We should cut all funding to NASA
Debate Round Forfeited
PowerPikachu21 has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
|Voting Style:||Open||Point System:||7 Point|
|Updated:||7 months ago||Status:||Debating Period|
|Viewed:||395 times||Debate No:||93530|
Debate Rounds (5)
We shouldn't give up NASA. NASA allows us to explore outer space. There may be life out there, other than on Earth. But who knows? NASA thrives to anser this question with a "yes". Yes, they're not solving world hunger, or Donald Trump, but they're not hindering our daily lives. If it's not dangerous, why bother removing it?
It is my aim to show to my opponent, and our voters that we as humans live on a flat plane (whether finite or infinite remains to be seen) inside an enclosed system, or under an impenetrable dome. This is perhaps the biggest conspiracy of all, and in turn should show that NASA is a fraud, space is entirely fabricated, and there is no need for "space exploration" as we know it.
I noticed, from his past debates, that my opponent is in search of evidence of claims, and I hope to appease him with such evidence, starting with flat earth evidence, both empirical and logical, and ending with an impenetrable dome.
Flat earth evidence
1. Distances sighted
A "mirage" was photographed from Michigan overlooking Lake Michigan of the Chicago skyline, a span of 60 miles, which should be 2,400 ft below the supposed curvature of the earth. When we look at the heights of the buildings in Chicago, we find that The tallest building at 1,450 ft is the Sears tower. We should not be able to see ANY of Chicago from Michigan. Now before you go agreeing with the whole bs mirage thing, think to yourself what an actual mirage looks like, always inverted, mirrored, partially opaque, and generally distorted, Google some images of actual mirages. Conditions are perfect indeed. This is not a mirage.
There are many instances of long distances being seen, and this is something that anyone can confirm, and is empirical evidence of a flat earth.
2. No movement detected
Albert Einstein said:
"...I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment...
The supposed movements of the earth has never been detected. How can the world be a ball flying through space, spinning, wobbling, etc if we can't measure it's movements?
Arguments for a dome.
1. Stars through a telephoto lens
The Nikon P900 is arguably the best telephoto camera for it's price. This has led more people to obtain these cameras, and capture things from a distance like never before, namely stars and planets. These videos were taken from such a camera, and show a very peculiar sight.
This doesn't look like a ball of fire, millions of miles away?
There are several videos of stars up close that anyone can see, and anyone with a few hundred bucks can produce these same results. Compare this footage with this:
2. The go fast rocket
This rocket, launched from the Nevada Black Rock desert. It broke some records for being the highest, and fastest amateur rocket ever launched. A couple things I'd like to point out are outlined below:
a. The rocket had enough velocity to reach a much further height, but it makes an abrupt stop, then slowly begins to turn and descend, as if it were suspended in a dense liquid.
b. The sound that comes from the separation distinctly sounds like it happened underwater. Space has no sound, because there are no molecules for the sound waves to travel through.
c. This point goes with my flat earth evidence. At it's peak, the camera catches a glimpse of a smaller, yet familiar face.... The moon. How, if the moon is 250,000 miles away from earth, can it shrink to this size? It's a lot closer than we are told, and only travels far enough away from us so that we can't see it anymore. Same with the sun.
Evidence overwhelmingly supports a flat, enclosed earth. I have plenty nor evidence of this, but I'd like to hear from my opponent at this time on the matter. Nothing NASA is showing us is truth, they get billions of taxpayer dollars for showing us computer graphics images. I propose we not only cut funding to 0%, but demand the money that is sunk into this massive black hole in the past.
I thank Pro for continuing this debate. It appears he went and discussed the possibility of a Flat Earth.
"This is perhaps the biggest conspiracy of all, and in turn should show that NASA is a fraud, space is entirely fabricated, and there is no need for "space exploration" as we know it." So NASA is cover up for the Flat Earth? But there's one thing repventing this possibility: Astronauts. I'll expand on that later.
And yes, I like evidence.
Yeah that has to be a mirage. The news reporter gives evidence, and a logical, scientific possibility as to how the mirage formed.
Also, note that this mirage only happened once. Assuming this isn't a mirage, and really is Chicago, how come we only saw it once?
We can't detect a rotation:
I'm unable to find that quote from Einstein. Could you please link it? Also, this is an Appeal to Authority, and what's with the "..." surrounding the quote? It may also be quote mining.
