As a Country, the US Needs to Focus on Off World Endeavors

Con states yet again that we are past the point of sustainability, saying the problem is the resources are not distributed equally. That applies to the arguments of food and water but not to things like renewable resources. Because people are not dying of renewable resource dehydration, they are dying of starvation and dehydration. Neither of which space can solve for better than the ocean. Space can't even solve for food because there is no food in space, Pro has not shown that there is either. Space can't solve for food because the time it would take to get the water in the Oort and Kuiper Belt, even with all of our available resources, is too large for Pro's predictions. Pro gives us 60 years. Humans haven't even made it past the moon and yet Pro thinks it's possible that we would be able to exit the solar system, land on these entities containing ice, harvest it, transport ENOUGH of it back to earth, AND distribute it in this time period. Even if all of the former points were possible, Pro's plan does not solve for the lack of distribution of natural resources. We would be at the same place we are now. The ocean is proven to solve for everything Pro claims is happening while doing so within the 60 year time period, less expensively, and also provides more extra advantages than Pro. I have proven that solar desalination is on the verge of being huge, there just isn't enough resources being put into the research. I have also proven to solve for food. My opponent wrongly assumes I am speaking on aquaponics, which is entirely different than mariculture. Aquaponics: a system of aquaculture in which the waste produced by farmed fish or other aquatic animals supplies nutrients for plants grown hydroponically, which in turn purify the water. Mariculture: the cultivation of fish or other marine life for food. Essentially, these two things are entirely different. Aquaponics strives to use fish to create plants in the ocean while mariculture strives to enhance the way we farm fish. Overfishing is a problem, and research can and will help. This is yet another reason why the ocean is a better choice. Pro then explains why overfishing is a problem and how it was unsustainable from the start, which doesn't apply because my plan solves for this, as I have shown with evidence and logic. This also keys into the food argument. Pro argues that my logic of increased population means increased food production is flawed. Pro would be right if that was all my argument was. I am arguing that 1. Food isn't a problem as explained by my article 2. Space doesn't solve for any supposed food problems 3. The ocean is the perfect answer for any food problems, we just need to put more scientific resources into researching it. All Pro has argued is that food is a problem, which doesn't mean he wins the argument EVEN IF he wins that point. Because then my second and third point mean that I win the argument. "Now if we turn to eating these filter feeders and micro organisms, they are not an infinite resource as con suggests." I don't recall arguing this, I am arguing for the development of fish farming techniques and technology so that it is sustainable at a massive scale, which I've shown is possible with research. "To conclude that our oceans offer more drinkable water than space it what is simply ludicrous." I agree and I conceded this. My argument is: 1. Pro's argument must solve within 60 years because Pro stated that that was the deadline 2. There is no feasible way for (1) even with Pro's plan. 3. The ocean solves better, quicker, more efficiently, and solves other problems as well as creating many new advantages. Pro claims that he disproved my argument by saying desalination is difficult and intensive. This is what can be solved by research. It also meets the 60 year deadline when Pro's own argument doesn't. Furthermore, I did not claim that the ocean was better because the water in space is currently out of reach. I argued: 1. It's farther and, with a strict deadline of 60 years, we should opt for the faster solution for any problems there may be. 2. See point (3) in my last paragraph. Pro keeps going on about me being a hypocrite for saying his is out of reach when mine is as well. Please go back over my last two paragraphs to understand why this is not what I was arguing. Pro's only argument that is debatable at this point is whether space is more profitable than the ocean. Whether or not this is true, I should win the debate because Pro's own arguments say we need to solve for: Food Water Non renewable resources Space CANNOT solve for food, thus Pro has lost the debate. Furthermore, I have shown that it is better to focus on the ocean CURRENTLY instead, all of those arguments go uncontested. "Con has these same "flaws" in his own argument, thus making it invalid against mine." No. Look over my arguments in this round and previous rounds again, I make it clear that is not the point. "orbital solar arrays positioned around the sun would be nearly unlimited in their production of clean, usable power." I had thought this part of the argument was gone, there is no energy crisis. As my source has shown, the U.S. alone has vast amount of Oil Shale deposits and the only reason for it not being used is because oil is much cheaper and more readily available as of now. The source also shows that once we start running out of oil, the appeal for oil shale will increase and research will go towards it; thus making it profitable and economically reasonable. "As for food production in space, organisms have been shown to grow faster and stronger in recent studies aboard the ISS, given they no longer have environmental constraints." This argument has just come up in the second to last round of the debate which is... Shady, to say the least considering I brought up the argument in the first speech I answered Pro. To address it specifically: Pro states that we would have to colonize the moon and Mars for this to solve. This means that all of my arguments apply to this as well: 1. Pro's argument must solve within 60 years because Pro stated that that was the deadline 2. There is no feasible way for (1) even with Pro's plan. 3. The ocean solves better, quicker, more efficiently, and solves other problems as well as creating many new advantages. "Your only response to the perfectly good logic behind avoiding an extinction event is simply the likelihood of getting hit by an asteroid, which is not the only extinction level event that could effect the species, and that it is equally as likely to hit any other world we colonize." No, that was indeed not my argument. I've argued that the only extinction event that could wipe us out IS the meteor. I have cited an astronomer and space scientist that explains this in depth. He says it's not possible mainly for the fact that the last supposed meteor happened when the solar system was still volatile. I stated that he also provides more information as to why it is impossible. I didn't go into it because this debate isn't on the meteor and I couldn't explain full scientific ideas with the space and time I had. Please go back and read that article if you want a more detailed explanation. He further explained his logic of how it is less likely that both planets would get hit. This stands up to logic, but not to the science I have provided. The extinction level event that earth would have to experience would obliterate and/or destabilize the rest of the solar system. This is mostly due to how the meteor would have to either ignore the suns gravity and hit us, or it would have to go through Jupiter and still be able to wipe us out. This is outlined in the evidence I provided, I implore Pro to read it as I suggested when I first brought up the evidence. I have vastly simplified the scientist's arguments just now so excuse me for that. "We have already started to exploit space more than we ever had the ocean in this sense." This is true, I concede this fact and the following sentences explaining it in his argumentation. However, I still win the debate because I solve for the supposed resource crisis that Pro claimed in the first place while Pro does not. "Research was directed at you notion about how little of the ocean is known, to which I replied even less is known about space." Yes and I have already conceded that space has more potential but in my last argument I said, IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE. That is the key phrase that flips the argument to my side, because. 1. Pro's argument must solve within 60 years because Pro stated that that was the deadline 2. There is no feasible way for (1) even with Pro's plan. 3. The ocean solves better, quicker, more efficiently, and solves other problems as well as creating many new advantages. In conclusion: 1. Contextualization arguments a. Food, water, and non renewables aren't a problem as explained by my article. b. Space doesn't solve for any supposed food problems in the 60 year time frame Pro provided. c. The ocean is the perfect answer for any food and water problems, we just need to put more scientific resources into researching it. 2. Resources Pro can't claim he solves because I have shown that he can't do so in the parameters he provides. (60 year time limit) 3. Something to rally behind Either space or the ocean can be something to rally behind. 4. Net worth a. Net worth doesn't matter since Pro don't solve for the supposed crisis Pro has claimed. 5. Extinction event a. Not possible b. The only scenario that Pro's argument stands is (1) impossible and (2) would obliterate any other civilization by initial meteor impact and debris or the simple destability of the solar system afterwards. 6. Technology a. Tech doesn't matter since Pro don't solve for the supposed crisis Pro has claimed. Thank you!