The Instigator
girg
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
jawyer
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

The United states should send a manned spacecraft to the moon

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
girg
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/20/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,870 times Debate No: 21301
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)

 

girg

Con

Pro: In favor of sending a manned spacecraft to the Moon.
Con: Not to send a person, and send a robot instead.
Opponent please accept and state your first challenge.
jawyer

Pro

I accept this debate and await PRO's opening arguments.

As CON, I will argue that this resolution is a bad idea.

To you, PRO.
Debate Round No. 1
girg

Con

Thank you PRO for accepting my this debate.
I would like to open by stating that sending a man to the moon would be a waste of money and a space robot would be significantly more efficient compared to a human.
Cons of sending a human:
The cost would go well into the billions, and the astronaut would have to return within a short amount of time. food, fuel, water, and oxygen would all add to the cost.
Pros of sending a robot:
As seen with the mars rover, it would be significantly cheaper to send a robot. The price of the first mission was 300 million and the second mission was 200 million. The mars rover was sent in 2003, and is still there, although its mission has ended. The rover would also have the ability to collect samples, analyze them, and send them to a site on Earth, all while staying in the same spot.
jawyer

Pro

Thank you CON for stating clearly that robots are more efficent than human beings themselves. However you so stupidly are making the judgement that engineering a robot costs more than the food and water to send with a human into space. Do you know how much money it takes to build a space robot? The total cost of building, launching, landing and operating the rovers on the surface for the initial 90-Martian-day (sol) primary mission was US$820 million much more than youre claimed 200 million for sending a human. I think i have made my opposition look stupid here by proving that the expense is much cheaper for humans than robots.

I invite CON to state another disadvantage with which i am prepared to rebuttle.

Source(s): http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Debate Round No. 2
girg

Con

I find your use of "stupidly" very unprofessional. I apologize for my inaccuracy on the price, however, the price of a manned spacecraft STILL exceeds the price of a robot. A robot could last for years on a planet, yet a human could last a very short time.
jawyer

Pro

I happen to find your latest response extremely dull and it was not backed up with evidence to support your claim still. Until you can provide evidence, your latest claim is not yet valid and i am still in the lead of the debate as i have produced

Point
Evidence
Explanation

yet a less proffessional way of making a discursive arguement could be followed out by:

Stating your point
EXplaining your point
Illustrating your point

That may become use to you as you clearly seem incabable of organising your arguement.
Debate Round No. 3
girg

Con

Point: A manned spacecraft to the moon would be unreasonable due to costs and efficiency
Evidence: Cost of Mars rover : approx. 820, million
(Keep in mind mars is significantly further away from earth than the Moon, which would reduce both fuel and time to arrive to the Moon.)
Cost of sending a man the moon: Apollo from 1959 to 1973 adjusted to inflation would cost 109 billion over the 14 years
Explanation: If all the time on the moon spent by man, it would only add up to a fraction of the time a rover could be on the moon.
The costs and efficiency of the rover outweigh the benefits of a human in a space environment.

Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

jawyer

Pro

Con has responded this time perfectly, yet he has chosen to re-explain the same point he has been using since the beginning. Unfortunately for Con, this means that he wont be able to rebuttle again as this is the last round. Con has not produced any other arguement other than stating that it would cost alot more to send a manned spacecraft to the moon than to send a robot probe there.

It would seem obvious though to Con, that after the first manned space craft launch to the moon, NASA already has the technology ready and available to send a man now. The reason the first time back in the 1900s for the heavy cost was due to there being lots of research needed and engineering which would all require funding for. Alot has happenned in a couple of decades since then.



In NASA's Vision for Space Exploration, humans will return to the Moon before 2020, and that will pave the way for journeys to Mars and beyond.

The reason NASA sent a space probe to the moon in 2008 was the first step: To record maps and measurings etc. of the moon.

