Space exploration from mars to pluto is a waste of money
Debate Rounds (3)
What you have here is an extension of an argument from ignorance.
"We have not found any usable resources on nearby planets- Therefore we will not find any if we explore further."
This is a logical fallacy, as we cannot accurately predict what resources we will discover or acquire when exploring other planets and galaxies.
"we saw through the telescope that there is no life for at least a few galaxies, why waste all that money to travel to planets in our solar system?"
Although we have not found signs of life that is as advanced as we are, there is no way we can say that there "is no life for at least a few galaxies." A galaxy is a huge expanse full of millions of planets, and each of those extrasolar planets has the potential to have life.
Finally, why would other life in the universe be the only merit space travel could gain? As I said before, we will quite probably find materials that would be useful to us on Earth if we explore further. Even if we are alone in the universe, it doesn't make sense not to explore the area around us.
"This is a logical fallacy, as we cannot accurately predict what resources we will discover or acquire when exploring other planets and galaxies."
Our probes and shuttles haven't discovered anything useful from Mars to Pluto.
"Although we have not found signs of life that is as advanced as we are, there is no way we can say that there "is no life for at least a few galaxies." A galaxy is a huge expanse full of millions of planets, and each of those extrasolar planets has the potential to have life."
Okay fine, how about limiting it to nearby galaxies? Or our own galaxy? Certianly we can find if there is life with our great Hubble telescope and other observatories, why waste the resources for traveling?
"As I said before, we will quite probably find materials that would be useful to us on Earth if we explore further"
With the billions already invested in space travel, I don't think I am finding some diamons at saturn any time sooner. I doubt there is any resource from mars to pluto that can help us make profit rather than lose all our invested money.
Firstly, our technology is insufficiently advanced to fully explore many of the planets farther away from us than Mars. Despite this, we've even found life-hospitable environments near us- For instance, the oceans on Saturn's moon Enceladus. In addition, many habitable exoplanets have been discovered (in part, by the Voyager) and could contain life.
"How about limiting it to nearby galaxies? to our own galaxy?"
I don't appreciate you changing the parameters of the debate here, but that's not the real issue. Even if we only look for planets to profit from in our own galaxy (which we have by no means indexed fully, by the way) that is still space travel. Halting all space-based space research right now and letting our shuttles rust in their hangars will bring no profit at all, and certainly no new discoveries.
"..with our great Hubble telescope and other observatories"
Our observatories on Earth are remarkably clouded by the atmosphere and ozone layer. The only way to get clear, unadulterated picture of the rest of our galaxy is to send out more probes and telescopes. Although Hubble is a valuable tool, it can by no means capture a complete picture of our galaxy.
"I doubt there is a resource from mars to Pluto"
Perhaps there may not be a perfect deposit of a needed resource from Mars to Pluto, however, many extrasolar planets have useful resources. What about 55 Cancri e (discovered in 2004), a planet made mostly of pure diamond? Many planets have valuable minerals that are extremely rare on Earth, thus allowing humans to discover new applications for them.
Because humans are despoiling the Earth at such a prodigious rate, we must seek habitation elsewhere in order to continue our species. Therefore, extrasolar planet exploration is absolutely necessary, and the first step to that is intrasolar planet exploration.
Well then a telescope on the moon. I said to shut down space travel from mars to pluto, but development of a moon base is okay as it has lower distance and therefore lesser cost.
"What about 55 Cancri e (discovered in 2004), a planet made mostly of pure diamond?"
Is it even in this galaxy? It certainly must not be in the stretch from mars to pluto.
All my argument is that instead of jumping off in space randomly and wasting precious amounts of fuel, we must look through our telescopes and previous results to determine whether it is useful to undertake the journey. And currently, I doubt that space exploration is useful. All that money could have nearly ended poverty or bolstered energy production. There are many better uses of money than space exploration.
Good luck to con, was a good debate.
"Well then a telescope on the moon."
Creating, maintaining, staffing, and maintaining a signal with a telescope on the moon would be extremely expensive. In addition, a telescope does not provide the same range of analytical tools that a hands-on rover or even human team does. Finally, a telescope orbiting the Earth cannot take the same pictures that launched telescopes, such as Voyager, can.
I would also like to note that Pro dropped my argument about alternate human habitation.
In conclusion, space travel is necessary because of the resources in our universe that we can discover, the scientific advances it propagates, and the need for alternate habitation for human life. The costs sustained in exploring our universe are necessary, even beneficiary, in that they will help the whole of humanity. We must explore for the sake of science, curiosity, and the human experience. If we do not bring ourselves to the galaxy, the galaxy will bring itself to us.
Thank you for the debate, and good luck!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Meropenem777 4 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: 1. Conduct even. 2. Spelling and grammar fairly even. 3. Pro tended to change his original position. Evidence: http://prntscr.com/b9ai2f . Con effectively used this against Pro. Evidence: http://prntscr.com/b9aib6 , http://prntscr.com/b9aj1s . Also Con, he actually did say this: http://prntscr.com/b9ale8 . He had placed it in the debate's title though. However, he didn't assume this position in round 1, his position in round 1 is virtually different from the title's position. Pro refers to "space exploration" in a general manner (Evidence:http://prntscr.com/b9am36) , instead of stating it as he had in the title. Arguably, the title is not a component of a debate, so as the voter, I will disregard Pro's plea that this was his actual position in the argument. Therefore, mainly because Pro failed to support his original position while Con did so successfully for his own, Con receives points for convincing arguments. 4. Neither side used sources to back up their claims.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.