The Instigator
ArmedTortoise
Con (against)
Winning
63 Points
The Contender
TheRealDoctor
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points

Space exploration is, indeed, a waste of both time and money.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-9
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 11/6/2009 Category: Science
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,256 times Debate No: 9966
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (11)

 

ArmedTortoise

Con

Having recently engaged in my first debate on this site and, to be frank, going for an easy win, I felt it would only be appropriate to open a debate to the floor. I couldn't think of a good debate topic, so I simply reversed roles from my last debate. I wish good luck to my opponent, and hope for an engaging debate.

-- Definitions --

Space: 'The expanse in which the solar system, stars, and galaxies exist; the universe. The region of this expanse beyond earth's atmosphere'- http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Waste: 'To use, consume, spend, or expend thoughtlessly or carelessly' - http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Money: 'A medium that can be exchanged for goods and services and is used as a measure of their values on the market, including among its forms a commodity such as gold, an officially issued coin or note, or a deposit in a checking account or other readily liquefiable account'- http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Time: 'A non spatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future'- http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

-- Arguments for Space Exploration --

1. Eventually, we will have to leave earth if we wish for the human race to survive. Whether it is within a few centuries due to climate change, [1] or a few billion years due to the sun expending all of it's energy, [2] the earth will eventually become uninhabitable. When this happens, we will be forced to explore space in order to look for promising planets for colonisation.

2. To be adventurous! Since the early days of civilisation, man has yearned to discover what is beyond the horizon. However, now we have explored most of the surface of the earth, there are more horizons to discover. The sea, the centre of the earth and the universe to which the earth belongs are the big ones. Even if there is little foreseeable material benefit to exploring space, surely we should explore space in the spirit of adventure? We might discover extraterrestrial life, or new elements, or previously unknown aspects of our universe. The possibilities, as the saying goes, are endless.

3. Many forays into space in the past have been immensely profitable enterprises. Take the Hubble space telescope. That enterprise changed our understanding of the universe forever. A telescope on the moon, shielded from both solar and earth radiation, has the potential to see further into the universe than anything previously built. [3] At the very least, there is great potential for an increase in scientific knowledge by exploring our solar system.

4. It would create new jobs and spur innovation. Even if the effort turns out to have none of the benefits listed above, it will not have been a waste. Funding space exploration would create jobs, businesses and new technologies. We would fund research into, to name a few, solar-power generation, cryogenics and robot-human interaction, [3] all of which have numerous, obvious applications on earth. So even if the 'space exploration' part of the argument fails, the effort still will not have been a waste!

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.newscientist.com...
[3] http://tech.mit.edu...
TheRealDoctor

Pro

Humans never went to the moon. Aliens live there. If we try to leave the Planet they will kill us all! Trust me I was in the Military! I was even there when they faked the moon landings.
Bart Sibrel has claimed that the crew of Apollo 11 and subsequent astronauts had faked their orbit around the Moon and their walk on its surface by trick photography, and that they never got more than halfway to the Moon. A subset of this proposal is advocated by those who concede the existence of retroreflectors and other observable human-made objects on the Moon. British publisher Marcus Allen represented this argument when he said "I would be the first to accept what [telescope images of the landing site] find as powerful evidence that something was placed on the Moon by man." He goes on to say that photographs of the lander would not prove that America put men on the Moon. "Getting to the Moon really isn't much of a problem – the Russians did that in 1959, the big problem is getting people there." He suggests that NASA sent robot missions because radiation levels in space would be lethal to humans. Another variant on this is the idea that NASA and its contractors did not recover quickly enough from the Apollo 1 fire, and so all the early Apollo missions were faked, with Apollo 14 or 15 being the first authentic mission.
Debate Round No. 1
ArmedTortoise

Con

Sigh...points unrefuted. Extend all arguments, yada yada.
TheRealDoctor

Pro

Thats not very nice Alex!
Debate Round No. 2
ArmedTortoise

Con

Extend all arguments.
TheRealDoctor

Pro

My points have been made! Do you want to kill us all!
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by rubberelephant 7 years ago
rubberelephant
agreed
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Pro's account has been closed, but the general remedy for a troll observed ruining a debate is to go to his page and use the "Block this person" feature.
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
I'd assume you were joking, Nails, but Pro actually has votes. Tell me they are his own.
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
I voted CON in reliable sources and BEFORE, but voted PRO in the other 4.

RFD:
CON didn't even attack the argument that the moon landing was fake, or that the aliens would kill us. Needless to say, they aren't the strongest arguments and 'most any attack would suffice. Simply 'extending' your arguments isn't a rebuttal.

Since CON didn't address PRO's claim that the lunar landings were actually faked, that seems to discredit most of CON's evidence.
And since CON didn't even both to attack the argument that aliens will kill us all, that's where I voted. Aliens causing human extinction seems to outweigh all arguments that CON 'extended.'

Conduct went to PRO because I thought CON was extremely rude.
"Sigh...points unrefuted. Extend all arguments, yada yada."
That seems really condescending to me. It also seems to me that you are deeming your opponent's arguments unworthy of rebuttal.

Spelling & Grammar
Nobody ever really violates this one, so I usually just give to the person who did better overall as a general policy.
Posted by Chrysippus 7 years ago
Chrysippus
And, Tortoise, welcome to Debate.org!

Sorry that your second debate here was ruined by trolls; not all of us are like that, honest...
Posted by Chrysippus 7 years ago
Chrysippus
All points to Con, as Pro forfeited the debate.
Posted by TheRealDoctor 7 years ago
TheRealDoctor
I think Tortoise man takes this shizzle way too seriosly!
Posted by ArmedTortoise 7 years ago
ArmedTortoise
This sucks. I'm sorry for clogging up the site, guys.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by bluedudeman 7 years ago
bluedudeman
ArmedTortoiseTheRealDoctorTied
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 Marauder 7 years ago
Marauder
ArmedTortoiseTheRealDoctorTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by chicagovigilante 7 years ago
chicagovigilante
ArmedTortoiseTheRealDoctorTied
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 Rezzealaux 7 years ago
Rezzealaux
ArmedTortoiseTheRealDoctorTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
ArmedTortoiseTheRealDoctorTied
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 cactusbin 7 years ago
cactusbin
ArmedTortoiseTheRealDoctorTied
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:50 
Vote Placed by The_Enigma 7 years ago
The_Enigma
ArmedTortoiseTheRealDoctorTied
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 Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
ArmedTortoiseTheRealDoctorTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Pogosama 7 years ago
Pogosama
ArmedTortoiseTheRealDoctorTied
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 Nails 7 years ago
Nails
ArmedTortoiseTheRealDoctorTied
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:25