The Instigator
flamekick
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
lannan13
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

We should go to Mars

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 3 votes the winner is...
flamekick
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/28/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,926 times Debate No: 21566
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

flamekick

Pro

Right now we have been constantly been increasing our technology in space exploration, and we are looking for the possibility to go to Mars.

In this debate i shall take the position that going to Mars is worth it.

The Con will take the argument that it is not worth it and that we should not explore Mars.

The Debate will take part in this format

1. Constructive Speech ( making your arguments )

2. Rebuttal ( Attacking the Opponet)

3. Rejoinder (defending your speech)

4. Final Focus ( Why we won the debate)

Opponents constructive

My Constructive

Opponents rebuttal

My Rebuttal

Opponents Rejoinder

My rejoinder

Opponents Final Focus

My Final Focus

I would like to remind NO new arguments can be made after the second speech due to the unfairness that would be put on the other team.
lannan13

Con

I'll be posting policy debate cards.
----50 Years to long to colonize

Golbus 11 (AL Golbus, NASA Official, http://settlement.arc.nasa.gov..., April 29, 2011 accessed Oct. 24, 2011, AL)

How long did it take to build New York? California? France? Even given ample funds the first settlement will take decades to construct. No one is building a space settlement today, and there are no immediate prospects for large amounts of money, so the first settlement will be awhile. If Burt Rutan's prediction of affordable orbital tourism in 25 years is correct, however, it's reasonable to expect the first orbital colony to be built within about 50 years.

----Mars can’t sustain life, Biosphere Project 2 Proves

Golbus 11 (AL Golbus, NASA Official, http://settlement.arc.nasa.gov..., 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 shownthat 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, http://settlement.arc.nasa.gov..., 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 (http://radbelts.gsfc.nasa.gov... 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.

----World population can fit in Texas

Alison 11 (Wick Alison, staff writer for the Front Burner (Dallas newspaper), written Jan. 13, 2011, http://frontburner.dmagazine.com..., 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.)

---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, http://weboflife.nasa.gov..., 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.

Debate Round No. 1
flamekick

Pro

My format will be a lot like a POFO debate, and i would like to remind people this is my constructive speech.

I would like this to be voted on as if we were really going to Mars too.

AND TO THOSE VOTING: Look at my opponents arguments. Some of the dates are wrong so i don't think, if he ever does, can't make a recently argument for look - http://weboflife.nasa.gov......, accessed online Oct. 10, 2011, AL)
Click on the link and it doesn't provide a real date. Access simply means the time he looked on the website
(personally I wish we will not make time arguments but this is just in case)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First off is.. Inventions
According to... Dr. Robert Zubrin (nuclear scientist)F: Inventions created under conditions of necessity on Mars can raise Earth’s living
standards and economy.
This means... the economy can be improved through inventions created in Mars.

This is why i support the following topic
Resolve: We should go to Mars.
Today I will discuss NASA’s Capability , Benefits, Inevitable
To hopefully get you to support the topic
My first argument is.. NASA's Capability

NASA’s Capability

NASA has the ability to colonize Mars
Because the United States has enough money and technology to reach Mars safely and to live there as well.

First… Mars is Affordable
According to…http://www.nytimes.com... 31, 2009
A one-way trip to Mars would be much more affordable than a round-trip because much of the mass for returning is due to the extra fuel being carried.
This means that a one-way trip is the most affordable way; especially since President Obama committed us to going to Mars and then back again,and would make it so that there is no problem with the cost.

Second… Improved Ion Engines
According to…http://www.newscientist.com... 24, 2010
Powerful new Ion engines are being developed, which can take travelers to Mars in just 39 days.
This means space travel will be much less dangerous due to less time being exposed to the dangers of space travel, would decrease exposure to radiation, and time out in space.

Third… Micro Magnetosphere Shields
According to… The New Scientist, on July 28, 2010-http://www.universetoday.com...
New force fields or shields have been developed by physicists, which will prevent radiation from reaching the space travelers.
This means that none of the space travelers will be protected and not get sick by the radiation.

