per launch [8]. NASA is making plans for future launching rockets, but even those are years away and will still be $500 million per launch [9] (hopefully). However, the Space Shuttle can only carry 7.3 metric tons [10] of material. So you are paying $61.6 million per ton of stuff brought back. Since this is before processing, most everything is going to be discarded rock, so you will only end up with a few hundred pounds of meaningful material for that $450 million, making it's cost way too expensive when compared to previously given alternatives.

The other option would be to contruct the entire mining and processing facility in space, so that the 7.3 tons that you can bring back are completely extracted and pure material. However, you still have to remember that you can only take up 7.3 tons at a time for $450 million. To build a facility would take countless trips and be well outside of what the USFG could afford.

===Better Space Options===

If we are going to be focused on Space, there are still better options than the asteroids. After all, the asteroid belt (when not counting Ceres, which is a Dwarf Planet, not an Asteroid) has an estimated mass of 2.4e21 [11]. But that is strewn over 380,000 TRILLION square kilometers [12]. That is less than 0.1% the mass of the Earth, spread across the surface area of 750,000,000 Earths. What we can do instead, is focus on something that we know exactly where it is and where it will always be. The Moon.

The Moon has over 50 times the material of the Asteroid Belt and it is much closer, making it cheaper and faster to get there and back. Over the eons, asteroids have collided with the moon, leaving their material strew all over its surface. Since the moon is geologically dead, that material does not get cycled back into the moon, instead, it just sits on the surface waiting to be picked up. Thorium scans of the moon (one of the REEs and an indicator for the presense of other REEs) show that there may be some opportunity there [13].

These various options show that we do not need to waste money mining asteroids, that we have plenty on Earth and when we do decide to travel further and more populatedly into space, there are better options than Asteroids. I will end with this here and pass it back to my opponent.

Thank you,

[1] http://www.wsj.com...;
[2] http://ireport.cnn.com...;
[3] http://www.usgs.gov...;
[4] http://oceanservice.noaa.gov...;
[5] http://www.nature.com...;
[6] http://www.mining.com...;
[7] http://www.upi.com...;
[8] http://www.nasa.gov...;
[9] http://www.space.com...;
[10] http://www.spaceflight.nasa.gov...;
[11] http://www.sciencedaily.com...;
[12] http://space-facts.com...;
[13] http://upload.wikimedia.org...;
Debate Round No. 2
lannan13

Pro

I thank my opponent for being so patient on waiting for my response. I would also like to say that some of his links are broken and if he would be so kind as to fix them for us that would be fantastic!

Contention 1: Here on Earth

The costs of mining on Earth are constantly rising and are soon expected to fall bellow the cost of mining asteroids. The International Space Developement Confrence has found that recovery and payback from current Earth mining is risky and we cannot expect full payback, but from the costs of mining in space are already starting to rival that of mining here on Earth. (http://abundantplanet.org...) Harvard agrees with this evidence as they find that mining in space will become more cost efficent and we will get a greater payback and save more money then mining here on Earth. (http://abundantplanet.org...)

Mining in the Ocean is slightly different, but is still terrible. It will destroy an already trashed ocean plagued by overfishing and oil leaks. We don't know enough about the biodiversity and our effects on them to fully understand what will happen here. (
http://www.theguardian.com...)
The mining of the Ocean floor has known to create leaks and radioactivity with harms the biodiveristy and the ocean life in the area if we preform this plan we will destory biodiversity. (http://news.thomasnet.com...)

Contention 2: Costs

As shown in my last Contention, costs of mining are starting to become cheeper than that of mining on Earth. As for the technology we are getting closer and closer with our technology. Scientists are already showing that humans can currently mine asteroids with existing technology and have said that the Engineering factors are not difficult. (http://www.scienceclarified.com...) Man has already begun to start mining asteroids as technology has started to have been done and brought back inexpensively as JAXA brought back samples for a very minisuel amount and the US has also done so with Stardust. (http://web.ebscohost.com...) Current technology can suffices as we could use STPUs (Solar-Thermal Purpulsion Units) to move around and to mine the asteroids and they dock with it to mine. They can also use the water from the astoid, which I showed in my preivious round, to also be used for their purplusion. (Optimal Architecture for an Asteroid Mining Mission: System Components and Project Execution., January 30th 2007) As for the starcraft's they have a method of returning. Simply by flying a tangent across the plane and dropping it into the Earth's atmosphere. This theory has been done and tested and has shown a positive success rating of 1,000 to 1. This is all by using the water on the asteroid for fuel. (http://bigthink.com...) and [same source as the last one])


