The Instigator
WesternGuy2
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points
The Contender
hidude398
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

The International Community should ban nuclear powered spacecraft.

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 1 vote the winner is...
WesternGuy2
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/16/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 363 times Debate No: 44117
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

WesternGuy2

Con

Thanks for accepting this debate
I hope we have a great debate!
Evidence is only to be presented when asked for
Last speeches, no new evidence is to be presented
1st speech- opening
2nd- rebuttals
3rd- more rebuttals
4th- summary
5th- Closing statement
Good luck!
CON- Case
OBSV 1- Nuclear powered Spacecrafts will ONLY be used as a fuel for Spacecrafts, not as ANY weapon or nuclear stockpile, we want to be able to have nuclear power as an option

Definitions:
Intl"l community=The United Nations, as it is the only committee of every country in the world
Nuclear Power: Scientific fuel
Ban: We are banning everyone in the world, including the United states
Notes- We are banning the united states as well. (this will leave us vulnerable, and there may be countries who break the rules)

Standard (or weighing mechanism): Advancement of Human Civilization
Spacecraft pertains to scientific exploration that can possibly be used to benefit society, thus, the team benefitting society most from continuing space exploration or discontinuing it should win today"s debate.

1. More space exploration creates jobs
Univ. of Florida Professor Randy Fillmore states that only a nuclear fueled space craft would be able to make a manned mission to Mars possible
Charles Choi of the Astrobiology Magazine contributor states that landing humans on Mars would motivate millions of students to pursue careers in science and technology, providing companies in America with a pool of talented scientists and tech-savvy workers.
Judge, the result is clear: such a project would create 500,000 jobs over next 10 yrs. This is especially important as 20% of our current tech workforce is eligible for retirement in the next three years.
This is clearly needed to fill in the job positions of American baby boomer workers, benefiting society and helping our economy as a whole
2. Space exploration increases scientific innovation
For example, without nuclear fuel, curiosity would not be able to dig through rocks and add on to our scientific innovation
With this law, curiosity would have been banned
Rudy Schild of the Harvard-Smithsonian Astrophysics center: that a mission to mars would launch a tech & scientific revolution, thus leading to much growth of manufacturing, aerospace industry, and inspire children across the US to become scientists and engineers.
These workers benefit not only our companies, but also the US as a whole: According to Richard Stephens, the Senior VP at Boeing, a strong science and technological workforce strongly strengthens our national security, the competitiveness of our economy, and our defense industrial base.
In addition, a scientific revolution would cause more inventions in society today. Inventions such as: cell phones, GPSs, and satellite TVs were invented from the space age of the 1960s for example: with the apollo, we spawned many new technologies.
Judge, imagine how much more inventions would be created if we can possibly send man to mars, or learn more about the universe around us. Life would be much more efficient and productive.
3. Nuclear fueled spacecrafts can prevent extra-terrestrial disasters
According to the Univ. of Wisconsin, an asteroid hitting the Earth could possibly make all life on Earth extinct.
Peter N of the Christian Science Monitor states: An asteroid named Apophis has the potential to hit our planet"s surface by 2035. However, using the aerospace technology we have today, it is not possible for our spacecraft to shift the asteroid away from the earth. Only a spacecraft with the right system,-NUCLEAR ELECTRIC MOTORS-would be able to have enough velocity to close in on a hazardous asteroid and gravitationally shift it off course, away from Earth.
Other articles detail the threat of asteroids to life on Earth. According to astronauts Russell Schweickart and Edward Lu (4/16/04), there is a 10% chance that during our lifetimes, there will be a 60 meter asteroid that will hit Earth with energy of 700 simultaneous Hiroshima sized bombs. These two astronauts detailed that only spacecrafts with advanced propulsion systems and nuclear motors would be able to prevent the most Earth-threatening asteroids
Judge, clearly nuclear fueled spacecrafts are worth it if they can one day save millions and billions of lives, preventing possible extinction of the human race.
4. It is almost impossible to enforce the laws in the first place
How do we detect if someone cheats and breaks this law
Anyone can break the law at any time

Sum up: With nuclear fuel, not only are we sparking ingenuity, we are also helping to save the lives of our people and we are helping our economy
hidude398

Pro

Unfortunately, as much as I believe in progress, nuclear is not the answer. A nuclear fueled spacecraft isn't required to make a journey to mars. A journey to mars is caused by an escape orbit from Earth which would intersect with Mars and allow the spacecraft to travel freely along this "line to mars". In other words, rockets do not fire fuel constantly to move because energy is not lost due to friction in space. Space exploration is possible without nuclear fuel, and actually it could be possible for Curiosity to dig using alternative power sources, namely solar and radio-transferred power, which may be possible in the future at some point. Also to be noted is that Mars One is a mission to mars using current technology.
Debate Round No. 1
WesternGuy2

Con

First, I want to thank my opponent for a timely answer.
Second, I will be going into refutations.
Their refutation about a journey to Mars was essentially that a nuclear powered spacecrafts are not required to make a journey to Mars.
However, my opponent does not show one reason why we SHOULD ban a nuclear spacecraft, and since he is not affirming the resolution, you as the Judge have to default NEG.
Second, as a human mission to mars has not happened yet, it is safe to see that today's technology, without the use of nuclear fuel cannot bring a human to mars. If my opponent can provide evidence showing that
Their second refutation against my argument about Curiosity was that Curiosity could dig with alternative power, some which could be accessible in the future somehow.
Again, my opponent gives no reason on why we should band nuclear powered spacecrafts.
Second, we are talking about whether or not we should ban it now, or in the future. We cannot rely on some type of power transporting machine that we do not even know is possible to create yet.
Also, I am sure the scientists at NASA would have chosen alternative fuel if it was possible. However, they chose nuclear fuel, knowing full well that it was the only way to get a rover to Mars.

That covers my opponents refutations.
I would once again like to take note that my opponent has no argument proving the topic true.
Second, my opponent has completely disregarded my 1st, 3rd, and 4th points.
Judge, our first argument covers how more nuclear powered spacecrafts can lead to more jobs, with a whopping number of 500,000 jobs in the next 10 years.
Our 3rd argument is probably the most important. Judge, only a nuclear powered spacecraft could stop an asteroid that could hit the Earth at any time. This asteroid could cause the damage of 700 simultaneous Hiroshima sized bombs.
Judge, this is the MOST IMPORTANT impact of the round! This is why you are going to vote for the Negative.
Lastly, my opponent dropped my 4th argument
This law that will take place if the AFF wins will be extremely hard to enforce. If someone cheats or breaks the law, there is no way to find without breaking that country's sovereignty. As breaking someone's sovereignty is against the UN charter, and the Intl community is defined as the UN, there is no way to enforce this law.
For all these reasons, please vote Negative
hidude398

Pro

hidude398 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
WesternGuy2

Con

Extend ALL arguments please
hidude398

Pro

hidude398 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
WesternGuy2

Con

Extend all arguments
hidude398

Pro

hidude398 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
WesternGuy2

Con

Extend All Arguments
hidude398

Pro

hidude398 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 2 years ago
Krazzy_Player
WesternGuy2hidude398Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF