Instigator / Pro
35
1566
rating
29
debates
56.9%
won
Topic

Asteroid mining should be persuade

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
15
12
Sources points
10
8
Spelling and grammar points
5
4
Conduct points
5
0

With 5 votes and 11 points ahead, the winner is ...

DynamicSquid
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Technology
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
2,000
Contender / Con
24
1635
rating
355
debates
65.63%
won
Description
~ 399 / 5,000

Asteroid mining. Good or bad?

Should we spend enough resources in the next 3/4 decades so we can earn a profit on asteroid mining?

Note: This debate can be based on theory, but an adequate amount of reasoning has to be provided.

---

This debate is a short one, so I can get a sense for the context. If likable, I will start another debate, on the same topic, but perhaps longer, 5 to 7.5k words.

Added:
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

50% of the debate was forfeited.

Added:
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Forfeiting half of the debate is an excellent example of poor conduct.

Added:
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Con ff 1/2 debate

Added:
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Arguments are little contest. Potential benefits of resource acquisition, vs the threat of global warming out in space... Of course con asserted that the potential resources to be invested in it could otherwise be used for a host of other benefits down here; but without any reason to suspect they might be used for that, this fell flat.

Sources were well used by pro in the second round. It being the final round normally I wouldn't give it, but refuting an argument with a single word and a link deserves extra credit (the link was the universetoday.com one, which showed that we know what asteroids are made of, whereas con insisted we have no idea).

Con's numerous spelling errors, distracted me from the debate. Such as within this segment: "prove Earth is flat and soace is fake to win. Instead, the framework is one of oriorities whwre" or "We jave so many issues to fox"; whereas pro (with the exception of the wrong word in the resolution), was clear.

Conduct for forfeiture. Technically a full forfeit, even while I'm choosing to grade everything.

Added:
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Con FF half of the debate, that's poor conduct.

Due to the debate being incomplete, all other points tied.