Fourth…Chemoprevention vs. Radiation
According to...spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/support/researching/.../marsrisk.pdf- Last access 2011
Chemoprevention, or the use of chemical agents, drugs, or food supplements to prevent disease, is one option to help prevent radiation for astronauts.
This means there is a way to prevent dangerous radiation from affecting astronauts.

Finally... Artificial Gravity
According to...http://science.nasa.gov... 7,2008 ( the date proves we have had the technology for a while)
We have successfully created artificial gravity, and have been tested on human subjects.
This means along with exercise equipment the artificial gravity in the space ship will stop the degeneration of bones.

WARRANT:
Therefore: NASA does have the ability to colonize Mars,
which is why we should support the topic!
Transition: Our next argument is… “ Benefits"

Benefits

The cost and trip to Mars is worth it
Because... we would gain a huge amount of different benefits going to Mars.

First…Hydrogen Fuel
Red Colony, last access December 2010
Deuterium, or heavy hydrogen, is hard to obtain on Earth, but on Mars it is five times more abundant in the form of Hydrogen-Deuterium-Oxygen. A milliliter of liquid heavy-hydrogen fuel would produce as much energy as 20 tons of coal.
This means that on Mars, we can get an abundance of deuterium and repair a lot of Earth's energy problems.

Second...Minerals Make Money
http://news.discovery.com... 22, 2010
There is an abundance of rare metals on Mars such as platinum, gold, and silver.
Mining these minerals on Mars and selling them on Earth where they are rare and extra-valuable will allow us to construct more goods and the profit will be colossal.

Third...Human Extinction
According to...http://www.nss.org...., Steve Hawking, and Journal of Cosmology-- Steve Hawking date/ the link is 2008, and the Journal of Cosmology is 2010
Staying on one planet puts the human race at risk of extinction, because of the risk of global
pandemics, nuclear or biological warfare, global warming, and supervolcanoes.
This means… in order to increase our species’ chance of survival, we need to establish a living base on another planet, especially as we continue to deplete Earth’s resources and destroy the environment with global warming.

Fourth.. Spin-offs Improve Technology
According to..nasa.gov, Last updated December 20, 2010-http://www.sti.nasa.gov...
The mission to mars can create many spin offs. NASA has already developed cell analysis tools, intelligent robots, and sensors for biological threats.
This means that the spin-offs from Mars can be recycled to improve our current technological endeavors, even if we don’t continue our Mars endeavors

WARRANT:
Therefore: Going to Mars holds many benefits
which is why we should support the topic!
Transition: Our next argument is… “ Colunteers"

Inevitable

First...Volunteers aplenty
According to…pbs.org November 4, 2010- http://www.pbs.org...
There would be no shortage of volunteers, because the people know they will be a legend, and that going to Mars would mean that they would accomplish a great mission in life.
This means that we would have plenty of people to do the colonization, or to simply go to Mars.

Second...Passionate Explorers
According to…DP, Last access on December 24, 2010-
Robert Zubrin (born April 19, 1952) is an American aerospace engineer and author, best known for his advocacy of the manned exploration of Mars
Many people would jump at the chance of going to mars even if returning to mars was50/50. Over the years human has proven this. (Some old scientists that were interviewed
also said they wouldn’t mind spending the rest of their life on mars.)
This means that it would be no worry that no one would be willingly to.

Third… Exploration in Our Nature
We have explored constantly around the Earth, and since colonial time we Americans have travelled on unknown land to explore. We done the same with the moon, and it is a trending pattern that we are seeing. The next place we are going to is Mars.
This means it has been in our nature as humans to explore the deepest realm and Mars is next.

Fourth…Public Opinion
According to CBS News-http://www.cbsnews.com... July 24,2009
A poll showed that 51% of participants said yes to sending astronauts to Mars, while only 43% said no.
(This means…) the public wants to send astronauts to Mars.

Fifth…Politically Committed
According to…npr.org December 5, 2010
Going to Mars is inevitable, because President Obama insisted on reaching Mars in 2030.
This means that we already have plans to commit to as a country.

