The Instigator
fouru
Con (against)
Winning
48 Points
The Contender
ArmedTortoise
Pro (for)
Losing
38 Points

space exploration is waste of money and time...

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/2/2009 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 15,711 times Debate No: 9915
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (14)

 

fouru

Con

we need to explore the space because everyone probably understands that the world supplies are getting less and less every single day and population is growing as well... We need to explore the space and find more land, food, and more things that we need to survive.
ArmedTortoise

Pro

First, I would like to thank my opponent for the invitation to debate on this interesting issue.

Second, since my opponent has not defined his key terms, allow me to provide definitions for what I am fairly confident he means in regards to this debate;

Space: 'The expanse in which the solar system, stars, and galaxies exist; the universe. The region of this expanse beyond earth's atmosphere' - http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Waste: 'To use, consume, spend, or expend thoughtlessly or carelessly' - http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

With that out the way, lets debate!

-- My opponents case --

'we need to explore the space because everyone probably understands that the world supplies are getting less and less every single day and population is growing as well... We need to explore the space and find more land, food, and more things that we need to survive'

-- Response --

It is true that certain finite resources on the earth will eventually run out- for instance, fossil fuels which power a large portion of our industry. However, much of their uses are being taken over by renewable sources, such as wind and solar power. Admittedly these do not yet have the capability to take over from more easily accessible sources, but with enough time and money (the very two things my opponent suggests we devote to space exploration), they certainly have the potential to do so.

My opponent also claims that we need to explore space in order to find three things; land, food and more things we need to survive. However, my opponent has failed to provide any evidence that any of these things do in fact exist in space, or that it is within our capabilities to find and use them for our own benefit. As my opponent has the burden of proof here, I will leave it to him to respond.

Finally, his point that the worlds population is growing. I agree that this could potentially pose a threat to the quality of human life in the future. However, this could be solved in a number of ways without resorting to the impractical method he is, I think implying (shipping a large proportion of the earth's population over to some other planet). For instance, we could provoke China and India, two nations with the highest populations on earth, into engaging nuclear war on each other. This would drastically cut the overall population of earth, and solve the problem of both country's high reproductive rates (by flooding them with sterilising radiation). Note that this debate has nothing to do with ethics- As long as this remains a possibility, there is no need to resort to my opponent's unsupported speculations about finding some place to live in outer space.

-- My case, in short --

Billions of pounds, dollars and euros are spent each year on supporting space programs which have no real practical benefits. This waste of money and time could be far better spent, for instance, on the mediocre or downright insufficient health care systems of many countries. It could be spent on innovating renewable resources to help build a sustainable future for this planet. It should be spent, in short, on something that is likely to have real world benefits for the people of earth. It should not be spent on star trek fantasies.

I await my opponents response.
Debate Round No. 1
fouru

Con

ok... so first of all are you trying to say we should kill people to decrease the population? We cannot predict the what would happen to the earth in the future. Something bad can happen (e.g Global warming, H1N1) so we need to explore and find a backup just in case the earth fails to stand in a good position. And we can use the information from the space exploration to help us improve on science. It can be a way to solve the problem on this planet as well. The money that we use to explore the space is used will be helpful and make the space exploring successful and more money we will earn.
ArmedTortoise

Pro

I thank my opponent for his response.

'ok... so first of all are you trying to say we should kill people to decrease the population?'

I am saying that given that the earth's population could potentially increase to the point where the average person lives in squalor, a mass curb of the planets population might indeed be the moral thing to do. If you consider that option too extreme, there are other options. For instance, a state induced population control or ultra efficient housing, farming etc.

'We cannot predict the what would happen to the earth in the future'

Sure we can- you're about to point out a few of them.

'Something bad can happen (e.g. Global warming, H1N1) so we need to explore and find a backup just in case the earth fails to stand in a good position'

Neither Global warming or the H1N1 virus pose any threat to the earth- what you mean is that they pose a threat to humanity. However, both are containable provided WE INVEST FUNDS INTO COMBATING THEM. Funds which could come from cancelling space programs. I ask you this question- should we spend money searching the galaxy in the vain hope of finding a new planet to start over, despite there being no evidence (at least that my opponent has provided) that there is such a place, or should we invest in THIS planets future? I think the answer is clearly the latter.

'And we can use the information from the space exploration to help us improve on science. It can be a way to solve the problem on this planet as well'

The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate this. Until you do, it is mere speculation. On the other hand, we know that investing in, for instance, green technologies produces clear progress- http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk...

