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

The United States should establish a base on the moon.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 4 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/20/2012 Category: Technology
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,625 times Debate No: 20519
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (4)




The Resolution

For this debate, a "base" is a habitation designed to be manned continuously for a period of at least two decades. The debate question is whether the US building a base is a worthwhile expenditure, or whether the money should be spent on something else or there is some other reason for not building it.

To set the context of the debate, the moon base is proposed to include a power generator for a habitable environment and to support mining and manufacturing operations. The purposes of the base may include support of deep space exploration, the construction of large space structure for use in earth orbit for experiments in power generation and climate engineering, and for basic scientific research concerning the moon and the outer planets.

I take no position in this debate on whether this constitutes a permanent colony or not. It might be abandoned after it's missions have been accomplished, or more likely be replaced if and when new missions are defined.

The moon base effort should begin immediately at the level of study and planning, and proceed to building the base over a period of about 15 or 20 years. Use of the base to accomplish it's missions would continue beyond that.

Whether its a US-only effort or a joint effort of many nations is not an issue for the debate. If partners participant, that's good, but the project is not contingent on international participation. The Chinese would be invited to provide a restaurant, for sure.


President George W, Bush proposed a moon base is 2004. [P1] A Wikipedia article outlines the Bush proposal. [P2] The Bush proposal as primary aimed as a stepping stone for a Mars mission.

Debate Rules

Both sides agree to the following rules, and that violating the rules is a conduct violation, with anything contrary to the rules ignored by readers judging the debate:

DR. 1. The first round of the debate is for acceptance and for clarification of terms and conditions only. I will provide the specific Pro contentions in R2.

DR 2. All arguments must be made in the debate. Evidence may be cited or linked from the debate, but only in support of arguments made in the debate. the debate has a lot of technology involved, so detailed explanations of what is intended For various large space structures and experiments can be linked rather than explained in detail in the debate. No arguments in comments.

DR 3. Sources must be included within the 8000 characters per round limit of the debate. No sources in comments.

DR 4. Any term not specifically defined before use is to be taken with the ordinary dictionary definition of the term that best fits the context of the debate.

DR 5. No new arguments shall be made in Round 4. Arguments and evidence may be presented in R4 in rebuttal to any previous argument, but no new arguments.

DR 6. The debaters urge that the arguments be judged based upon the preponderance of evidence. If based upon the arguments and evidence presented the building a base seems worthwhile, then arguments go to Pro. If the building the base does not seem worthwhile, then arguments go to Con.

DR 7. This debate is similar to a national academic debate topic, but it stands on its own.

DR 8. DDO site rules always apply. Neither side may add or modiy rules for the debate once the challenge is accepted.


I accept, with this being the first round I'll give you a road map. Inherancy, Violations, Solvency, and advantages.
United States - the executive and legislative and judicial branches of the federal government of the United States (for all definitions)
should- must do
Hopeful you'll see this a fun as me and won't be as painful as a prostate exam.
Debate Round No. 1


1. Why should the government be involved?

To justify building a moon base there needs to be something that makes it worth doing and reasons why it won't get done without the government. Let's first look at why the government should be involved at all.

Some investments take too long to mature to make the risk worthwhile for private investment. Long investments are subject to the risk that something entirely unexpected will happen that dooms the investment prospects. A cheaper way of doing something maybe found unexpectedly. Also patents expire in 17 years, so if an invention has not earned it's investment by then, it's never going to recover. A moon base is an effort that has risks and will take decades to become economic. Earth-based green energy, by contrast, does not have that characteristic, but many space projects do.

There are some problems which are inherently matters of national interest. Defense is the classic example, but for a moon base it's climate engineering and infrastructure. One national issue is providing the infrastructure for low cost exploitation of space, the development of climate engineering solutions to global warming, research and development of space solar power that will take many decades, and basic scientific research that improves or understanding of the universe, An understanding of basic science has advanced mankind immensely, but it has no certain economic payout and accounting of the benefits.

There is also a benefit to the human spirit. to some extent, it's like asking "Are poetry, movies, and novels necessary?" In terms of food and water they are not, but they feed the human spirit. someone suggested that a manned mission to Mars could be paid for entirely by the television rights. There is also the space tourism business, now at the point where Russia sells trips to the international space station to wealthy individuals. these are examples of people paying for experience independent of the experience making a profit. It's hard to quantify, but its worth something.