Contention 3: Better Space Options

My opponent states that we can go to the moon, but asteroids are by far the better selection. Why's that you may ask? There is a great amount of LEO and delta-V asteroids that are way more accessable than the moon. Plus the moon contains a violitile surface which is metal poor. The Telsa Oribital Space Settlement and BITS have both done the math and have configured that no matter what that the costs of mining on the moon will not ever become cheeper than that of mining on Earth, however, they have found that because of the accessability of asteroids they will soon become way more cheeper then mining on Earth. (http://www.spacearchitect.org...) Another reason is that on the moon and on Ceres the gravity is much less than that of Earth's and because of that it is much harder and requires more energy to get more metals off of the surface. Not to mention that the Moon's resources are way spread out and deep undergound making it overly expensive. We can see that asteroids would be a better alternative and starting point to mining the moon or Ceres. (Science Clarified, How will humans mine asteroids and comets, 04-13-11) Scientists have found over 100,000 NEA and the numbers are increasing. (The Solar System beckons with resources unimaginable on Earth. Ad Astra, Volume 18 Number 2, Summer 2006)
Ore_Ele

Con

First off, let me start by saying that some of my previous links were not working because a space was added to the end of them. Here they all are again.

[1] http://www.wsj.com...
[2] http://ireport.cnn.com...
[3] http://www.usgs.gov...
[4] http://oceanservice.noaa.gov...
[5] http://www.nature.com...
[6] http://www.mining.com...
[7] http://www.upi.com...
[8] http://www.nasa.gov...
[9] http://www.space.com...
[10] http://www.spaceflight.nasa.gov...
[11] http://www.sciencedaily.com...
[12] http://space-facts.com...
[13] http://upload.wikimedia.org...

Again, these were for my Round 2. That said, let us go into Round 3.

I will address my opponent's arguments here in a separate order than they presented, so that it flows better on this side.

==China== (my opponent's Contention 2 and 3)

My opponent falsely states that China has 95% of the world's supply of REE. The fact is that they control over 90% of the current production, but only 28% of the world's known reserves [1]. Because of this, even if they do decide to crack down on exports (which will be addressed shortly) we have significant reserves in just the US to meet all our demand [2] and plenty more around the world [3]. Now, regarding the crack down on exporting. It is true that in 2010, China stopped exporting to Japan (as my opponent's source shows... in 2010), and they reduced their exports to the rest of the world... in 2012, as my opponent has feared. However just this year, er, last year (in 2014) China substantially increased their exports [4][5] because they like money.

My opponent also mentions the skyrocketing prices of REE (again, referring to 2011). Unfortunately, the recent history after that needs to be looked into [6]. While there was a massive surge in price because of what China tried to do (again, China had to back off that corning of the market), the prices quickly fell back to Earth, showing that the booming prices were nothing more than a market scare.

==Profits== (this addresses contentions 4 and 1)

Obviously, if it can be shown that there is no profit to be made, that negates the contention that it would help our deficit. First thing to obviously look at is that it is cheaper to buy from China than to mine our own land at current prices. If mining our own soil right here in our borders is too expensive, then traveling a million miles through space is going to be even more expensive. However, we will still address some of the "profits" that supposedly can be made.

First, my opponent takes about profit of water (technically, his sources do, and he is using their numbers) and claims that it is worth $20,000 a liter. Now, my water bill is pretty high, but not quite that high. This number is obtained because that is the cost to send water from Earth to the International Space Station. However, the ISS does not need 30 million liters of water from an Asteroid. It only uses about 1,300 liters of water a year [7][8]. So, you can, at most, save $20.6 million a year (since it costs $450 million just to get a single ship into space to mine that water, probably not the best use of resources).

My opponent pulls $2.7 billion to mine the entire asteroid with no sources to back that up. $2,7 billion will only get you about 5-6 shuttle launches carrying 7.3 tons of material each. There is no way that will be able to mine a multi-billion ton rock. The only options would be to either carry up a completely mining AND extracting facility (which we take countless trips at $450 million a pop) which would then let you carry back completely extracted resources. That means a trip would be $450 million for 7.3 million grams, or $61.43 per gram (not including start up costs that would be insanely expensive).

For comparison, gold is currently $38.25 per gram [9] and Platinum is only $43.40 per gram [10] and none of the Rare Earth Metals are even close to these prices [11]. So, yes, there is a ton of money in resources floating out in space. But just like it is not profitable to extract any of the 20 million tons of gold dissolved in the ocean waters [12], extracting the minerals from the asteroids is not profitable, and so, will not solve, nor help, the US debt.

I thank you and look forward to our final round.

[1] http://www.bbc.com...
[2] http://www.usgs.gov...
[3] http://www.nature.com...
[4] http://investorintel.com...
[5] http://www.reuters.com...
[6] http://www.businessinsider.com...
[7] http://science.nasa.gov...
[8] http://www.nasa.gov...
[9] http://www.goldpriceoz.com...
[10] http://www.bullion-rates.com...
[11] http://www.frontierrareearths.com...
[12] http://oceanservice.noaa.gov...
Debate Round No. 3
lannan13

Pro

Contention 2&3: China


My opponent states that the US has stated that China only controls about 90% of the Global Production of REMs. So let's observe the Global REM production from 1994-2013.



REE production chart



If we observe the above graph we can see tha China pratically owns the monopoly on the Global trade market as I showed in an earlier Round. It was caused by the Chinese beginning to sell REMs at a cheeper price than that of what the US was selling them for. My opponent then goes to bring up reserves and though the US does indeed have the numbers that my opponent has mentioned China is traveling the world buying up large reserves in other nations. In 2009, the Chinese Non-Ferrous Metal Mining Company bought up large portions of REM rich land in Australia and other key mining facilities in Africa. This is for them to gain conrol and a full monopoly on the global market. (http://geology.com...) My opponent has dropped my arguments that I have made last round stating that it's cheeper to mine asteroids then it is to mine on Earth. This is key, because with the asteroid mining to be cheaper then mining on Earth it is key that we get a jump start before other nations that way the United States can easily take hold of the new market. I'll expand on why this is key later on.



Though REM prices have fallen due to the Chinese market manipulation prices per ounce are still pretty high for the REMs. (http://www.metal.com...)



Contention 1&4: Profits.


Sorry, I thought that I had sited my sources for the cost of mining the asteroid. NASA has stated that it will cost $2.6 billion to mine an asteroid. (http://www.space.com...) Not only that, but as I brought up in my last round we do indeed have the technology. Space.com has reported that asteroids contain $195 Billion worth in minerals. Of whith is $65 billion in water. THat means that going out and recovering the water has already provided an expotentionally high return on the mission. (http://www.isciencetimes.com...)



Now as I brougth up last round and it went uncontested is that we A) already have the technology for asteroid minig and it's already cheap and fessable and B) Asteroid Mining is cheeper than mining on Earth. These are two key arguments that went uncontested as they both show an emmence amount that asteroid mining is increditably cheep and it's cheeper than mining here on Earth showing that it doesn't matter that we have resources here if the resources in space are cheeper to get than the resources on Earth then wouldn't we want to do things the cheeper way and pull in more profit? He also drops the alternatives argument showing that asteroid mining is the only easy and feasable method for mining in space.



WIth that the resolution is affirmed. I thank you and please vote Pro!

Ore_Ele

Con

Let me start by thanking my opponent for this debate. It is very interesting to see how far we've both come since his third debate years ago on the same topic.

