The Instigator
potatolover
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
zach12
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The burden of continuing space exploration.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/10/2011 Category: Science
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,093 times Debate No: 16405
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

potatolover

Pro

Ok to start off this round I would like to encourage a fair and very educational debate today!
Space is the start of many great things some that we do not even realize. A few may be the very personal computer that you may be typing your argument upon. Further examples may be put as needed.
A race to the moon was a very challenging task and caused the US and Russia to further their technological boundaries to the limit at that point in time. The point on that is it caused many of the things that we use everyday.

To not continue the exploration of space could make things that are not even known to us now possible. Further technology can prove to help in the medical field as we may be able to find cures to virus using the technology that we have obtained through the space programs.

It may help with the gas as people try to figure out how to better the launches without spending so many millions or billions of dollars on fuel.

Any further information or sources may be given.
zach12

Con

To start off I would like to acknowledge that space exploration has produced some useful inventions. However, pro seems to think space exploration is the only way to reaching these inventions and discoveries, and this "fact" thereby warrants the continuing of the space program.
The problem is the inventions themselves don't come from space. They come from the increased technological aspirations the United States had during the Sputnik decade. Space itself is pretty worthless, other than the uses we have already found for it like orbiting satellites to provide little Johnny with Nickelodeon. There is apparently not sentient life on any accessible planet other than Earth, so the search for life is pointless unless a quicker method of travel is invented.

What we need for better inventions is a societal and governmental focus on technology and science. Because by pro's logic, we should try to actively create war often in order to make as many technological updates as possible.
Debate Round No. 1
potatolover

Pro

Ok to refute the con's arguments I would like to bring in a bit of logical assumptions from the space program as of the time of the Apollo missions.
First--I did not say that the inventions came form space it-self, but rather from the continuing view of humans to better the technology to get to those regions of space faster or even get there a all. Humans have only gotten to the moon though leaving many different planets to explore and other places outside the solar system (If the technology permits)
So a logical argument be that by the continuing space exploration may prove to create even ore technology that we may not even know exists at the moment.
Second--The argument of life away from the earth and how to find it is illogical and trying to find life is way beyond most thoughts now. A better way of putting it would be to explore different planets in the search for a place that humans could live outside of earth. This would help the exploration and give many more opportunities.
zach12

Con

My opponent is arguing for improving technology, not for exploring space. He repeatedly said that we need the technology that came about from the space missions. But later on, he says we need to find a place outside Earth where humans could live. Despite the discrepancy, I have already refuted the first point. We can obtain valuable inventions in other, more productive ways without sending metal into space. Second, we already have large amounts of knowledge about the planets nearest to us and the ones farther away from us are extremely far away. Proxima Centauri is over 4 light years away, and providing that it has habitable planets revolving around it (which it probably doesn't) it would still take us years and years to get to it. We can fix the problems on Earth and don't need to turn to other planets. According to the demographic transition theory of population, as we move more and more into a post-industrial society, births decrease. We need to search for better solutions HERE.
Debate Round No. 2
potatolover

Pro

Still it does remain that the planets that are close to us have not been thoroughly explored. Our own moon is not completely explored. Mars though takes about 9 months to get their and the same back yet humans still have not found a better way to get there. This leaves room for improvement and enhancement of technology. Not necessarily do we have to explore planets outside our solar system,but the planets inside and learn about those. These enhancements in technology could in the future make faster jets and use less fuel thus helping our everyday life.
There is always a human curiosity as in: why? or what? Humans always want to know what is out in the far reaches of space. For now let us focus on the solar system a relatively close area considering the size of space it-self. The main point I am tiring to make is that to continue space exploration furthers our technology and satisfies our curiosity.
Sources: http://www.astronomycafe.net...
zach12

Con

Of course there is room for improvement of a spaceship, but to what end? You just suggest fully exploring the moon, yet we know that is nearly featureless, with only craters dotting its surface. Is there really any benefit to fully exploring it? Conservative estimates for the depletion of oil run in the 40-50 year range. This is nowhere near long enough for any discoveries from exploring other planets to benefit jet fuel consumption.
In the second part of your last argument, you seem to say that we should bear the burdens of space exploration solely in order to satisfy our human curiosity. Should we all try dope to satisfy our curiosity? Should we all feel what it's like to kill another person? Or should we steal and rape? Maybe we should all do an experiment like Morgan Spurlock and see what it's like to become obese. My point is, we can't waste energy, resources, and time when we have so little of those things to give, especially when the goal is simply to satisfy curiosity.
Debate Round No. 3
potatolover

Pro

Ok besides the spaceship lets look to other possibilities.

The Hubble space telescope:
This telescope has provided pictures of untold possibles, before it's time. An investment in this is bound to happen.

The Hubble telescope doesn't have to go to those unknown worlds it can see them.
Using our resources, without having to break the bank, we can further this technology.

My opponent says: We waste money on something that we can't achieve without using up our resources.
I agree then, lets focus our resources on something that won't waste our resources, the telescope.

Benefits: Any kind of investment in our cameras,infrared, or x-ray can help us medically, and militarily.

Ok you say a space launch is too expensive? Check out this site and how they would be able to get something into space for only 54 million dollars. http://www.spacex.com...

This would further space exploration, further technology for the better, and won't waste our resources.

Back to you con
zach12

Con

zach12 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
potatolover

Pro

Ok to restate my argument:

The Hubble space telescope:
This telescope has provided pictures of untold possibles, before it's time. An investment in this is bound to happen.

The Hubble telescope doesn't have to go to those unknown worlds it can see them.
Using our resources, without having to break the bank, we can further this technology.

My opponent says: We waste money on something that we can't achieve without using up our resources.
I agree then, lets focus our resources on something that won't waste our resources, the telescope.

Benefits: Any kind of investment in our cameras,infrared, or x-ray can help us medically, and militarily.

Ok you say a space launch is too expensive? Check out this site and how they would be able to get something into space for only 54 million dollars. http://www.spacex.com......

This would further space exploration, further technology for the better, and won't waste our resources.

Back to you con
zach12

Con

zach12 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by zach12 6 years ago
zach12
I didn't realize there was a 1000 character limit when I took this debate...
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
potatoloverzach12Tied
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: FF
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
potatoloverzach12Tied
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: FF