The Instigator
Con (against)
5 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

The USFG should increase its exploration/development of space

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/10/2011 Category: Science
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,543 times Debate No: 18705
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)





Here is the full resolution:

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its exploration and/or development of space beyond the Earth's mesosphere.


Here is some evidence:

I would prefer to be negative, but I'm willing to be affirmative just post in the comment section.


Round 1: Challenge/1AC
Round 2: 1NC/2AC
Round 3: 2NC/(say hello or something)
Round 4: 1NR/1AR (5000 Character Max)
Round 5: 2NR/2AR


i think not just america but all nations should expand their research in space because we dont know enough of what is out there. we know a little on planets, but nobody has been to these planets and they should, to know what it is like their. they would probably need special gear but it would be fun to find out. if they travel far enough they might find another planet good enough for us to live on.
Debate Round No. 1


----Constructive Case----

-Earth becoming invisible to extraterrestrials now-

Dr Drake, who founded the SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) organisation said the digital age was effectively gagging the Earth by cutting the transmission of TV and radio signals into space.

But although the signals had spread far enough to reach many nearby star systems, they were rapidly vanishing before the march of digital technology.

'Now the actual amount of radiation escaping into space is about two watts, not much more than you get from a cell phone,' said Dr Drake.

If this continues into the future very soon our world will become undetectable.

-Space exploration & development risks contact-

Scientists may be pinning down the best places to look for alien life. Scientists there said they are still eager to find life elsewhere in the universe. Hawking, who suggested that perhaps humans shouldn't be so eager to find aliens since there's a chance they would want to colonize Earth. "We're interested and prepared to discover any form of life." NASA scientists were currently considering a list of 28 future science missions that could help discover signs of extraterrestrial life." In particular, the Saturnian moons Titan – with its lakes of methane and ethane – and Enceladus, with its plumes of water vapor, seem like possibly habitable sites. This mission "might reveal a great deal about whether Mars once harbored life," I think we're going to need to study the samples here on Earth rather than robotically," said Bill Schopf, a researcher at the University of California, Los Angeles. Although the scientists studied samples of sulfate from Earth, this material is also present in large quantities on Mars. Thus, collecting samples of sulfate on Mars would be a good place to look for Martian life, Researchers announced for the first time Wednesday that they'd found direct proof of frozen water and organic compounds – which could include the ingredients for. "We should go where the data lead us."

-Contact with extra terrestrials leads to destruction of humanity-

THE aliens are out there and Earth had better watch out, according to Stephen Hawking. Instead of seeking them out, humanity should be doing all it that can to avoid any contact. Alien life, is almost certain to exist in many other parts of the universe. Hawking’s logic on aliens is, simple. The universe has 100 billion galaxies, each containing hundreds of millions of stars. In such a big place, Earth is unlikely to be the only planet where life has evolved. “The real challenge is to work out what aliens might actually be like.” A few life forms could be intelligent and pose a threat. Hawking believes that contact with such a species could be devastating for humanity. Aliens might simply raid Earth for its resources and then move on: I imagine they might exist in massive ships, having used up all the resources from their home planet. Such advanced aliens would perhaps become nomads, looking to conquer and colonize whatever planets they can reach.” He concludes that trying to make contact with alien races is “a little too risky” “If aliens ever visit us, I think the outcome would be much as when Christopher Columbus first landed in America, which didn’t turn out very well for the Native Americans.”


-Rocket fuel emits perchlorate – pollutes water, and puts babies at risk of developmental issues-

The main ingredient in solid rocket fuel— perchlorate—pollutes drinking water sources in 20 states. Tests reveal perchlorate in food and breast breastfed babies ingest levels of perchlorate that exceed the ‘safe dose’ putting children at risk for development damage. California discovered perchlorate in more than 400 water sources.

-Perchlorate causes massive water shortages – contamination-

Several of the nation's fastest-growing areas could face debilitating water shortages because of groundwater contamination by perchlorate,. The chemical, seeped into water supplies in 22 states perchlorate-tainted wells have been shuttered, casting a pall on growth plans in parched areas. Perchlorate is turning up in unexpected places, where solid propellants -- aren't believed to have been used.

----Aff Answers----

- Cooperation fails – space programs overwhelmingly protectionist -

Hopes for cooperation can soon be overwhelmed by competing interests and priorities, and also by reduced or constrained budgets. These anti-collaborative behaviors are demonstrated in the recent rash of lunar flights, which have seen five different spacecraft sent to the moon by the USA, ESA, China, Japan and India; each mission essentially performing the same basic science missions. scientific data from several of the missions have not been shared. the international launch market is well over capacity for launching the current and foreseeable demand for communications, remote sensing and navigation satellites. Eight different countries continue to subsidize their own launch capability and other nations are developing their own launchers. The USA prohibits US civil and commercial spacecraft from launching on Chinese vehicles. ESA demands that European satellites be launched on Ariane. there maybe no easy way to foster improved international cooperation if such protectionist behaviors stand in the way.