2. Space Refueling

The LCOSS lunar probe two years ago verified that there is water in the subsurface soil of the moon. [P3.] Separately, scientists analyzed moon rocks recovered by Apollo 17 to establish that there are large amounts of water locked in moon rocks. [P4.] Craters near the poles have very cold areas permanently in shade that hold significant deposits of ice. [P5.] "The ice must be relatively pure and at least a couple of meters thick to give this [radar] signature."

Water is important for sustaining a moon base, but water can also be broken down o hydrogen and oxygen, the components of rocket fuel. 90% of the weight of a launch vehicle from earth is the rocket fuel. If a refueling station were available in space, launch vehicles could just go into low earth orbit from the earth, then refuel to continue into high orbit, or to the moon, or deep space. Supplies of water and oxygen could also be provided.

Stone Aerospace [P6.] has proposed a one to two year mission to demonstrate the economic recovery of fuel from the moon. The Shackleton Crater Expedition [P6. ] is planned to cost $5 billion.

3. Large Reflectors for Climate Engineering and Power

3.1 Climate Engineering. It doesn't matter whether global warming is now primarily human-caused or not, climate has always changed and will continue to change. attempts to control CO2 emissions re terrifyingly expensive, and are bound to fail because China, India, and the rest of the developing world are not going to destroy their economies by signing on. Moreover, there is a risk that even if CO2 control were successful, climate would continue to warm anyway due natural causes. The current temperature of the earth is 287 degrees Kelvin, with nearly all the heat coming from the sun. Hence, blocking 1.4% of the sun's heat would bring about 4 degrees of cooling, about the amount of warming predicted by those who believe CO2 is the cause.

The diameter of the earth is about 8000 miles, so blocking 1% of the energy from the sun would take a reflector about 600 miles in diameter, or the equivalent in reflective material distributed in patches. A study a few years ago concluded that building a mirror that large was not feasible. [P8.] However, if the material for the material was mined on the moon and send to earth orbit using a mass driver [P9.], the cost could be dramatically reduced. since a space reflector does not need a supporting structure, it could be be made of extremely thin aluminum alloy. Lunar soil has large percentage of aluminum and iron. [P10. ] I lunar base could convert the soil into structural components.

The mission over the next few decades would be to demonstrate the feasibility of building a large reflector. the technology would then be available in case it is needed.

3.2 Extending daylight. There are several uses for reflectors that are a few kilometers in diameter. One is extend daylight in the winters of northern cities. An old (1982) NASA study [P11.] determined that reflectors illuminating northern US cities would pay for themselves in 4.5 years due to savings in electric lighting cost. I don't know what a current cost analysis would show, but it would make a good subject for a feasibility experiment.

3.3 Solar power stations. the concept is to concentrate solar power using a reflector, use the energy to generate electricity, and beam the power down using microwaves. The technical issues have been studied for a long time. The feasibility depends upon launch costs. A recent study concluded "Such a project may be able to achieve economic viability in 30 years or less" [P12.] Economic viability means that the electricity generated would pay for the launch and construction costs. The viability risk depends upon the technical risk of the project, but the cost of earth bound power generation. Green energy from wind and solar is so expensive, that if it is required it would very likely ensure the viability of the space alternative. It's more likely, that space power would be needed and practical 30 to 50 years in the future.

Large space structures for any application in earth orbit will be much more efficient if the structural elements are fabricated on a moon base.

4. Basic research

A moon base is the obvious place for research on the structure and origins of the moon, but it's also the ideal platform for deep space telescopes. The moon is very stable and a large telescope mirror can be made from lunar dust or by spinning a liquid into a parabolic shape. [P13. ] the moon is also an ideal location for a large radio telescope. [P14. ]

A mass driver could launch deep space probes and provide the structures and fuel for a manned Mars mission.

5. Costs

A minimal four-person moon base would cost at least $35 billion plus $7.5 billion per year to operate. Do support the tasks required, about a 24-person base seems appropriate. Figure $200 billion to establish, plus $40 billion to operate. Over time, the costs would decline due to value of the fuel and energy produced.


Rules attempted after hitting "Accept" don't apply. Con may structure his arguments as he wishes.