Earlier, I mentioned astronauts disprove a flat earth. If you ask one, they'll confirm that the Earth rotates. They're actually been in outer space, so they'd definitely know. (And I'm pretty sure an Astronaut would sue NASA had they seen a flat earth)
"Arguments for a dome." Now we're in a dome? That's a new one.
Stars through a telephoto lens;
So there's a mysterious light?
Video 1: Oh, yeah. I saw those too, with binoculars. Just take any light, put it far away, use binoculars or telescope, and I'm sure that effect will happen. I'm not exactly an expert of light, but I believe that's just an effect.
Video 2: Note that editing was used in this video. The wobbly effect could've been editing. Also, I doubt a dome could create a wobbly effect.
Video 3: ... Cool. Water. Are you trying to say the dome is made of water? Hahaha... no. Besides, who would've made the dome? And why did they make the dome? There's literally no reason to put a giant dome over the earth.
Pro then tells us about a rocket, but refuses to source it. I'll refute his points, though.
"The rocket had enough velocity to reach a much further height, but it makes an abrupt stop, then slowly begins to turn and descend, as if it were suspended in a dense liquid." When the rocket reached the "water dome", it was going up, and gravity caused it to stop going up, making it have 0 upward momentum, then back down.
Too complicated? Throw a ball up in the air. Chances are, it'll stop mid-air for half a second, then fall. This is potential energy when it's at its peak.
"The sound that comes from the separation distinctly sounds like it happened underwater." Source, please.
"At it's peak, the camera catches a glimpse of a smaller, yet familiar face.... The moon. How, if the moon is 250,000 miles away from earth, can it shrink to this size?" Might I mention that you've never said how big the rocket is? Small beings see things bigger than a large being would. I'll get back to this point when Pro says how big the rocket is compared to the moon.
Now that the examination is done, I'll make a counter argument against the dome theory.
The illogical dome.
Let's review Pro's dome theory. He's proposing the dome surrounds a Flat Earth. This dome is also supposedly made out of a water-like liquid. However, there's a few problems with this.
First, how come we're unable to see this dome? I could very well go outside, and look at the sun. Had there been a dome, there would be a water effect, much like this video has shown: https://www.youtube.com...
So why can't we see the water effect? Does it turn on only at night? That can't be so either. We can see the moon at night. Let's imagine a water dome between us, and a Full Moon. There would still be that water effect.
Also, if there really was a water dome, there would have to be witnesses. Not just my current opponent, but many of the Flat Earthers. Why didn't they discover it? If there was a dome, I think I would've heard of it before. I've seen my fare share of debates, yet, this is the first with the idea of a dome made of water.
Then there's the problem of how it got there in the first place. How does one create a hollow sphere of water? It couldn't have been created before the Earth, since the Earth is in the center. Now we've got to find a way a hollow sphere of water could form. Think about it: You can't just make a dome in outer space. It would be difficult. The only possible way a dome could form is with a rocket ship. We didn't have rocket ships until around NASA was founded. By then, people would notice a difference in the Earth's atmopshere. Plus, of what substance exactly is the dome made of? H2O isn't exactly a solid substance, even in outer space. A stray meteor would've broken such a large dome. And we've had our fair share of meteors, yet, no such evidence of any water dome breaking exists.
NASA would've been too late to hide a Flat Earth.
NASA was supposedly founded in 1958 . Christopher Columbus explored the ocean blue, in 1492 . As we all know, Columbus is famous for discovering America, and disproving the Flat Earth theory. This is more than 300 years apart! There were many sailers between the founding of NASA and Columbus's voyage, trust me. Yet, no one pointed out an edge of the Earth! Flat surfaces have edges, right? No one said anything about an edge, so there's no point in tricking humanity with some crazy flat earth theory 300 years after the discovery of America.
This has turned into a Flat Earth debate. Anyways, it's not like NASA's actually evil, right? Even if we have a flat earth (which we don't), there's no reason to stop them altogether. I'll accept the flat earth debate, but I won't ever concede to a flat earth.
So anyways... anything else, Pro?
"Yeah that has to be a mirage. The news reporter gives evidence, and a logical, scientific possibility as to how the mirage formed."