-No benefit to space colonization.-

Many people have argued that as long as humans live only on Earth, we have "all our eggs in one basket". They suggest we need space colonies to insure the future of the species. Considering the human source of many of the threats and the timescales involved, I'm not sure that space colonization should be the top priority in preempting those threats. If, after disaster strikes Earth, Earth is still able to supplement the needs of space colonies, then those space colonies aren't necessarily essential to continuing the human race. We have to ask when spaces colonies would be functioning without need of any assistance from Earth. Truly independent space colonies must not simply provide bare nutrition, air, heat, and habitat repair for 100 years. They should have a non-traumatizing environment with enough people to protect against dangerous levels of inbreeding – able to last and progress indefinitely. We also have to consider threats to the global economy, since an economic collapse would presumably at least interrupt efforts towards establishing space colonies. Economic crises also increase risks of war. Also, the Moon has no atmosphere. Venus is extremely hot, Mars has too little atmosphere and accessible water is questionable, etc. Outer planet's moons are very cold, and get limited solar energy. A colony would need an industrial base capable of extracting and refining raw materials, and making useful things from them. Interstellar colonies and terraforming of planets in our solar system are longer range goals. It will be a long time before an independent space colony could grow to the point some of its people could survive after a major disaster. Identifying and resolving all the issues is likely to take many years. Currently, our society is not inclined to invest that much in either stopping global warming (and other threats) or space habitats. My impression is the best chance for human survival is focusing as much as possible on one or the other of the two paths, and that space colonization will not solve the problem within the limited time-frame. The known threats to human survival in the next century or so are not vast earthquakes and volcanoes, asteroid impacts, supernovas or other natural disasters. Most of them are at least partly man-made. If the same problems are not to threaten survival of humans on space colonies, we either have to make humans on Earth act more responsibly to ensure survival before we colonize, or we need to know how to insure that those people who colonize are not so prone to make the same mistakes their Earthly brothers do.



To spend money on somthing we cannot use for the better of the people is a waste of money. The millions spent in a spaceprogram could be used to sustain the economy and health of humanity. We can discover a alien race or a really neat rock whilst our streets are controlled by gangs and our doctors lack the education to treat their wounds
Debate Round No. 2


Exactly my point, PatCam

The topic is
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its exploration and/or development of space beyond the Earth's mesosphere.

The Pro's job is to support the resolution^ and the Con(me)'s job is to oppose the resolution.

So, To spend money on somthing we cannot use for the better of the people is a waste of money. The millions spent in a spaceprogram could be used to sustain the economy and health of humanity. We can discover a alien race or a really neat rock whilst our streets are controlled by gangs and our doctors lack the education to treat their wounds


If we go with this space programme, we also might find a new planet suitable of holding human life when we burn out out beautiful planet earth. We might be able to find a new item on another planet that we cant get on Earth that might be able to help something (for example pollution) and then we might be able to make friends with a possible other life forms on another planet, exchanging our things for theirs, exchanging ideas and items, and then we can have our people living their, and their creatures living here. We could take over universes and all. So why not expand out space search.
Debate Round No. 3


FIrst of all, the Pro did nothing to refute my arguments in the third round. Nor did they refute my arguments in the fourth round.

Second, my impacts outweighs that of the pro. As a result of launching rockets into space, the pro is causing extreme water pollution and extreme water shortages. They are also risking contact with extraterrestrial beings, which may result in diseases, and/or violence.

To extend my constructive arguments, rockets launched will not only contaminate water, but it will also destroy the ozone.
Right now, we have a small space program, barely launching any heavy rockets, and sustaining the ozone. If development of far space is put into action, the ozone will be destroyed. The Ozone layer is essential to human life. Without it, UV rays will not be able to be filtered. Cancer would break out and all species on earth would be in jeopardy. It is essential for life to exist.


Eventually (like 2020 wise) we would be able to come up with a rocket that will not pollute our ozone or our water. but for now we must persist with this. What if these alien forms cant get cancer, but have the ability to prevent cancer. when this is so we can bring them back to earth to help out species. they might also have something that might be able to help out our ozone, stopping it from burning up from our CO2 that we are emitting.
Debate Round No. 4


Ever since the rocket was invented, scientists have been trying to find a way to not pollute. If they hadn't succeeded in 50 years, what makes you think that they will succeed in the next 8 years?

In the 1200's when Europe was discovering the New World, what did they do to the natives? The majority of the native population was killed by diseases brought from Europe, and the rest was driven out. This happened with Cortez, and many other explorers.

In the 1800's, the America's was being settled. What did the settlers do to the American Indians? Aside from the many wars fought, the Indians were tricked out of their land. Ultimately, all Indian nations were forced into a few small reservations.

In conclusion, every time a new civilization has been found, their resources have been taken, their land have been taken, and their lives have been taken.

What do you think will happen when foreign beings discover us? Do you really think that they will give us their technology, or help us cure disease? Probably not.


We now have more technology and ways than what we did in the 1950's. We will have better to come also. We dont have to take everything, just some things if anything from them.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by klkevinrocks3 5 years ago
Posted by PatCam 5 years ago
i dont get it
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
Colonize the sun.
Posted by DetectableNinja 5 years ago
Oy. I've had just enough of this silly resolution they chose this year.
Posted by DetectableNinja 5 years ago
Oy. I've had just enough of this silly resolution they chose this year.
Posted by surpy 5 years ago
I am interested, but I am going to wait for a little bit before accepting. I know how policy works ;)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by drafterman 4 years ago
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 did not even begin to adequately address the points made by Con.