The U.S should mine the asteroid belt
Debate Rounds (3)
1. Unknown riches await us
2. The earth is running out of resources
3. It will put as were we need to be.
1. Unknown riches await us.
As we all know we have a asteroid belt, it spans a distance of our solar system and is made up of hundreds of thousands of asteroids. Scientists have proved that these asteroids, rocks in space, contain all the resources that we already have. Iron, water, oil, etc. They have also proved that just one of the medium sized asteroids, about the size of a car maybe a little bigger, containing the right materials, could pay of over half of the U.S national debt. No joke.
2. The earth is running out of resources.
We are running out of resources. Oil is running low as is fuel. Natural resources such as Iron, steel, and other things that we need are running very low and will be gone by the time we reach 2060. Although it may seem like a long time to you, it is barley any time at all. There is literally an unlimited amount of resources out in space right there for us to just reach out and take! All we need do is take that final step
3. It will put as were we need to be.
"Space, the final frontier. These are the voyages of the Starship Enterprise. Its continuing adventure, to explore strange new worlds, to discover new life and new civilization, to boldly go were no one has gone before," for those of you who do not know, that is a quote from the movie cerise Startrek. And though granted this is not Startrek those words have great meaning on what we need to do. Out there, is space, what we need. Asteroids and planets that we can take advantage off. Getting resources from asteroids will help us and the world greatly. The technology we need to do it will help us greatly.
Thank you. I stand open for questions and my opponent to bring forth his argument
1; It costs a lot of money to mine just one asteroid, and you've forgotten one crucial part; how do you plan to get the ore back off of a moving rock without incredible planning skill, then safely land in a salvagable way back on Earth? The return would never be so wasteful if the probe collecting the ore simply burnt up on re-entry or missed the Earth.
2; Renewable resources are still an option, remember that. You may say we will lose our fossil fuels by 2060, but the probe will take years to arrive back, and hardly with enough oil and resources to fund the world. Rather, research into safer nuclear energy, hydroelectricity, et cetera, will be a much easier and less costly alternative.
3; Did you know it's illegal? The USA has agreed that no nation can claim ownership over any part of space, and so is not permitted to mine any asteroid unless for scientific and non profit motives. If the US were to break their oath like this, it would remove a great deal of trust, not to mention have the Russians, already contesting for the North Pole, on them again over regulation violation.
See you next round,
2. Yes, they are still a option, which is why we must act, before it is not a option. Also, did you know with nuclear energy we are killing the world? nuclear waist people! Our earth is dying because of it! and how does having more power help us? We need iron, oil, metal, etc. Things we need to make houses and planes and boats. Power is not everything my friend
3. And no i didnt. But i think the rest of the world would agree that if we share our rewards to everyone, i think we would not have a problem convincing them to change there mind. What do you think they will say when hundreds of trillions of dollars are flouting up in space and we are down here having a world war over 10 cents worth if iron?
See you next round my friend
2; Nuclear WASTE, while risky in the past, is no longer the same threat, as which each disaster, our safety and care with the energy becomes stronger. Take for instance the Fukushima, which had no deaths, and Chernobyl, which will be habitable within a decade. The Earth is not dying; it is a planet, not a living thing. More power would allow us to require less raw ores, and less oil, removing the need for such expensive procedures.
3; It's illegal still, and the USA agreed to it. The distribution of ore, if any at all, will only be what the probe could carry, and unless it makes a profit over the costs of 450 billion http://www.ask.com...
per rocket used to get the damn thing into space, then there would be a lot of oppostion, especially from Russia, who couldn't care less so long as they annoyed the US.
Until next round, I'll be waiting,
2. What happens when we recycle? We send more heat into the air. Guess we dont care about global warming. And nuclear waste is still just as deadly dont try and kid yourself friend. 10,000 years to louse half of its radiation. And that is the problem, we think of the world as a big hunk of rock. It is alive, maybe not in the form we see life, but that is a debate for another time.
3. finally, listen to me, for once. If the world agrees that mining the asteroid belt will help everyone, and that everything gained will be sent to the ENTIRE world, something like that can be made legal. So your argument is not valid.
Until next round
Orion of the lost City of Atlantis
http://www.distancetomars.com... It would take five months of space travel just to reach Mars, then pass by to the asteroid belt, somehow steer onto one, hope it has gravity, not smash into it and then begin drilling. Not get metals and... look, this is frickin' obvious now. WHY THE HELL DO YOU THINK OIL IS IN ASTEROIDS? Fossil fuels come from the death and decay of living organisms, and last time I checked, there weren't too many freaking animals out in space, now were there? Metals, maybe, but you'll waste all the freakin' oil mining a rock dry, even if it has metals, unless you're ship has enough room, which requires a bigger ship and more fuel, then you can't even bring back the metals, and you lose the crew as they fling past the asteroid belt after half a year because you have as much chance of hitting an asteroid as you do of hitting Megan Fox.
Reduce energy consumption. Reuse what you can't reduce. Recycle what you can't reuse. Use clean wind and water energy. Find a safe place to regulate and control nuclear plants without threat of leakage to local towns. Radiation takes about 10-30 years to decline to safe levels, and that's only in the case of a meltdown. And go ahead, challenge me on the living Earth thing. I dare you.
If the world agrees? How much do you plan on returning with? You can't fuel Russia with one shuttle's worth of iron, let alone any country in the world. Russia will want a big piece, and then they'll bring up the Outer Space Treaty when they don'y get it. Then they'll rile up the Syrians again. And if the whole world agreeing on something was a viable option, why don't we all just agree to cancel our debts with everyone and give everyone the money they had before the recession? It would never happen, just like this crazyass plan. Thank you for the debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by KroneckerDelta 3 years 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:||1||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Gave conduct to Pro due to Con's last round (don't refer to Pro's ideas as stupid and refrain from using friggin' or frickin' in a debate). Con basically won in round 1. After that Pro really never introduced any new arguments and I don't think Pro ever refuted Con's claims from round 1. The two sticking points are no net gain from asteroid mining (it costs more money/materials to mine than the mining would produce) and the illegality of doing so. I probably wouldn't have voted on the second issue, but Pro sort of shot themselves in the foot when they said "The U.S. ...". It's a technicality and I probably wouldn't have voted on that issue alone, but in the future Pro might want to be careful about framing the debate as U.S.-centric when in fact, their resolution did not need to have anything to do with the U.S. at all--could have just been "We should mine the asteroid belt".
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.