The Instigator
lannan13
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
dragon_slayer489
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Resolved: The United States federal government shall substantially increase it's funding for astriod

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...
lannan13
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/29/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 925 times Debate No: 37138
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

lannan13

Pro

The full resolution is the fallowing: Resolved: The United States federal government shall substantially increase it's funding for astriod mining.

Rules

No trolling.
No Forfeiture.
Try to keep swearing to a minimum.
The BOP is shared.
No Sentiments
1st round is acceptance and definitions as seen fit by the debators.

Definitions

Astriod- small body from 480 miles to .5 miles in diameter. http://dictionary.reference.com...


Substantially- an ample or conciderable amount. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

dragon_slayer489

Con

I will take in your debate
END
Debate Round No. 1
lannan13

Pro

"Substantially increase government funding."

The US federal government will reallocate $10 billion dollars inorder to mine astriods. It costs $2.6 to mine the actuall astriod, but the rest is to figure the cost refining the ore and in case something goes wrong. http://www.space.com...... per US law if NASA doesn't use this money it gets taken away. So we wouldn't be wasting any money.


The need and why we need it.

95% of the world's REM supply belongs to China. http://www.forbes.com.... 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 futher 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 to reliant on the US if one falls they both do.

2nd senerio.

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 emargo on them. This will lead to a possible WW3 and this senerio is likely to happen because once you run out of REMs then you're out.http://www.projectworldawareness.com... is a war that will hurt many nation and has a potention 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)

Economic pay back!

It's $195 billion per astriod! http://www.space.com...'s 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.
dragon_slayer489

Con

This may be true but although the U.S.A needs money they cant always reline on space.
For one reason it would take years just to get to a asteroid.
Two the total time and money spent into such a project could be catastrophic for the reason of the U.S is in debt already.
Three the total limit is air there would have to be a submittable amount of air every where they go in witch we may not have.
Four the technology is not there yet let me ask you this do you see giant space stations with millions and millions of air with them NO YOU DO NOT, it would take nearly ten to twenty years just for a hint of this happing.
Five (this is my option here) who would be willing to go to a asteroid for years and years with no sight of there family (i know i wouldn't) friends or even loved ones ...
Six what about pay what would you pay the people there the U.S.A would probably spend more money on one worker then the entire operation.
END
(by the way this is how i end my statements...if your wondering)
Debate Round No. 2
lannan13

Pro

Length


Actually my opponent here is wrong, we don't have to send men to mine we can have machines do it for us and secondly it is a process that only takes months not years. http://www.spaceanswers.com...


US Economy


Two the total time and money spent into such a project could be catastrophic for the reason of the U.S is in debt already.

Here my opponent states that it will cost to much but as I stated in my last round that we can get $150 billion from an astriod that only costs $2.6 billion which can improve the US economy drasticly. http://www.space.com...

Air

Three the total limit is air there would have to be a submittable amount of air every where they go in witch we may not have.

I've already refuted this.



Technology

Four the technology is not there yet let me ask you this do you see giant space stations with millions and millions of air with them NO YOU DO NOT, it would take nearly ten to twenty years just for a hint of this happing.



My opponent here states that we don't have the technology, but as I stated above that JAXA has done so and not only that, but NASA currently is working on these missions right now! http://www.nasa.gov...




Pay

Six what about pay what would you pay the people there the U.S.A would probably spend more money on one worker then the entire operation.

My opponent questions pay, but as you see here NASA will continue to get it's funding from the US federal government and people will continue getting payments.



Armageddon


My opponent did not touch this arguement so please extend it across the board.





(Side note- I will be bussy this weekend between work and drill. I please ask you to not to respond to this debate untill Sunday. Thank you!)



dragon_slayer489

Con

I will start this phase of the debate by talking about the one topic i did not state and slipped my mine, Armageddon
Armageddon is the point witch im confused ... You thing if Armageddon breaks lose we the people are going to a at asteroid?
like i stated earlier AIR no air no life for human.

Technology i would like to say do i think the U. S. will be able to withstand a task so large... inside a tech world,
Ask your self this how many people would be able to program, control, watch, coordinate these robots.Plus what about repairs and maintenance for the robots? how would the people who know hoe to fix these robots get there (remember no air for a long time period.

US economy there is a fine line between people giving money for good causes and the gov't taking money...what might this have to do with the debate might you ask...well i see the U.S needs money, housing, law, food, and a Allie.
these things are necessary for a good system of equal-liberty so to speak so we have food a Allie buy we don't have money housing nor law in space. Whats the chance or probability of the U.S going through with this ... i feel that the U.S might as well try yo take china...