Therefore, we have people who wants to go to Mars, and it will eventually be inevitable
which is why we should support the topic!


lannan13

Con

----Plan illegal, doesn’t use DOT

Beckley 98(NASA Administrator, http://www.faa.gov..., accessed on Oct. 11, 2011, AL)

The National Space Transportation Policy (NSTC-4, August 5, 1994) designates NASA as “lead

Agency for technology development and demonstration for next generation reusable space

Transportation systems.” NSTC-4 also directs the Department of Transportation (FAA) to

“License, facilitate, and promote commercial launch operations as set forth in the Commercial Space Launch Act, as amended, and Executive Order 12465.” The Commercial Space Act of 1998, P.L. 105-303, granted regulatory authority to the DOT for commercial reentry activities. Because the FAA will license and regulate commercial launch and reentry activities that may

Space
The Freedictionary.com 11
(http://www.thefreedictionary.com..., accessed 6/23/11)

7. (Astronomy) a. the region beyond Earth’s atmosphere occurring between celestial bodies of the universe.

Debate Round No. 2
flamekick

Pro

In this speech i shall refute each of my opponenet argument and strengthen my own points about my own argument and tell why you the voters should vote for PRO.

My opponent is saying that 50 years to start colonizing on Mars is too long, but i think this doesn't matter. Due to the fact that the topic is saying that we should go to Mars, i have constantly proved that we should due to the benifiets of going, the inevitable fact that we will eventually go, and the fact that we have the technology to properly protect our crew. yet, if my opponent bought up colonization doesn't this mean that he too thinks that we shall eventually go to Mars, and there by supporting my point that we should go to Mars.

First of all, when going to Mars we have the ability the ability to go there and even colonize it due to our technology.

We can create livable conditions on Mars.
According to... http://www.msnbc.msn.com...- July 10, 2010
Even without soil, we can still farm in Mars by using aeroponics, meaning that we can continously grwo food on mars.
This means that even if the soil of Mars turns out to be poor in condition, we can still grow food with the resources we have and therefor would allow us to got o Mars, to live on it, or even colonize it.

Second of all...Green houses for Food and Oxygen
According to... Discovery Mars - A Human Mission to Mars
Establishing green houses will allow astronauts to grow food and get oxygenthat they need to stay on Mars.
This means... the astronauts can be supplied with basic needs during their stay in
Mars and there for creating a livable conditions that humans can live on on or visit.

The impacts is that we would be able to create a livable, sustanable atmosphere where we humans can live, and there for even colonize mars.
Which is why we should support the topic of going to Mars.

The next argument i shall refute is the dangers of going to Mars.

First is... Micro Magnetosphere Shields
According to… The New Scientist, on July 28, 2010-http://www.universetoday.com...
New force fields or shields have been developed by physicists, which will prevent radiation from reaching the space travelers.
This means that all of the space travelers will be protected and not get sick by the radiation, meaning that radiation will not be a problem for travelling through space.

Second…Chemoprevention vs. Radiation
According to...spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/support/researching/.../marsrisk.pdf- Last access 2011
Chemoprevention, or the use of chemical agents, drugs, or food supplements to prevent disease, is one option to help prevent radiation for astronauts.
This means there is a way to prevent dangerous radiation from affecting astronauts, and therfor keeping our astronauts safe.

Finally... Artificial Gravity
According to...http://www.space.com... ( date proving the time we have had the technology
We have successfully created artificial gravity, and have been tested on human subjects. With testing done, since 2008 we have been able to succesfully create gravity, and along side daily exercise equipments in the space ship, the degeneration of bones will not happen.
This means that the degeneration of bones shall not happen, and that we can keep our astronauts in tip-top shape.

Therefore we have the technology to succesfully keep our astronauts from the dangers of space.

Since my oppnents constructive speech is only comprised of 3 arguments in this contention i shall be stregthening my own point.

When we go to Mars we gain multiple benefits that eventually strengthen our technology here on Earth. Which is more important to you voters??? The fact that we will just stay on Earth and never move forward?? Or the fact that we can go beyond our outer limits and reach a new world like Mars. Mars shall be giving us Rich minerals that we can sell, space toursism, a new world to live in that we need according to Steve Hawkings, and the fact that going to Mars shall benifet the human race rather than hurting it by staying on Earth.
lannan13

Con

We- referrs to speaker and one other person. WHich is irrelivant, because when I restate the resolution I could be refurring to my brother and I. We've got no NASA expirance.
Debate Round No. 3
flamekick

Pro

Due to the fact that my opponent just stated that he and his brother knows nothing about NASA. Quote " We've got no NASA experience." This proves that by saying this they choose not to defend any of their arguments, for it was their rejoinder speech( or defending speech). It also means they admit we can get good resources off Mars, we can send our astronauts their saftely, we can colonize there on Mars, and we can create a ship that can get to Mars in 39 days.