'The money that we use to explore the space is used will be helpful and make the space exploring successful and more money we will earn'

Lets see if I understand my opponents logic here;

1. Spend billions upon billions of dollars/pounds/euros on finding a habitable planet (despite no evidence that one exists).

2. Somehow create giant space transports to move the earth's population to said planet (emphasis on 'somehow').

3. Build an entire new civilisation on new planet (and promise we won't screw up this one, really).

4. Offset the massive costs from steps one, two and three by...exploring space? (I assume he means space tourism).

Is it just me, or does this seem a little unrealistic?

I await my opponents response.
Debate Round No. 2
fouru

Con

It does sound unrealistic but It is very likely to happen. It sounded impossible when we first planned to land on the moon until Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin became the first humans to land on any heavenly body outside earth when they landed on the moon on July 20th, 1969. There was also one other moon landing in 1969, and four more over the years 1970, 1971, and 1972. It is not a waste of money. It helps in the future but also loses money at the same time. It will be always be a helpful thing later on. NASA had a budget of $16.2 billion with human spaceflight division but also other engineering projects and science funds by NASA. Without exploring the space we wouldn't even be having this discussion, without exploring the space we might not have the technology we have today. We need to colonize the planet. Mars is similar to Earth. It has water. After many years, earth might not be able to accommodate the human race, but mars will. We study about mars and other planets all the time. And if it is true, if we are really able to live in such planet then it'll all be worth it. Think about it people! Some day the earth will fail. Would you rather die or find a way to live? Even if it takes us to exploring each and everyone one of planet everyone will rather live than die. And it is not like we are going to spend the whole money on space exploration.
ArmedTortoise

Pro

I thank my opponent for his (very) speedy response.

'It does sound unrealistic but It is very likely to happen'

Red herring-even if this were the case, the debate is on whether it SHOULD be the case, not whether it will be. Furthermore, you appear to agree with my summary of your position with this statement. Potential voters should bear this in mind.

'It sounded impossible when we first planned to land on the moon until Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin'

Flying a couple of people to the moon is one thing. Moving the entire population of earth to another planet is another prospect entirely.

'There was also one other moon landing in 1969, and four more over the years 1970, 1971, and 1972. It is not a waste of money'

Yes it was. There, I have provided as much evidence in support of my assertion as you has for yours. Just because people keep doing it doesn't mean it isn't dumb.

'Without exploring the space we wouldn't even be having this discussion'

Woop de do. Underlining the butterfly effect gets you nowhere.

'without exploring the space we might not have the technology we have today'

Again, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate this.

'We need to colonize the planet. Mars is similar to Earth. It has water. After many years, earth might not be able to accommodate the human race, but mars will'

Finally, my opponent suggests a planet. However, even if Mars does have water (and this is by no means proven), a great deal of other things are required for humans to live there- http://en.wikipedia.org...

Mars lacks many, many of these, and so is an unsuitable candidate. Furthermore, my opponent has still not solved the transport problem.

'Think about it people! Some day the earth will fail. Would you rather die or find a way to live?'

This is little more than an appeal to emotion. We can find ways to sustain the earth. We do not need to resort to my opponents suggestion.

I await my opponents last round-I suggest he makes it count.
Debate Round No. 3
fouru

Con

1. How are we going to hold all these population in one planet called earth??? As I said before the population is growing and it is not like we are going to kill those people to decrease the population.

2. Studies have shown that there is water on Mars (http://news.nationalgeographic.com...) And we found other planet that is OUTSIDE the solar system with water. (http://www.space.com...) This is one of the reasons why people think there is life on earth.

3. Exploring space will be more helpful to the planet Earth and this is to study how planet works. How we can improve the planet. If we want to find the way to sustain the earth like you said, then explore the space. When a poor country wants to improve on make the country better they observe the rich country and see how their works, so if our planet is failing then observe other planet and see what the planet has. Does the other planet have some kind of special resource? Do they have some kind of chemical in the ground? And that's when we study more and more and make our planet the way we want.

4. We get expanded understanding of the of the universe.

5. Cellphones, GPS devices, Video Games, computing devices have all benefited from technologies coming from space exploration. If you like video game or any electronic device it is a benefit for those things too.

6. The world is spending more on war and weapons, porn movies, human trafficking, animal cruelty, and prostitution. I think yes it's worth it and many people think this too. At least if you don't want us to become extinct in a few thousand or hundred years.

I had fun debating with you! Thank you for debating with me.
ArmedTortoise

Pro

I thank my opponent for his final response. I would also like to thank him for the opportunity to debate, and for any viewers for taking the time to judge it. I will respond to his final points, then review my own case.