Before beginning my final round, I would like to address a concern for dropped points. Since my opponent's R3 could only address my R2, it was only fair that my R3 only address his R2. As such, it is also only fair that my R4 only addresses his R3 and I do not reply to anything in his R4 (since he does not have the opportunity to address my R4). The only exception to that I will make is a source that he provided in his R4 that he said was supposed to be in his R2. I will address only that source and leave the rest of his R4 un-examined for fairness.

Let's get going.

== Here on Earth ==

My opponent's source is suggesting that the cost on earth will continue to rise while in space it will fall. Apart from being counter intuitive, since the only reason that the prices in space will fall are due to improvements of technology, and so rationally we can also improve our technology for mining here on earth to lower costs. It also appears to pull numbers out of a hat. It suggested that in 2005 platinum could be mined from asteroids for only about $105-$110 dollars an ounce. Since the market value for platinum at that time was about $900 per ounce [1], it would have been already head and shoulders profitable. Anything with a 80%+ profitability range is going to have investors chopping at the bits to get at. Since they weren't, we can conclude that those numbers were inaccurate at their time, and only got more inaccurate the further into the future they tried to predict.

For the oceans, my opponent attempts to dismiss it because we do not know that much about the bottom of the ocean. Of course, it will take research and studying, just like it will take research and studying before just gallivanting into space to mine asteroids. However, we already have deep sea probes that we and launch to the bottom of the ocean for the purpose of studying without spending $450 million per launch. This makes it much more realistic and economic to study. My opponent also tries to discredit it by stating that the oceans have been over-fished. Fishing has nothing to do with mining on the bottom of the oceans nor any aspect of my arguments. We can argue the merits of fishing and over-fishing some other time but it is a non-sequitur here.

I also see that my opponent has dropped the fact that we still have a ton of material in our own soil and all around the world, so he essentially drops all concerns about China dominance and a potential China war. It just has to relate now to the cost of it all.

== Costs ==

Yes, humans are showing that we have the technology to mine asteroids, at 60 grams for $1 billion and will take 7 years just to make the trip [2]. The difference is making it economically profitable, which is what is currently out of our grasp for some time to come.

My opponent basically concedes the water as profit point, since he argues that the water will be used to fuel the mining equipment (it should be noted, I never mentioned the cost of constantly resupplying fuel).

Now for the source of my opponent that he posted in the last round but said it was supposed to be for previous rounds [3]. A quick read of this source actually shows that it does not support his claim at all. First, the $2.6 billion is not to mine the asteroid, it is only to move it into position to be easier to mine later. Per the source, "The Asteroid Capture and Return mission " the central focus of the KISS study " blueprints the technological know-how to moving an asteroid weighing about 1.1 million-pound (500,000 kilograms) to a high lunar orbit by the year 2025. The mission's cost is expected to be $2.6 billion."

It should also be noted that they are only talking about very small asteroids, "The top conclusions from the KISS study are that it appears feasible to identify, capture and return close to Earth an entire asteroid that is roughly 23 feet (7 meters) wide. This so-called near-Earth asteroid (NEA) would weigh in the neighborhood of 500 tons, according to the study."

They are not talking about an asteroid the size of asteroid 2012 DA14 (the $130 billion dollar asteroid in my opponent's original R2), which is 80 times more massive. If this asteroid they are talking about has the same composition, then it would only have an estimated $1.6 billion in resources in it. That means that you've already lost $1 billion just by moving it into position, before any of the actual mining costs kick in.

If we were to turn that time and money into studying the ocean, think how much $2.6 billion and 10 years could do for our knowledge and understanding to open up that frontier.

== Other space options ==

My opponent says that the moon's surface is volatile. The moon's surface is geologically dead [4] and has been for about 3 billion years. There are no earth quakes (or moon quakes), no volcanoes, no tectonic plates moving things around, it is just a dead rock. While we know that the formation of the moon was very metal poor, we also know that the moon has been bombarded by asteroids for the better part of 3 billion years and that the material of those asteroids has not gone anyways because the moon is dead, it doesn't get recycled back into the mantel like on Earth.

== Conclusion ==

Regardless of whether the moon is truly a better option, we have confirmed that there is no risk of a China war and the costs of mining asteroids have been greatly under-represented. The main concern with the oceans was that we haven't studied them enough, though we can study them extensively far faster and for less than the cost of moving one tiny asteroid into position to mine.

I thank all who took the time to read, as well as my opponent.

[1] http://www.kitco.com...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.space.com...
[4] http://lifeng.lamost.org...
Debate Round No. 4
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by SkyLeach 1 year ago
SkyLeach
why didn't either side bring up the military implications of asteroid mining?

Kinetic projectiles are a huge argument against the asteroid mining. One guy, or even worse a covert directive from an Earth group, could effectively bring down the equivalent power of a full scale nuclear war without the rather permanent danger of nuclear winter. Sure they have to be cautious towards the problem of dust, but they are mining and smelting... and that means 'crowbars'. Crowbars are effectively nothing but rods of nickel-iron dropped into a gravity well from orbit. They have a comparatively small footprint for dust and ejecta but could still take out a small city or military installation per shot, even if they only weighed a few kilograms.

The debate was done well, but the arguments seemed to deal with largely subjective interpretations of cost/benefit rather than anything truly earth shattering (pun intended).
Posted by Smithereens 2 years ago
Smithereens
Bluesteel linked to this debate. I'm not sure which vote he calls terrible, since they are all largely based on a subjective appraisal of the cases. ima read this debate for myself...
Posted by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
It appears that my graph didn't go through. It can be found here about Half way down on the right hand side of the page. http://geology.com...
Posted by Ore_Ele 2 years ago
Ore_Ele
I think it might be because I was using rich text and would always put a space at the end to make it turn blue for the hyperlink.

Anyway, they are all in my R3.
Posted by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
IDK usually if you put it in parethesis it works. That's what I've been doing since my second debate with RoyLarthum and it's been working ever since.
Posted by Ore_Ele 2 years ago
Ore_Ele
For example, my last link was

[14] http://upload.wikimedia.org...

there was a space at the end of the ".jpg " causing it to mess up. No idea why that is occurring though,
Posted by Ore_Ele 2 years ago
Ore_Ele
I FIGURED IT OUT!!!

A lot of the links are adding a space to the end of the link, if you delete the space, the links work!
Posted by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Your sources 1, 4-6, 9-13, all do not work.
Posted by Ore_Ele 2 years ago
Ore_Ele
Lol, we both have.
Posted by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
I thought it would be nice to link that third debate to here and oh man how I've improved.
http://www.debate.org...
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Lexus 2 years ago
Lexus
lannan13Ore_EleTied
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:32 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't really buy con's "price" argument, since having tons of REE will pay for that price. I think that pro's rebuttals and main point about "why we need it" outweigh the harms. Conduct tied, s&g tied, arguments to pro, sources to con because they used more & better sources.
Vote Placed by Philocat 2 years ago
Philocat
lannan13Ore_EleTied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a very close debate with both debaters acting professionally, hence conduct and sources are tied. Con gets S&G, simply she made less mistakes. Pro gets arguments I think, as he argued succintly that asteroid mining is a profitable and necessary market to create. Con made some valid rebuttals but ultimately she does not provide much of a lon-term alternative. She suggests the sea-bed and the moon, but the she drops the argument that the former could heavily damage the ocean ecosystem/geology. Also, she drops the point that most REM would be deep inside the moon and so difficult to mine.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
lannan13Ore_EleTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I thought everything except arguments was equal. As for arguments, I thought Pro made a good case for mining asteroids. It reminds me of the oil independence debate about country is having. It seems to me that the more supply we have, the lower the cost will be.
Vote Placed by Vox_Veritas 2 years ago
Vox_Veritas
lannan13Ore_EleTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments: Pro has provided sources showing that the value of the precious minerals extracted from asteroids is greater than the cost of mining them. Plus, in his last round, Con made the following argument: "In 2005 they calculated that asteroid mining could be very profitable. But if this is true, why haven't they done it? Thus these estimates must be wrong." That's a somewhat fallacious line of reasoning, which casts a shadow over an otherwise rational case. Sources: Sources appear to be about equal. Conduct: Conduct appeared to be about equal. Spelling and Grammar: Again, both sides seem to have done equally well.