----Moon can't sustain life, Biosphere Project 2 Proves
Golbus 11 (AL Golbus, NASA Official,, April 29, 2011 accessed Oct. 24, 2011, AL)
People need air, water, food and reasonable temperatures to survive. On Earth a large complex biosphere provides these. In space settlements, a relatively small, closed system must recycle all the nutrients without "crashing." The Biosphere II project in Arizona has shown that a complex, small, enclosed, man-made biosphere can support eight people for at least a year, although there were many problems. A year or so into the two year mission oxygen had to be replenished, which strongly suggests that they achieved atmospheric closure. For the first try, one major oxygen replenishment and perhaps a little stored food isn't too bad. Although Biosphere II has been correctly criticized on scientific grounds, it was a remarkable engineering achievement and provides some confidence that self sustaining biospheres can be built for space settlements.
----Radiation Protection needed for life
Golbus 11 (AL Golbus, NASA Official,, April 29, 2011 accessed Oct. 24, 2011, AL)
Radiation protection. Cosmic rays and solar flares create a lethal radiation environment in space. To protect life, settlements must be surrounded by sufficient mass to absorb most incoming radiation. This can be achieved with left over from processing lunar soil and asteroids into oxygen, metals, and other useful materials.
----Radiation causes health defects.
NASA08 ( accessed on Oct. 10, 2011, About Space Radiation, AL)
Ionizing radiation travels through living tissues, depositing energy that causes structural damage to DNA and alters many cellular processes. Current research sponsored by NASA seeks an understanding of DNA structural and functional changes caused by radiation, basic metabolic controls known to be modulated by radiation; genomic instability; changes to tissue structure; and "bystander" or non-targeted effects. NASA has identified the following health concerns as its highest research priorities. Risk of Radiation Carcinogenesis from Space Radiation – increased risk of cancers. Risk of Acute or Late Central Nervous System Effects from Space Radiation – changes in motor function and behavior or neurological disorders. Risk of Degenerative Tissue or Other Health Effects from Space Radiation – other degenerative tissue defects such as cataracts, circulatory diseases, and digestive diseases. Acute Radiation Risks from Space Radiation – prodromal risks, significant skin injury, or death from a major solar event or combination solar/galactic cosmic ray event that jeopardizes crew and mission survival.
---Microgravity causes bone loss.
Odom 05 (Jason Odom, web designer and writer for the NASA website, Weak in the Knees - The Quest for a Cure,, accessed online Oct. 10, 2011, AL)
Space biomedical researchers have found that exposure to the microgravity environment of space causes men and women of all ages to lose up to 1% of their bone mass per month due to disuse atrophy, a condition similar to osteoporosis. It is not yet clear whether losses in bone mass will continue as long as a person remains in the microgravity environment or level off in time.
----Moon travel tech too old to use. 04 (, written Nov. 4, 2004, accessed Nov. 9, 2011, AL)
Perhaps the most daunting challenge to mining the moon is designing the spacecraft to carry the hardware and crew to the lunar surface. The Apollo Saturn V spacecraft remains the benchmark for a reliable, heavy-lift moon rocket. Capable of lifting 50 tons to the moon, Saturn V's remain the largest spacecraft ever used. In the 40 years since the spacecraft's development, vast improvements in spacecraft technology have occurred. For an investment of about $5 billion it should be possible to develop a modernized Saturn capable of delivering 100-ton payloads to the lunar surface for less than $1500 per pound.
The moon is Radioactive
NASA 05 (written September 25, 2005,, accessed Nov. 9, 2011, AL)
The surface of the Moon is baldly exposed to cosmic rays and solar flares, and some of that radiation is very hard to stop with shielding. Furthermore, when cosmic rays hit the ground, they produce a dangerous spray of secondary particles right at your feet. All this radiation penetrating human flesh can damage DNA, boosting the risk of cancer and other maladies.
----World population can fit in Texas
Alison 11 (Wick Alison, staff writer for the Front Burner (Dallas newspaper), written Jan. 13, 2011,, accessed Dec. 1, 2011, AL)
Robert Kunzig of National Geographic is on Krys Boyd's Think right now discussing his article, "Population Seven Billion." He said he did the calculations, and the entire world could fit in Texas if each person were alloted the same average square feet of living space as in New York City. I lived in New York City, and the sqaure footage wasn't that bad. Give up a private screening room and a wine cellar and a couple of extra bedrooms — and most of your kitchen space — and you'd be surprised. I'm all for it. Imagine all the room left over for farming, flyfishing, and horseback riding. When it comes to picking neighborhoods, I'd want to move to wherever the Italians settle. (The North Koreans can have Odessa.)
Debate Round No. 2


Thanks to Con for an interesting and timely topic. Manned exploration of space is emerging as a campaign issue for the next presidential election.

