Star Trek: Get rid of holodecks.

"Pro's position is becoming ever more muddled, and at this point I'm not actually sure where he stands."I stand with the resolution: "Starfleet ships should not be standardly equipped with recreational holodecks.""He seems to support holodecks for deep space missions"A deep space mission has different needs, than those on a standard ship.Reply to New Ship Design Argument:I believe our debate is over the TV franchise, not the unlicensed role-playing game 'Star Trek: A Call To Duty' my opponent has linked. Which describe their information coming from their source section plus "our heads. In reality, these specs are just great fiction, and are original works created by the members of our team" [17]. It states there's four holodecks all on "Deck 11." while Memory Alpha (which Con continues to use) states they are on "Deck 10 and Deck 12" [6]. However if I misread the information, and there's really four, that only raises the ratio to 2.8 hours per month."But there are 22 holosuites which are essentially the same" From his source: "Only these Holosuites can't handle as many variables and are less detailed." Thus not essentially the same. Never heard of them. Which episode is this from? These holosuites can handle less variables, and thus sound safer than the holodecks this debate is about. "He has been treating holodecks as if they are single user"Simply not true. I've given plenty of examples of several users in the holodeck. As much as the suspension of disbelief would be utterly ruined in some programs, by people coming and going. (hoping this is not how they normally dress)Officers & CasteSee dignitaries argument in round 3, as stated children of officers (three-year-old Alexander) may play with the safety levels [11]; which nearly got two officers killed.Con admits it's communism. Communism is a caste system exemplified by Kim Jong-un, or even Kirk. That it's not rigid doesn't change it from "a division of society based on differences of wealth, inherited rank or privilege, profession, occupation, or race" [18]."La Forge"Preferential treatment for personnel with a history of reckless holodeck use (such as disabling the safeties on serial killer programs like Moriarty [5]), is an issue with leaving the toy they've abused within reach. As for passing the buck on up to Picard instead of La Forge, that blame game leads on up to the admiralty who are not present on Starships to oversee safe handling of the technology. Mountains:It's some holograms and force fields, with a real floor right under you; not a Tardis. "He deems the technology as being safe to use on a space station"Yes where there's never been an issue with the off switch, or being unable to transport people out, or programs taking over other systems, or holograms hitting the controls causing the safeties to turn off, etc.. The resolution deals with ships, where they've been proved to be a danger time and again. "Restrictions on ... characters"More safety protocols would be a very good idea, however it for some reason people can turn those off, in addition to the holodecks accidentally turning them off. So 'Please don't make violent characters, and certainly don't give them weapons' is a great starting point for safety protocols, which the officers would certainly ignore too. Also would it still be the same holodeck in question without lasting save files and violent characters?Video:An hour long, and not related to Star Trek.Links 3 & 4:Not enough information to refute."MORE holodecks"Valid skill training does not equal recreation. No dangerous holodeck errors have originated in a useful training sim.Conclusion:If Starfleet's flagship cannot handle them responsibly without annual incidents, recreational holodecks should not be available on most ships until great improvements are both made and tested.If shipboard holodecks are not a danger, vote against me.Sources:[17] http://techspecs.acalltoduty.com...[18] http://www.merriam-webster.com...