Another topic i forgot to talk about is FUEL, fuel is necessary for almost every thing in this operation of space.
FUEL to power the ships for taking off as seen on this link http://answers.yahoo.com... , FUEL to power some form of a drill, FUEL to heat housing for people and more.

And on this note I
END
( sorry i don't know how to make links ...)
Debate Round No. 3
lannan13

Pro

Technonolgy.

NASA actually does things like this all the time! They repare their own machines in space with other machines. http://www.smh.com.au... as I stated last round NASA will be doing this by machine which takes out the air factor. Secondly NASA takes on missions like this all the time when they go out and they do things like the Mars Rover, the Hubble telescope and even all the other satelite mission in place like the New Horizons mission. All of these are currently going on and are ran by who I might ask? NASA!

US Economy

My friend this is an advantage in the debate round which means that this is one of the reasons that Astriod mining is a good thing. Secondly, the US does not and will not take out China physically because China and the US are to close together economicly and if one goes down then so does the world economy, so by doing this you can see that the US could ultamately boost the world economy!

Armaggedon

As I stated in Round 2 that it's simply the lack of resources will lead to a thermo nuclear war, thus leading to armaggedon.


Thank you for the debate and please vote Pro!

Fuel

For fuel we do not have to use focil fuels because we couldn't get too far but we will use like NASA has always used and that is solar sails and that gets us to were we need to go. http://www.nasa.gov...
dragon_slayer489

Con

Sorry lannan i cant post my full opion on this debate my internet is geting shut off for a little sory i cant post my true topic ...
good debate thanks for it
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by donald.keller 4 years ago
donald.keller
Conduct was appropriate on both sides. Instead of FFing last round, Con actually replied saying he couldn't fully respond. Both sides did well.

S&G was even. Con had a lot of misspells, while I saw quite a few on Pro's end too, especially in Round 2, Con just blew me away... "like i stated earlier AIR no air no life for human."

Sources: Pro sourced himself VERY well. Although his first source led to the main page and not to an appropriate article.

Arguments: Pro put up a great fight in R2, and when it was Con's turn, Con combated every argument by ignoring half of it. Like here:
"Two the total time and money spent into such a project could be catastrophic for the reason of the U.S is in debt already."
The amount of money Pro listed was completely ignored here.
"like i stated earlier AIR no air no life for human."
This ignored Pro saying that people wouldn't be used. Con argued through ignorance, and acted like nothing Pro said was said. Con also ignored the current abilities we have (like controlling space machines from Earth.) Con ignored when his arguments were refuted. Pro simply blew Con away.
Posted by donald.keller 4 years ago
donald.keller
Conduct was appropriate on both sides. Instead of FFing last round, Con actually replied saying he couldn't fully respond. Both sides did well.

S&G was even. Con had a lot of misspells, while I saw quite a few on Pro's end too, especially in Round 2, Con just blew me away... "like i stated earlier AIR no air no life for human."

Sources: Pro sourced himself VERY well. Although his first source led to the main page and not to an appropriate article.

Arguments: Pro put up a great fight in R2, and when it was Con's turn, Con combated every argument by ignoring half of it. Like here:
"Two the total time and money spent into such a project could be catastrophic for the reason of the U.S is in debt already."
The amount of money Pro listed was completely ignored here.
"like i stated earlier AIR no air no life for human."
This ignored Pro saying that people wouldn't be used. Con argued through ignorance, and acted like nothing Pro said was said. Con also ignored the current abilities we have (like controlling space machines from Earth.) Con ignored when his arguments were refuted. Pro simply blew Con away.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 4 years ago
donald.keller
lannan13dragon_slayer489Tied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
lannan13dragon_slayer489Tied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't spell check, "astroid" > "asteroid" A debater should know "sentiments" > "semantics." "REM" was not defined. con was often incomprehensible, "the total limit is air there would have to be a submittable amount of air every where they go in witch we may not have." That combines bad spelling with bad grammar. Poor job by both sides offset. Pro's case based on the economics was not refuted. Con raised general technical objections, but didn't show how that affected cost. The war over REM argument seems weak, but Con didn't address it. Pro's rebuttal that NASA was able to cope with the challenges went unanswered. Con didn't forfeit, so no conduct penalty, but leaving Pro unanswered was fatal to Con's case.