The Bush plan: More than three decades after the last man walked on the Moon, U.S. President George W. Bush proposed sending humans there again, to build a permanent base, and then on to Mars.

"The desire to explore and understand is part of our character," Bush said in January 2004. "We do not know where this journey will end, yet we know this – human beings are headed into the cosmos.

"Mankind is drawn to the heavens for the same reason we were once drawn into unknown lands and across the open sea. We choose to explore space because doing so improves our lives and lifts our national spirit."

The new goals include sending robot explorers to the Moon by 2008 and human explorers by 2015.

American astronauts would return to the Moon around 2015 with a human base to be completed on the Moon soon after. Human flights to Mars would follow in the next decade. The Moon would be used as a steppingstone for manned trips to Mars and beyond.

Endorsement. Space professionals and enthusiasts have had a powerful desire to return to the Moon since the last Apollo astronaut left there in 1972. The Bush call for exploration of the Moon and Mars was the boldest space goal since President Kennedy called in 1961 for sending astronauts to the Moon. That goal was accomplished with six manned flights between 1969-1972.

The scientists want NASA to study the composition and structure of the Moon's interior, the lunar atmosphere, and the Moon's potential as an observation platform for studying Earth, the Sun, and deep space astronomy.

Why Go Back Now?

Twelve American astronauts walked on the Moon between 1969-1972. No human being has been there since, so why go back now?

Humans living on the Moon and Mars would allow Earth to exploit numerous opportunities for the generation of energy, astronomy, communications, mining, industrialization, and commercialization, as well as the future expansion of humanity across the Solar System.

In later decades, Mars could be the jumping off point for human flights beyond the Asteroid Belt to the giant planet Jupiter. In particular, planetary scientists would be interested in landing on and exploring one or more of the moons of Jupiter.

The renewed American interest in the Moon and Mars may have been stimulated at this time by the highly visible and successful first manned spaceflight by China in 2003. China, India, Japan, Europe and others want to probe the Moon and eventually land there.

Most of the technology already is at hand, President Bush suggested increasing NASA's annual budget by five percent to pay for the expensive new plan. He also planned to ask other countries to participate in the project, which means rockets and spacecraft from other nations could play an important role.

Everyone is keen to move on!

I have used some information here that i have found on websites. Please vote for Pro!!!! :D

Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by RandomName 4 years ago
RandomName
Didn't we do that back in '69?
Posted by jawyer 5 years ago
jawyer
@Zaradi

please read my last round response
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
Alright, I end up voting on the argument con made that says that it would a) cost more to send a man to the moon overall than it would to send a rover and b) it would be more efficient to send a rover than a human. I don't feel that the responses pro made were fully adequete to refute the points because, although pro successfully pointed out that it would be more cost expensive to build the robot, building the robot isn't the main part of the discussion. The debate is centered around what we are sending into space, not what we're building TO send into space. So I discard that argument for that reason. Since there really wasn't anything else substantial against the points, I give con the debate from there.

I feel obligated to point out something to pro: belittling your opponent gains you nothing in debates. This isn't PF debate. You can't just make fun of your opponent the entire time without providing something of adequete refutation, and even then it's wise to not poke fun at your opponent. I give con conduct because of pro's lack of formality and the blindingly rude insults.

Aside from that, I thought the debate was a decent debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Yep 5 years ago
Yep
girgjawyerTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: No major arguments by pro until last speech (which was a rebuttal, therefore they are invalid) Conduct to Con because of Pros sad remarks on con in his first speech (belittling and a bit overboard to say the least) and Pro, don't call an argument stupid in a debate round, and NEVER CALL YOUR OPPONENT STUPID. Pretty sure theres a rule on DDO for that... but I'll leave at that
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
girgjawyerTied
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: making fun of your opponent gets you nowhere
Vote Placed by Doulos1202 5 years ago
Doulos1202
girgjawyerTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro needs to not wait till the last round to try and toss an argument together.
Vote Placed by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
girgjawyerTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.