This by no means a mirage. Experts on mirages over at SDSU state clearly that all mirages are always inverted.(upside down). (1)
"Don't confuse image inversion (i.e., something appearing upside down " the common property of all mirages)..."
The weatherman is not an expert in this field. Furthermore, the very definition of a mirage states that mirages are rare, and last only a short time. This time lapse from the same spot would be impossible if Chicago were a mirage. (2)
Earth does not move
Einstein made this statement in regards to the Michelson Morley experiment. Fourth paragraph in his book. (3)
"Earlier, I mentioned astronauts disprove a flat earth. If you ask one, they'll confirm that the Earth rotates. They're actually been in outer space, so they'd definitely know. (And I'm pretty sure an Astronaut would sue NASA had they seen a flat earth)"
They won't even confirm walking on the moon. (4) If there's one thing government is good at it's keeping secrets.
One question : Private space companies have been trying to get civilians into space for years, with far more advanced technology than what these clowns had in the sixties (the computing power of an original gameboy), they had no problem. We should have a McDonald's on Mars by now. Why is it that much harder to get amy civilian like neighbor, the A/C repair guy into space, than an astronot?
Stars through a telephoto lens.
"So there's a mysterious light?"
Yes, it's called a star.
"Oh, yeah. I saw those too, with binoculars. Just take any light, put it far away, use binoculars or telescope, and I'm sure that effect will happen. I'm not exactly an expert of light, but I believe that's just an effect."
Baseless assertion. It is clear that you aren't an expert, so your belief is irrelevant.
"Note that editing was used in this video. The wobbly effect could've been editing. Also, I doubt a dome could create a wobbly effect."
The editing was a transition from a still to a video. As I've stated, there are several of these videos available online. A dome could cause a "wobbly" effect if it were made of a liquid, or clear, with a liquid above it.
" Cool. Water. Are you trying to say the dome is made of water?"
A dense liquid, or a solid barrier in front of a dense liquid to be more correct, but the Bible describes it as water, yes.
"who would've made the dome?"
"There's literally no reason to put a giant dome over the earth."
For one, it's to keep unwanted from entering the Kingdom of Heaven, like atheists, and the fallen angels.
"Pro then tells us about a rocket, but refuses to source it. I'll refute his points, though."
It was in the comments, shortly after the round updated. Here it is again, and a simple Google search would have brought it up. The video is quite popular now, assumed you knew about. (6) See comments for other link. (No analysis from physicist and engineer, Brian Mullin)
", it was going up, and gravity caused it to stop going up, making it have 0 upward momentum, then back down."
It stops abruptly. My opponent ignores this statement. "Gravity" as you call it, would've caused an eventual slow, it never slowed gradually. The spinning also stopped abruptly. Try again.
""The sound that comes from the separation distinctly sounds like it happened underwater." Source, please."
The sound is in the video, and pointed out by Mr. Mullin.
" Might I mention that you've never said how big the rocket is? Small beings see things bigger than a large being would. I'll get back to this point when Pro says how big the rocket is compared to the moon."
The size of the rocket is irrelevant, the rocket is not in the frame, we are not comparing the moon with the rocket. The moon shrunk to a fraction of it's size, almost appearing to be a lonely star here is a side video is you must know. (7)
"First, how come we're unable to see this dome?"
My opponent acts as though he's never heard of glass before...
" I could very well go outside, and look at the sun. Had there been a dome, there would be a water effect, much like this video has shown"
If the Sun weren't glaringly bright, you could. The moon however, is a different story. (8) It's possible the stars and sun/moon are at varying heights in the firmament.
"Also, if there really was a water dome, there would have to be witnesses. Not just my current opponent, but many of the Flat Earthers. Why didn't they discover it?"
They did, or at least the ones that aren't shills. It's only recently been confirmed (9), but the idea has been around forever.(10) Even as recently as Nikola Tesla. (11)
Since my opponent thinks that I am just a gullible conspiracy nut, and would believe anything anyone tells me, I am just as convinced that he believes anything He hears from one source, well two really.