Since my opponent has grouped his points into numbered paragraphs, I will respond to each point in the same format.

1. My opponents still has a penchant for over exaggeration, it seems. He isn't seriously trying to say that the number of humans would get to the point where the earth couldn't HOLD them, is he? Disease and famine would reduce the planet's population long before that. He also expresses his belief that we are not going to kill people in order to reduce the population- however, he has provided no valid reason not to. Furthermore, if you refer back to my second round, I offered two alternatives which he has not addressed.

2. My opponent provides some sources, perhaps having read through the voting categories. However, his first source does not support his position and his second doesn't address the main point I made. One need look not further than the subtitle of his first source to find out that it supports MY point, which was that it has not been PROVED that there is water on mars. It says 'Mars Has Liquid Water, New Photos SUGGEST'. There is evidence, but not irrefutable proof. Furthermore, even if there were water on Mars, it is very unlikely to be enough to support life. My opponent's second source does indeed meet stricter standards of evidence, BUT THIS DOES NOT MATTER. I made the point in my last round that planets would need a range of characteristics to support life, and provided a source with details. Besides, look at what my opponents source says: 'Even hot Jupiter's, gaseous planets that orbit closer to their stars than Mercury to our Sun, are thought to have water'. My opponent seems to think that only water is required to support life, but if even hot gas giants have water, clearly this is not the case.

3. My opponent brings up a new argument here- he says that we can improve out planet by looking at other planets and use them to improve our own, and brings up the analogy of a poor country observing a rich one. However, as far as we know earth is the best planet in our galaxy (possibly the UNIVERSE) for supporting life, so, again, this is mere speculation.

4. So what? We'd do better learning about our own planet. We know less about the oceans than the surface of the moon, for instance- http://www.nhm.ac.uk...

5. My opponent makes more unsupported claims here. All these may have benefited from putting technology into earth's orbit, but that hardly counts as space exploration- no more than walking into your own back yards counts as exploring the world.

6. So what if we spend money on stupid things? That just means we shouldn't pointlessly spend money on one more thing. Plus, this debate is specifically on whether the space exploration is a waste. Whether other things are or are not has no bearing on the resolution. My opponent asks whether we want to become extinct in a hundred or thousand years. However he has provided no evidence that this will happen.

-- In conclusion --

My opponent has provided no compelling reason for us to explore space. He has not been able to solve the enormous logistical and economic problems in his suggestion to move the earth's population. He has not responded directly, or convincingly to the case I made for the proposition in my first round. There is little more to say than to thank my opponent for the debate and urge the voters to vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by ArmedTortoise 4 years ago
ArmedTortoise
Let me guess...you gave all seven points to Con? It's not that I care, but...you think he deserved all seven points? Seriously?
Posted by UltraGuru27 4 years ago
UltraGuru27
I agree with the previous commenter (and the Patriots are awesome). Not only that, but we need to at least explore space to see if there are any resources out there that we can capitalize on... therefore, space exploration is not a money waste if we do it right.
Posted by bbradley2013 4 years ago
bbradley2013
But i love watching space stuff on history/discovery channel. GO SPACE
Posted by ArmedTortoise 4 years ago
ArmedTortoise
Bleach. Double type.
Posted by ArmedTortoise 4 years ago
ArmedTortoise
I really regret putting that in now. I don't really think really think population control (of any kind, never mind provoking war) is particularly ethical.
Posted by 1stLordofTheVenerability 4 years ago
1stLordofTheVenerability
I almost agreed with you, Pro, but your socialistic views on limiting population are not ethical.
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by TheDizziestLemon 3 years ago
TheDizziestLemon
fouruArmedTortoiseTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by RazaMobizo 4 years ago
RazaMobizo
fouruArmedTortoiseTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 4 years ago
Derek.Gunn
fouruArmedTortoiseTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:31 
Vote Placed by XStrikeX 4 years ago
XStrikeX
fouruArmedTortoiseTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by kristoffersayshi 4 years ago
kristoffersayshi
fouruArmedTortoiseTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by The_Anarchist_Opposition 4 years ago
The_Anarchist_Opposition
fouruArmedTortoiseTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:03 
Vote Placed by QpSmiley 4 years ago
QpSmiley
fouruArmedTortoiseTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by atheistman 4 years ago
atheistman
fouruArmedTortoiseTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by UltraGuru27 4 years ago
UltraGuru27
fouruArmedTortoiseTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by bbradley2013 4 years ago
bbradley2013
fouruArmedTortoiseTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:61