My contentions were not attacked and are therefore sustained

Con did not contest that there are worthwhile missions that moon base could accomplish. He did not contest that the costs of the project are reasonable in view of the objectives of combating global warming, providing long term energy to earth, performing valuable scientific research, and building an infrastructure for low cost space refueling. con does not dispute that the project is worth doing at the cost claimed, and that there is no better use of the money.

Con's arguments are confined to technical feasibility. Con claims that a moon base cannot be sustained. I will answer each of his objections.

Con Contention 1 Con claims that life on the moon cannot be sustained without replenishing the oxygen, and that was proved by Biosphere II. I never proposed that the base be sustained without replenishment. In the cost section I explicitly allowed $40 billion per year to operate the base and that include ample replenishment. However, I provided evidence in Pro contention 2 that there is plenty of water on the moon, and that oxygen is readily derived from the water. At the time of the Biosphere experiments, they didn't know that there was so much water on the moon, so their assumption that the base had to be completely self-sufficient was false.

CC 2 Con correctly claims that protection from radiation is necessary for a moon base, and his source gives one solution to that problem, which is to use lunar dust to protect the base. The plan proposed for the Shackleton Crater Expedition [P6] has most of the habitation underground to provide protection from radiation hazards.

All space missions face radiation hazards, including the long term habitation of the International Space Station. The Space Station is protected only by the thin metal of the structure, but it's acceptable for periods of up to a year. The moon base would have substantially better shielding, being buried in the lunar soil. However, it's proven that excursions outside the base can be sustained, because astronauts have already accomplished that. When extreme solar flares occur, astronauts must retreat to the shelter. That's the practice on current space missions.

While the base on the moon would be sustained for decades, the crew would be rotated at something like nine month intervals. That's not for survival, it's to preserve morale.

CC 3 Con argues that microgravity causes bone loss due to inactivity. The moon is not a low gravity environment, not the microgravity environment of earth orbit. the low gravity means that greater masses can be lifted and it' possible to move greater distances with the same amount of effort. A space suit itself is heavy and unlike the orbital environment the weight would be born. If bone loss occurs at al, it would likely be much less than in orbit. However, crew rotation every nine months would ensure that there are no serious lasting effects.

CC 4 Con argues that new heavy lift rocket would have to be developed to make a moon base more economic. Con's source put the cost at $5 billion. I allotted $200 billion for the startup costs, which covers the cost of a new rocket. NASA is already developing the rocket for deep space exploration, so it's not an issue. [P15. ]

CC 5 Con argues that there is plenty of room on earth to sustain a larger population, so there is no need for a moon colony to support population growth. I agree. I never argued that a moon base was needed to support population growth. I gave the purposes explicitly, and Con did not dispute them as being valid.

Con granted the reasons for building a moon base and the cost effectiveness. His technical objections are minor, and I have answered them.

The resolution is affirmed.



c1. ?, how are you going to get the O2 from the H2O. The card states that it would take along time to terraform the moon.
cc2. But not on the moon such a manuver can take days even weeks and cost billions of dollars.
cc3. Are you sugesting the moon has Earth like gravity? Anyways, Moon has lower gravity than Earth which leeds to bone loss.
cc5. Pro agrees
new refutes (arguing Solar power stuff)
----SBSPs are illegal.
The Outer Space Security and Development Treaty of 2011 (, accessed Nov. 20, 2011, AL)
The Outer Space Security and Development Treaty of 2011 establishes a
Framework and procedures to assure that space will be a neutral realm from
Which all classes of weapons are banned and from which no hostile action shall
Be taken toward Earth or the surrounding Cosmos.
----SBSP can't happen for another 30 years

Mok 11 (Brian Mok, CEO at Takezawa, written July 2, 2011,, accessed Dec. 6, 2011, AL)