NASA and Disney started working together in their beginnings, and the fantasy dreams have been coming true ever since. With an infinity to explore, the money will steadily pour in, with promises of aliens, other worlds, and complete nonsense. Project Highjump found the dome.(12) Operation fishbowl (13) tried to destroy it., shortly after, NASA was formed to monopolize "space travel" (using the smartest Nazi scientits with operation paperclip, against the presidents orders) and the Antarctic treaty was made to stop any more explorers from discovering the dome. Von Braun and Walt were old Freemasons buddies, and so Disney was brought in. Which explains the word s ex in clouds on the "picture" of earth. (14) same look as in the Lion King. My opponent loves the Pixar series. Did you catch the Pizza Planet delivery truck in all the movies? The world as I know it is in the shape of a pizza. (15) Predictive programming. MKUltra at it's finest.(16)
Mr. Von Braun took a verse from the Bible about God's firmament to his grave, literally. (17)
After reading Pro's round 3 argument... God is now a part of this debate.
Let's review what the actual resolution is: "We should cut all funding to NASA". I'm taking the position that NASA should continue, since they're travelling outer space in search of alien life, and who wouldn't want to see [insert any alien life form]?
My opponent says we should stop funding NASA, since they're hiding a flat earth, and we live in a hollow water sphere. So what? NASA isn't hindering us. Besides, what would NASA gain from pretending the Earth is round?
And, none of Pro's statements are true. I believe Pro isn't really linking his arguments to the resolution. I might've missed something, but we'll see.
The Colorado mirage:
Sure, it might've been a little longer than a few minutes. So did we actually see Colorado or not? If that was the real Colorado, then how come we can't see it anymore? If it wasn't actually Colorado, then it had to be some form of an illusion.
I thank Pro for sourcing the quote. Let's view it.
Hmm... Remember the "..." surrounding the quote? Here's the full paragraph:
"While I was thinking of this problem in my student years, I came to know the strange result of Michelson's experiment. Soon I came to the conclusion that our idea about the motion of the earth with respect to the ether is incorrect, if we admit Michelson's null result as a fact. This was the first path which led me to the special theory of relativity. Since then I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment, though the Earth is revolving around the Sun."
Einstien admits the Earth is the one revolving. And Einstiewn said "any optical experiment", meaning just looking at things from Earth. However, going into space will show you that the Earth is moving, although very slowly.
Astronauts won't confirm moon landings? Let me see... Oh no... hour long video. I hope you don't expect me to watch the entire thing.
So I did watch the first 2 minutes, and they refused to be interviewed. I do not deny this, however, maybe they just thought the whole interviewing was bull. I still think they would sue NASA for lying.
"We should have a McDonald's on Mars by now. Why is it that much harder to get amy civilian like neighbor, the A/C repair guy into space, than an astronot?" This is a straw man of technology. Yes, the game boy was released. It was advanced. Would 1,000 game boys get us to the moon? What about fuel, strong engines, sufficient space suits... Going to Outer Space isn't as easy as making the Wii U, or the Vive.
"who would've made the dome?" God" ...So God's the puppet master. Show me that he wanted NASA to hide everything.
1: Abrupt stop; Ah. It actually went to space. The abrupt stop was when it was at space. It didn't quite escape Earth's gravity, I think.
2: Water Sound; I did hear the sound. Sadly, I can't explain what it is. But is it a water dome? Let's not forget what light does on water; light shines on the water. We can't actually see the water dome.
3: The Moon; I swear I clicked source #7. Are you reffering to 4:13? It could either be that the moon is very far, OR that's not even the moon. Pro needs to prove that it's actually the moon, and show how close th object is.
My opponent is attempting to refute my logic. It won't last long, however.
I claim: "First, how come we're unable to see this dome?"
Pro responds: "My opponent acts as though he's never heard of glass before..."
I thought it was a water dome. So is the dome water, glass, or something God created?
Pro continues: "If the Sun weren't glaringly bright, you could. The moon however, is a different story. (8) It's possible the stars and sun/moon are at varying heights in the firmament."
No, I'm pretty sure there would be a water effect in the sky. Far away, maybe. The moon has become irrelevant, as I've seen the rocket took off during day.
The sun's quite bright indeed. So bright, that there should be a water effect, assuming it is in fact similar to water.
I claim: "Also, if there really was a water dome, there would have to be witnesses. Not just my current opponent, but many of the Flat Earthers. Why didn't they discover it?"
Pro responds: "It's only recently been confirmed (9), but the idea has been around forever."
So there are others. Some that believe there's a watery dome, and others that believe it's a glass dome. Which is it? Is it both? please expand on the material the dome's made of.
