Instigator / Pro
Points: 35

Asteroid mining should be persuade

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 5 votes the winner is ...
DynamicSquid
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
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
Points: 24
Description
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.
Round 1
Published:
Hey RM, happy New Year! And thanks for accepting. Let's get right into it!


Arguments

What are the benefits of asteroid mining?

With plans for space colonies and off-world bases, the need to transport resources there are ever growing. Instead of shipping metals to Mars from Earth, we can simply just ship metal to Mars from space! And since there are plenty of metals in asteroids, and plenty of asteroids, then we should have no trouble getting the adequate resources needed for space projects.

Here's a very detailed and helpful diagram...


MARS                ASTEROIDS








EARTH


Notice how asteroids are closer to Mars, than Earth is to Mars.

This will undoubtedly help to advance Mars colonies, along with other off-world colonies.

Also, adding on to my previous point, asteroids would become another resource supplier for Earth. As metals are running out, or are in limited supply, asteroids can fix all of that.

That's all from me for now.

Thank you.

Published:
If you added the amount of starving people to the amount if countries that still have no democracy or environmental protection whatsoever, you'd realise that there are oriorities outside of this that matter so much more. Pro has skirted the issue of the cost and feasibility of thw project, let alone the completely non-guarantews payoff for it all (they have no ckue if these asteroods have useful or non-harmful ores and minerals on them).

This debate is aboht here and now, for is states 'be' and doesn't say 'at some point in the future'. If this debate was aboht ever pursuiing it, it would be unfair on Con who would have to prove Earth is flat and soace is fake to win. Instead, the framework is one of oriorities whwre Con is entitled to balance them against others now

We jave so many issues to fox, with far higher probability of payout for the investment than asteroid mining. This multi-billion dollar venture can wait for later when there's less "should do" to compete woth it. For now, it should jot be pursued.

As a side angle, global warming resulted from our irresponsible use-use-use mebtality with nature. How can we be so sure space won't get harmwd by this process?

Round 2
Published:
Hello and thanks for responding. Let's get right into this!

Clash

There are priorities outside of this, that matter so much more
Don't you agree that the money made off these asteroids could easily be directed right back into building satellites that help Earth? Well, that's what NASA and SpaceX are doing with a share of their budget. Increased money for them, more services back home.

[Space companies] have no clue if these asteroids have useful or non-harmful ores and minerals on them

Unfair on Con who would have to prove Earth is flat and space is fake to win
Sorry I'm confused on this...

Global warming resulted from our irresponsible [use] with nature. How can we be so sure space won't get harmed by this process?
Well, how can space become harmed?

Space debris you might mention? Well, we're working on that.

Inflation on Earth perhaps? Unlikely.

Arguments

Just to elaborate on my previous round, asteroid mining would be a hugely beneficial action for Earth. Earth, Mars, and perhaps the Moon's economy would boom! We could supply demand (without causing inflation), and increase productivity on space stations and off-world world bases.

We could also create new fuel types from water extracted from asteroids, and supply the new fuel to consumers, increasing the efficiency of rockets!

What's not to like about asteroid mining?

Thank you.
Forfeited
Added:
--> @oromagi
Oh, I knew that
Instigator
#3
Added:
--> @DynamicSquid
Check that spelling, squid.
#2
Added:
--> @DynamicSquid
If you make it unrated, I might accept. I don't think it's worth $100 billion just to mine asteroids if the resources can't be used on Earth. They could be used in space, but for what exactly?
#1
#5
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
50% of the debate was forfeited.
#4
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Forfeiting half of the debate is an excellent example of poor conduct.
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Con ff 1/2 debate
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
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.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Con FF half of the debate, that's poor conduct.
Due to the debate being incomplete, all other points tied.