Right now, SPSP is not viable as a mainstream source of energy. In fact, even when
accounting for the most optimal effects, we would need to wait at least 30 more years
before beginning a large attempt at adopting space based solar power.
In order for SBSP to be feasible before then, we would require some sort of
disruptive technology in orbital launch, such as a space elevator. Another case might be
where the Earth's atmosphere suddenly prevented more of the sunlight from reaching the
Earth, increasing the efficiency gains from using SBSP.
----SBSP tech won't be available for years.
Skarb 09 (Justin Skarb, staff writer for the, written Jan. 16, 2009,, accessed Dec. 6, 2011, AL)
The danger in making large investments into SBSP while the economy is reeling is that there is only so much money to go around. As such, there is a danger that scarce investment dollars will be siphoned way from more immediately viable and beneficial programs such as terrestrial green energy programs. Some three decades ago the Department of Energy reported in its review of SBSP that "every dollar spent on solar satellites will not be spent on terrestrial research and commercialization". Unfortunately, it is these very programs that may be critical to preventing a deepening of the current economic crisis. It would be nothing less than a tragedy of political judgment if the country was forced to forgo the near-term economic benefits of terrestrial green energy programs simply to fund a SBSP program that will not be viable for years, if not decades.
----Even discounting most costs even after 30 years you don't even have 15% back in profit
Mok 11 (Brian Mok, CEO at Takezawa, written July 2, 2011,, accessed Dec. 6, 2011, AL)

Using data from previous studies and our own linearized estimations, we are able to obtain a chart for annual returns on investment. This only supposes that the only cost incurred are putting solar panels up in space. All other costs are completely ignored, such
as fixed costs, capital costs, etc. Even the costs of putting up a transmitting array, or
construction is ignored. In other words, the costs shown here are similar to marginal
costs, if all the space and ground infrastructure was already set up. We are only looking
at "when is it even remotely feasible to begin thinking about SBSP as a mainstream source
of energy." We see from the graph that in fact, for a median estimate, even waiting thirty
year is not enough to reach a 15% return. Since we are discounting the roughly 80% of the
costs from other sources, 15% is the minimum to begin considering SBSP.
----SBSPs causes Kessler Syndrome
Dutt 11 (Varun Dutt, Post-Doctoral Fellow in the Department of Social and Decision Sciences at Carnegie Mellon University,, written Oct. 10, 2011, accessed Nov. 28, 2011, AL)
According to a recent NASA report, the space around earth is home to over 135 million small pieces of junk; another 300,000 medium size pieces (between 1 and 10 centimeters); and over 22,000 significant pieces of trash (over 10 centimeters across). Over 30 per cent of the debris can be attributed to the US alone, reports NASA. In 2009, a US Iridium commercial satellite and an inoperative Russian satellite collided, spreading debris everywhere. A report by the US National Research Council (NRC) says that the problem of space debris is getting worse and has passed a "tipping point." According to the NRC report, we are currently reaching a critical capacity, known as the "Kessler Syndrome" (named after former head of NASA's Orbital Debris Program Office, Donald Kessler), in which debris collisions create more debris, which, in turn, is more likely to hit other objects
Debate Round No. 3


Thanks to Con for an interesting debate. It motivated me to look into the subject, from which I learned a lot.

CC 1. Source P6 says hydrogen and oxygen can be derived from water, and Con offers no evidence it cannot. Water is H2O, with two atoms of hydrogen bonded to one oxygen atom. Electrolysis, application of DC voltage, separates water it into hydrogen and oxygen. The process is energy intensive, but it is well established. Recently, scientist discovered that a catalyst will lower the energy required for electrolysis. [P16. ].

The sun gives off hydrogen as the solar wind. Hydrogen from the solar wind bonds to to the lunar soil to a depth of t least 2.6 m and can be recovered by heating the soil. [P 17 ] It's probably easier to get it from water, but that's another method.

Power for a moon base could be provided by the combination of solar panels with fuel cells. A fuel cell is another way to produce hydrogen. When the sun is shining, electricity from the solar panels separates water into hydrogen and oxygen. In solar night, the hydrogen is recombined in the fuel cell to produce electricity. this was studied as early as 1993. [P18 ]

CC 2. I think Con is arguing that putting the base underground to protect it from radiation would be expensive. The Shackleton Crater Expedition included the cost in their $5 billion estimate for a mission that established a small base and further produced demonstration qualities of fuel. One of the mission objectives for the lunar base is to mine surface minerals and refine them into metals for structures. That implies that equipment for moving and processing lunar soil are part of the startup costs anyway, so that equipment could be used for excavating the the base location. the thin metal of the international space station provides adequate protection for up to a year, so the vehicle transporting the astronauts and then a space station-type of habitation would suffice until the base is constructed under ground. I allotted $200 billion in startup cost, which is probably generous.