Ah, money! Should've known! But hang on... why are you mentioning Disney?
(Looks at Source #12) Okay... what dome did they find? I couldn't find anything.
(Looks at source #13) I am NOT reading the entire thing looking for a dome. Pro, show me where it says something about a watery/glass dome.
So where's Disney?
"Von Braun and Walt were old Freemasons buddies, and so Disney was brought in." This goes unsourced. I think Pro is trying to use Disney as some sort of emotional trigger or something. However, I'm immune to emotion attacks, but more prone to actual logic and facts.
Also, might I add source #14 is "The Coincidence theorist"? This is one big "Illuminatti confirmed" attempt; linking coincidences and suggesting the claim is true. This proves nothing.
Pizza Planet is irrelevant, and so is source #15. Again, I think it's some subconscious emotional attack or something.
"Predictive programming. MKUltra at it's finest." So you saw my MKUltra debate. But NASA is not MKUltra. This is irrelevant.
(Looks at source #17) Where does it say something about him discovering a dome?
My opponent's logic is this:
P1: If NASA is lying about a round Earth, we should stop funding.
P2: We saw Colorado once from Michigan, which is impossible on a round Earth, so NASA lied.
P3: Einstien "claimed" we can't see movement, so NASA lied.
P4: There's some dome, and NASA is hiding it.
C1: Therefore, we should stop funding NASA.
P2 can be refuted: Once, Pro. Once. It's either all the time; round earth is false, or not at all; round earth is true. We saw Colorado only once, so that was probably an illusion of some kind. If it's not an illusion, then what?
Pro quote mined for P3.
P4 hasn't been proven yet. At least not sufficiently. It's also unclear what the dome is made of. Also, look back at this:
P1: If NASA lied about a round earth, we should stop funding.
P2: There is some dome, and NASA is hiding it.
C1: So we should stop funding NASA.
This is not logical. We have a dome. So what? That doesn't mean the Earth is flat! We could have a water dome, with a flat or round earth. We could have a glass dome, with a flat or round earth. Pro must show how having a dome equates to "we should stop funding NASA".
Closing thoughts: This debate is closer than I thought it would be. I admit I am no expert, like MagicAintReal. I'm not even taking classes on the Atmosphere, or aerodynamics or anything. But I will press on. Let's see this debate through to the end. I will not back down. Even if Toy Story 4 is official (it won't be.)
"since they're travelling outer space in search of alien life, and who wouldn't want to..."
That is the point of this debate. NASA is not going toutero space, because there is no such thing as outer space. NASA is only getting paid to feed us CGI drawings and oil paintings. Impenetrable dome, remember? glass ceiling? Sky's the limit?
"Besides, what would NASA gain ..."
How's about a trillion dollars so far, adjusting for inflation? Throw in a rock star status with a decent living writing and signing books, and you have a good life just for keeping a secret.
" I might've missed something, but we'll see."
Maybe my opponents sees the link now?
"Sure, it might've been a little longer than a few minutes. So did we actually see Colorado..."
Nobody said anything about Colorado. I will continue as if my opponent did not make this mistake. Who said we can't see Chicago anymore? People from the area see it all the time, weather permitting. Joshua Nowicki takes photos of Chicago from Michigan all the time.(1) The time lapse is an entire days time. What sort of illusion is my opponent proposing? Since my he offers no alternative, it stands that the earth is flat.
"Einstien admits the Earth is the one revolving."
Einstein said this as to not go completely against his benefactors and peers in the science community. This was said well before any astronots "explored space". I ask again how did we figure out the earth is moving, if we can't measure it's movements?
And Einstiewn said "any optical experiment"...
Please show me how I can see this "movement" from space. We effectively took a few people's word for it. Heresay. Also, 1,000 mph is hardly slow, the speed of sound is slower than this. Why can I hear the person east of me as good as the person west of me? Where is the sonic boom?
Some of them did agree to an interview. Only one would swear on a bible that he walked on the moon, and he was very nervous if you'll see his body language.
" I still think they would sue NASA for lying."
Why would they sue the people that made them rich legends?
"Yes, the game boy was released..."