This will boost our economy allowing new jobs, and growth here on Earth. It will stimulate the ecoonomy due to the new resources. We will gain many new advance spin offs, and that the mission can succeed allowing us a new planet to live on!
lannan13

Con

Pro dropped the topicality if I don't want to go. Resolved: We should go to Mars. Since I defined We. It makes this debate illogical. So I should win on that.
Debate Round No. 4
flamekick

Pro

There are 3 reasons why i should win.

First of all it is clearly known that we would represent the USA, sorry for not understanding that my opponent ran a topicality but that is a bad idea. First we definining USA ( or NASA) is commonly known, even my opponent ran arguments based off NASA. If not then it means he would defeat his own arguments that he ran in the first speech.

Things that proves we talked about NASA are his sources and arguments that he ran

ex.
1.Golbus 11 (AL Golbus, NASA Official,http://settlement.arc.nasa.gov......, April 29, 2011 accessed Oct. 24, 2011, AL)
2. Golbus 11 (AL Golbus, NASA Official,http://settlement.arc.nasa.gov......, April 29, 2011 accessed Oct. 24, 2011,
3. Golbus 11 (AL Golbus, NASA Official

Notice how my opponent has contininously referred to NASA.
Second based off a common understanding that we were talking about USA, we both ran with the definition USA. AND you aren't even allowed to bring up a topicality on your 3rd speech. BECAUSE THEN I have to refute it in my final focus making it unfair and taking up my characters just to disprove it. THis means i should win due to the infringment of the rules that my opponent has made

Second I shall show you why i should win based off of my arguments. My Opponent basically has never responded to any of my arguments. Considering these arguments that i have made, my opponent never responded once about any of them. THis means he admit that NASA does have the cability, has the technology, we have the resources, and everything we need to get to MARS.
FOR ALL THESE REASONS PLEASE VOTE PRO!
The arguments under are all the arguments that he basically never refute, while giving out like basically no evidence to defend his speech, or attack my speech.

NASA’s Capability

NASA has the ability to colonize Mars
Because the United States has enough money and technology to reach Mars safely and to live there as well.

First… Mars is Affordable
According to…http://www.nytimes.com...... 31, 2009
A one-way trip to Mars would be much more affordable than a round-trip because much of the mass for returning is due to the extra fuel being carried.
This means that a one-way trip is the most affordable way; especially since President Obama committed us to going to Mars and then back again,and would make it so that there is no problem with the cost.

Second… Improved Ion Engines
According to…http://www.newscientist.com...... 24, 2010
Powerful new Ion engines are being developed, which can take travelers to Mars in just 39 days.
This means space travel will be much less dangerous due to less time being exposed to the dangers of space travel, would decrease exposure to radiation, and time out in space.

Third… Micro Magnetosphere Shields
According to… The New Scientist, on July 28, 2010-http://www.universetoday.com......
New force fields or shields have been developed by physicists, which will prevent radiation from reaching the space travelers.
This means that none of the space travelers will be protected and not get sick by the radiation.

Fourth…Chemoprevention vs. Radiation
According to...spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/support/researching/.../marsrisk.pdf- Last access 2011
Chemoprevention, or the use of chemical agents, drugs, or food supplements to prevent disease, is one option to help prevent radiation for astronauts.
This means there is a way to prevent dangerous radiation from affecting astronauts.

Finally... Artificial Gravity
According to...http://science.nasa.gov...... 7,2008 ( the date proves we have had the technology for a while)
We have successfully created artificial gravity, and have been tested on human subjects.
This means along with exercise equipment the artificial gravity in the space ship will stop the degeneration of bones.


Benefits

The cost and trip to Mars is worth it
Because... we would gain a huge amount of different benefits going to Mars.

First…Hydrogen Fuel
Red Colony, last access December 2010
Deuterium, or heavy hydrogen, is hard to obtain on Earth, but on Mars it is five times more abundant in the form of Hydrogen-Deuterium-Oxygen. A milliliter of liquid heavy-hydrogen fuel would produce as much energy as 20 tons of coal.
This means that on Mars, we can get an abundance of deuterium and repair a lot of Earth's energy problems.

Second...Minerals Make Money
http://news.discovery.com...... 22, 2010
There is an abundance of rare metals on Mars such as platinum, gold, and silver.
Mining these minerals on Mars and selling them on Earth where they are rare and extra-valuable will allow us to construct more goods and the profit will be colossal.

Third...Human Extinction
According to...http://www.nss.org......., Steve Hawking, and Journal of Cosmology-- Steve Hawking date/ the link is 2008, and the Journal of Cosmology is 2010
Staying on one planet puts the human race at risk of extinction, because of the risk of global
pandemics, nuclear or biological warfare, global warming, and supervolcanoes.
This means… in order to increase our species’ chance of survival, we need to establish a living base on another planet, especially as we continue to deplete Earth’s resources and destroy the environment with global warming.

Fourth.. Spin-offs Improve Technology
According to..nasa.gov, Last updated December 20, 2010-http://www.sti.nasa.gov......
The mission to mars can create many spin offs. NASA has already developed cell analysis tools, intelligent robots, and sensors for biological threats.
This means that the spin-offs from Mars can be recycled to improve our current technological endeavors, even if we don’t continue our Mars endeavors

Inevitable

First...Volunteers aplenty
According to…pbs.org November 4, 2010- http://www.pbs.org......
There would be no shortage of volunteers, because the people know they will be a legend, and that going to Mars would mean that they would accomplish a great mission in life.
This means that we would have plenty of people to do the colonization, or to simply go to Mars.

Second...Passionate Explorers
According to…DP, Last access on December 24, 2010-
Robert Zubrin (born April 19, 1952) is an American aerospace engineer and author, best known for his advocacy of the manned exploration of Mars
Many people would jump at the chance of going to mars even if returning to mars was50/50. Over the years human has proven this. (Some old scientists that were interviewed
also said they wouldn’t mind spending the rest of their life on mars.)
This means that it would be no worry that no one would be willingly to.

Third… Exploration in Our Nature
We have explored constantly around the Earth, and since colonial time we Americans have travelled on unknown land to explore. We done the same with the moon, and it is a trending pattern that we are seeing. The next place we are going to is Mars.
This means it has been in our nature as humans to explore the deepest realm and Mars is next.

Fourth…Public Opinion
According to CBS News-http://www.cbsnews.com...... July 24,2009
A poll showed that 51% of participants said yes to sending astronauts to Mars, while only 43% said no.
(This means…) the public wants to send astronauts to Mars.

Fifth…Politically Committed
According to…npr.org December 5, 2010
Going to Mars is inevitable, because President Obama insisted on reaching Mars in 2030.
This means that we already have plans to commit to as a country.
lannan13

Con

My opponet dropped the most important part of the debate. the resolution therefore I win by default.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by kyro90 5 years ago
kyro90
If we go to mars, We may find you Flamekick, or anyone with that profile pic lol.
Posted by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
if you go down one path....don't switch and go up another.....
Posted by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
this could have easily turned into a semantics debate haha
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
flamekicklannan13Tied
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 gave up and switched to semantics which WE as voters don't appreciate....so basically because Con gave up Pro gets conduct, S/G is obvious, I give Pro arguments because it is obvious what "we" meant by the third round when Con switches to semantics...
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 5 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
flamekicklannan13Tied
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 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: Lannan's work was just plain awful to read, due to spelling errors and presentation. However, the argument was "won" by lannan depending on whether squirelling is allowed. Oh well.
Vote Placed by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
flamekicklannan13Tied
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: Hmm. Neither side actually defined "We", but I shall assume that Pro is referring to the USFG, and in these circumstances, he wins with better arguments. Con switched and try to turn to semantics and had poor refutation.