Astronomy is the Most Interesting Type of Science

Hello! Please debate. :)

Astronomy is, I believe, the most interesting type of science. There are many unexplored areas in it, so we still have much to learn, and it may produce outstanding results when we do make discoveries in that area. It is much less mundane, much more mysterious, and is so vast that one exploring it would never be at a loss for things to learn or find out. While physics, biology, etc. are very important, they have been explored very thoroughly and are too close to home to instill any real kind of awe or inspiration to explore-the very basis of science.

This is my first debate, so I will proceed cautiously.

The subject at hand is what is the most interesting form of science. She has said that it is astronomy, but has failed to specify what she means by it. Since she hasn't, I will.

Astronomy: The branch of science that deals with celestial objects, space, and the universe as a whole.

My opponent has neglected using facts and evidence, but instead has decided to simply post opinions.

Here's an example

"There are many unexplored areas in it, so we still have much to learn, and it may produce outstanding results when we do make discoveries in that area."

While I do enjoy astronomy, there are some major problems with it.

First of all, we are limited in what we can accomplish by many factors (the atmosphere, backlight from the sun, even it's gravity.) And the only way around this is to make advances in other fields. For example, The voyager 2 spacecraft just recently left the solar system, and for the first time we saw that our solar system is shaped more like a flattened ball than a perfect sphere. But this could have not been found without advances in chemistry, plastics, and optical fibers.

But besides Astronomy's reliance on other sciences more than any other, there is another science that is much more open and is very much required for astronomy to progress any further. Particle physics. While astronomy has been growing and improving over the past 500 years, it has been at a cap ever since we learned how to use x-rays for observing the night sky. This cap can only be crossed if we learn how to observe particles as we can atoms and light waves. Not only that, but we can possibly find ways to travel 100 times conventional speeds, (not light. sorry that's still impossible) or cure cancer by using particles to remove the cancer gene.

And that is why I think particle physics is the coolest form of science.

My opponent claims that I overuse opinions. To clarify, let me assert: What is the most interesting to someone personally IS their opinion. You may criticize my use of such in my argument, but when you start an argument, it is difficult to decide which facts to prove or disprove. However, I shall now augment with fact.

Despite my opponent's claim that astronomy relies on all other sciences, let me input that because it includes all these other sciences (even as all other sciences do) it makes it even more fascinating and variable, not less.

The challenges that precede many other discoveries in Astronomy make it a field welcoming to all specialists, and cement its flexibility in appealing to those from all fields and interests.

And bringing your own opinion into this (scorned by yourself) while acceptable to me, may be scorned my others. It isn't really relevant. Just a heads up.

Thanks for debating.

What my opponent has not realized is that she has just sealed her fate.

What my previous point was is that astronomy is kind of like a resource sponge. It requires the advancement of all other forms of technology, while giving little or nothing of it's own. Since astronomy is the study of stars, what can we gain from that in the here and now. Since my opponent has not given any examples of positive bonuses from studying the stars, we must assume that there are none.

Whereas particle physics (while requiring about the same amount of research) can give great things to us. Inter-stellar travel (not a part of astronomy since astronomy is the study of stars, not the actual process of going there and setting up colonies), we could even cure cancer with the proper use of particles.

I call upon my opponent to present evidence that astronomy (the study of stars.) Will present anything helpful to society, healthcare, economics, or another science that benefits any of these three.

My opponent fails to observe the true purpose of this argument. The point is not astronomy's production, but fascinating properties. Astronomy, by a definition from dictionary.com, means the science that deals with the material universe beyond the earth's atmosphere. If you did not know this, I apologize for not keeping you informed. This science, larger than your assessment, includes the entire universe. Such a vast area to study cannot produce less unique material than our singular planet.

Thanks for debating.

I will go over this step by step.

"There are many unexplored areas in it, so we still have much to learn, and it may produce outstanding results when we do make discoveries in that area." pro 1
"The point is not astronomy's production, but fascinating properties. " pro 3

1) I don't see how this is about astronomy's properties when my opponent's first argument was that it has the greatest capacity for learning (an obvious production of knowledge) and that it will have outstanding results.

"It is much less mundane, much more mysterious, and is so vast that one exploring it would never be at a loss for things to learn or find out."

2) First of all, we have an almost complete grasp of the universe, and we now know that it is finite, whereas we have made almost no research into stem cells, particle physics, or robotics. And wouldn't particle physics be much less mundane, as the universe is made of mass traveling at a given velocity, and particles are literally points (point n. A dimensionless geometric object having no properties except location.) that can move at nearly infinite speeds. And we have not began to find out about how the brain works. For all we know, de javu is very real. Perhaps we will literally be able to see the future. Doesn't that make neuroscience more mysterious than astronomy?

"While physics, biology, etc. are very important, they have been explored very thoroughly and are too close to home to instill any real kind of awe or inspiration to explore-the very basis of science."

3) First of all, many people are inspired by these fields and have caused great advances. Second, physics are a large part of astronomy. Third, it is a pure opinion to say that they are too close to home to instill anybody with the inspiration to do great things in science.

"Such a vast area to study cannot produce less unique material than our singular planet."

4) As con it is not my job to prove any other science better than astronomy, just that they are the same or better. In addition, she has not shown what that material is.

I will restate my argument:

My opponent's first argument was that astronomy will yield outstanding results, and since then she has not presented any evidence that astronomy will give any benefits to humanity. There are many other sciences that are just as, if not more important than astronomy. Take reusable energy production and research. If we can't save our planet for at least another billion years, we won't survive long enough for astronomy to have any benefit on us anyway.

And please. Vote for the better argument, not who you agree with.