I'm talking about the technology involved being far superior to what existed in the 60's. We have the equivalent to 1,000 game boys in our pockets everyday. Governments a far bigger budget than Nintendo. It is nonsensical to say that the technology available to NASA today would not be sufficient to get civilians to space, which has not happened.
"..So God's the puppet master. Show me that he wanted NASA to hide everything."
No, the opponent does not understand the point. Satan and his fallen angels are the puppet masters, they want NASA to hide everything. Without the ball, there would be no evolution, without evolution, there would be no atheism. Maybe our voters can have some critical thinking about themselves, and put this puzzle together as most flat earthers have.
"Abrupt stop; Ah. It actually went to space. The abrupt stop was when it was at space. It didn't quite escape Earth's gravity, I think."
So, did it go to space or not? Did it leave earth's gravitational pull? or not. NASA must turn it's rockets to reach escape velocity (so they say) yet the rocket went straight up. It's clear my opponent has no other valid explanation, simply guessing, while contradicting himself. It stands that the rocket hit the dome.
" Water Sound; I did hear the sound. Sadly, I can't explain what it is..."
I have, and my opponent has not alternatively explain this either.
"light shines on the water. We can't actually see the water dome."
This is why, at day, the dome is blue, and at night, we can see through it. Two suns have been spotted around the world. Rainbows are reflected off the dome, as are sun dogs. My source video (9) explains this.
"The Moon; I swear I clicked source #7. Are you reffering..."
It is the moon, it is the only visible object in the sky. Look at it on a 42" TV, not a cellphone. The team even confirms it is. As far as the distance, Reffi investigated the matter, and found out that it was over Australia, supposedly on the opposite side of the whirled from Nevada, where the launch was performed. As for it's size, if it was actually 250,000 miles away, as NASA claims it is, a few miles "closer" or "away" would make no huge distance in size as in this case. Truthfully, the moon is much closer and smaller, yet past the dome, unreachable.
"I thought it was a water dome. So is the dome water, glass, or something God created?"
I've never been there before, so I can't say, it's a mystery for sure. It could be glass or a crystal like sapphire, as told in the Bible, with water beyond. Either way it's inpenetrable. In the Gulf of Mexico, underground lakes and rivers can be found that have a density so high, submarines bounce from the surface.
" The moon has become irrelevant, as I've seen the rocket took off during day."
False, the wave that is caught occasionally going over the moon is proof of water in front of it, if no alternative explanation, this evidence stands. You saw a rocket take off, turn a 90 degree angle, and go out of site, probably landing in a body of water, like the Bermuda Triangle. In early launches, they bounced off the firmament, and added carbon fiber reinforcement to prevent any damage from "skimming" the surface.
"Ah, money! Should've known! But hang on... why are you mentioning Disney?"
And to hide God. Disney is a graphics animator, this is where the "pictures" come from that NASA supplies. They make hints at this throughout in the form of Easter eggs. Case in point. Disney just bought the rights to Star Wars, Han Solo shows up on mercury, frozen in Mercury...
Mickey Mouse was found in several places on the moon.
And Pluto looks like... well.. Pluto.
Anyone dealing with computer animation can tell that NASA is creating these pictures on a computer.
" Okay... what dome did they find? I couldn't find anything."
We have to read between the lines, and use common sense to assume that Admiral Byrd didn't take "4,700 men, 13 ships, and 33 aircraft" to set up an Antarctic base, as they claim. Why then, did they call it project "highjump"?
"I am NOT reading the entire thing ..."
Again, the government is not going to outright tell us the real purpose of this mission. But the name says it all.
"This goes unsourced. I think Pro is trying to use Disney as some sort of emotional ..."
While Walt was never officially a freemason, or this record has been destroyed, we can see he was in DeMolay, a sort of precursor to Freemasonry.
Also, might I add source #14 is "The Coincidence theorist"? This is one big "Illuminatti confirmed" ..."
The source gives a direct link from NASA, and shows that the word sex is written on most dictionaries now, how does this not prove anything?
"Pizza Planet is irrelevant..."
It's called predictive programming, hints, and all around (for anyone with half a brain cell) "here is some proof" from the creator, perhaps a guilty conscious.
" But NASA is not MKUltra. This is irrelevant."
Not according to the author of this book. Who claims to have been one of their victims.
In conlusion, it is clear that NASA is lying, and has never been to "space". The dome blocks.
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click thelink at the top of the page.
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.