Star Trek: Get rid of holodecks.

I spent hours writing a very nice rebuttal several hours ago, one filled with far zippier humor than this one will have, but because of computer problems I lost it all. I apologize to readers if this round feels rushed, but with only a half hour left of these short rounds, I must be brief. My opponent objects to a warp drive as being a faulty comparison, and I would grant that my remark is a bit of a stretch; Ten Forward is probably a better one. Now it is hypothetically possible that barfights could break out at Ten Forward, and it is even possible that it could be ground zero for a mutiny. Does my opponent think that establishments such as Ten Forward should thus be removed from ships as well? Part of the reason why the best and brightest are attracted to assignments like Enterprise is the possibility to have access to perks like the holodeck. My opponent suggests that use of such a facility should be equally distributed amongst all the crew, and that the enterprise leadership is abusing their power if they do otherwise. This communist utopia does not resemble any actual military organization I am aware of. The officers have earned some measure of executive privilege and the holodeck is one of their prizes, but they still have the option to allocate some time in a holodeck as a reward to hard working team members in their various departments. That kind of motivational management tool is obviously one reason why there ought to be holodecks on starships. With there being only two, the scarce nature of who is allowed to use a holodeck and when is a kind of safety protocol in and of itself, especially if only officers and responsible crew who are receiving some kind of commendation are the only ones allowed to use the facility, as I have suggested is a legitimate possibility. Additionally, can you imagine hosting dignitaries of other civilizations and not providing access to holodecks? For galaxy class vessels, some comforts such as holodecks are necessary in light of the frequent diplomatic missions that class of ship is called upon to perform. Pro’s strongest argument seems to be on the issue of safety, but only because he exaggerates the frequency of the likelihood of injury. Holodecks are on average far safer than alternative activities, such as the mountain climbing that James Kirk was fond of. In real life, there are no safety protocols when you fall. You have to simply be extremely lucky to have a rocket powered Vulcan available to lend a helping hand at the right place and time. If the possibility of causing sentient life were a reason to avoid holodeck programming, one wonders what Pro thinks of bedroom fantasy he alludes to with his conversation on safe words. To my knowledge, only the Moriarty program ever posed any potential threat to a Federation crew. If my opponent would like to elaborate further on this point, I will respond as well, but the mere fact that a potentially dangerous and rebellious form of life has been produced is not at all uncommon to human experience. We routinely call such beings “teenagers.” Couldn’t hacker teens could breach security subroutines and take over control of the ship. From that point of view, having young people on the ship seems a bigger liability than the holodeck. I’m out of time, over to you, Pro.