CC3. The study con cited was for microgravity in an orbiting space station. The gravity on the moon is 16.7% that of earth. The Apollo space suits used on the moon had weight on earth of 200 pounds [P19. ] On the moon they would weigh 33 pounds. In orbit, they would weigh zero. If 33 pounds is not enough to adequately prevent bone loss, weight could be added to restore the equivalent of the astronauts weight on earth. In orbit, centrifugal force balances gravity, so the technique of adding weight does not work. The effective weight in orbit is always zero.

If no measures are taken to prevent bone loss, the longest an astronaut could stay safely on the moon is 22 months. [P20 ]. The planned crew rotation is only 9 months, so even if no measures are taken to prevent bone loss, the mission would be safe. Increasing the equivalent body load to 3/8 of earths gravity would extend the safe mission duration to 36 months. or a 180 pound astronaut, that would be accomplished with an earth weight of 404 pounds, weighing 67 pounds on the moon.

CC4. Con concedes heavy lift rocket development is not a problem.

CC5. Con successfully rebutted an argument I never made. whatever population problem the earth has, a moon base doesn't address it.

3.3 Solar power stations. Con introduces new arguments against a solar power space station. He points to a treaty prohibiting weapons on space. I don't understand the relevance to a solar power space station which is not a weapon, and could not be used as a weapon. I'm guessing that someone might think the microwave power beam that sends the power to earth might be used s a weapon. That's not possible because the energy density in the beam is too low. The beam is spread out over several square miles so that it does not pose a threat to wildlife or to the environment. Since it poses no threat to wildlife, it wouldn't be useful as a weapon. The energy density is a function of the antenna geometry, which is fixed in the design.

Con points to sources saying that a solar power space station won't be a practical energy source for at least thirty years. What makes it impractical right now? What makes it impractical is the high cost of transporting all the materials for the power station from the earth's surface to orbit around the earth. The moon base treats the problem by mining the materials on the moon, fabricating the structure in pieces, and launching the structures to earth orbit with the mass driver. Making all of that cheaper advances the date at which an orbiting power station is practical.

The objective is to develop the technology for building low cost orbiting power stations so that the technology would be available when it is needed. It probably won't be needed for thirty years, but it will take decades to develop practical technology. That's why construction of a moon base should start now and be planned to be sustained for at least several decades.

Con never argued against the uses of a lunar base for developing orbital refueling, for climate engineering experiments, and for basic research in science. Con did not argue that the costs were unacceptable or that the money could be better spent on other things. I have answered his technical objections to the feasibility.

The resolution is affirmed.


cc2. You never said who you're doing this through, so it can be a company that overspends.
cc3. YOu stated thatsolar power would be profitable, so how'd you get the energy from the moon to the Earth. As in my article it states that in a test from space to a Hawanian island it last its energy down to .001% that and he never refuted the fact that solar power is 100% pure RADIATION.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Xboxlive 6 years ago
lannan: this is not a policy debate cite. Go to to get policy debates. otherwise it's in public forum format.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
I thought it would be about whether there was better use or the money, or possibly if it was the business of government. It's a good topic for those issues.
Posted by wierdman 6 years ago
Not a kind of debate I would see you doing roy, but what ever suits you.
Posted by Maikuru 6 years ago
Nice topic.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by wmpeebles 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: RoyLatham is perhaps one of my greatest role models. While I do not support a moon base, Pro gave some very interesting benefits that a moon base could provide for that I had not considered previously. It was just a sad debate as Con didn't really try to attack Pro and formulated arguments that were easily defeated. Because he did not refute Pro after R2, it was pretty hard to say Con had better arguments. As for conduct, Con had weak closing round. Sources were widely used by Pro to his advtg.
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 6 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Weak arguments by Con led to an easy Pro win. If his points were a little more developed he might have had a chance.
Vote Placed by imabench 6 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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had good points but not good arguments compared to the Pro's. Had the Con built on the extremely complicated conditions a sustained moonbase would have he could have won easily, but he didnt.
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 6 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Con really needs to learn to one, make his spelling and grammar better, and two, make his arguments into more than one sentence per. I will say that he has improved in his arguments. But he still has some work to do.