Star Trek: Get rid of holodecks.

"If shipboard holodecks are not a danger, vote against me."Okay, but that is not the only condition under which you should vote against him, and voters should avoid the false insinuation that if the opposite is true, you should vote in favor of him. As you'll recall from rd. 3, we agreed on the criteria that “if the drawbacks outweighed the benefits, or if the potential drawbacks were so likely and so severe that they rendered the benefits moot, then in such a case holodecks should not be on starships.” I suggested this because in Pro's original resolution, the word "should' was a little too open to interperetation for my taste. Pro and I agree that there is some measure of danger associated with holodecks, but that is true for every aspect of the ship, including 10 Forward."A deep space mission has different needs, than those on a standard ship."What does he think the Enterprise is, if not a deep space ship? There have been occasions where it has been necessary to keep the Enterprise on extended missions, use it as a hidden asset in covert operations, guard the neutral zone for unknowable lengths of time, and the list goes on and on. So which is it? Is Pro's definition of a "standard ship" the tugboat that stays close to a space station, or the Enterprise? Are "new life and new civilizations" or "boldly going where no one has gone before" supposed to be found just around the corner, or does oe have to take the Enterprise into "deep space" to find new things? Voters will decide.Ship design as per Star Trek: A Call To DutyEven within the series itself there were discrepancies and inconsistencies, so it is not surprising that fans such as ourselves are left in confusion to speculate and debate. Most of this part of the conversation is moot, however, in that it doesn't actually support my opponent's original contention that recreational holodecks shouldn't be on the Enterprise. Instead of wanting them off this ship, his point seems to be that there aren't enough of them and there should be more so that everyone can have a turn.RealismMy opponent accuses me of telling a mistruth. My point was that he seems to have asserted that the archway and comings and goings of participants so completely ruins the experience for the user, which should considerably limit participation even if it doesn't make it decrease all the way down to "single user" as I suggested. At any rate, the point was that holodecks are actually safer than many of the real life experiences they simulate, and Pro didn't object to this, instead he changed the subject. I contend that they do simulate these experiences well enough that officers do seem to enjoy holodecks and like to go back.Morality VideoWhile not Star Trek related, Michael Sandel does have quite a bit to say about the messiness and confusion of moral dilemma's, and this was pertenent to the conversation point raised by my opponent. The video was long, but that is moot since I only shared it as something that may be of interest to him or the readers. I did not demand that it must be answered to.Officers, La Forge, Worf's Son & CasteAgain, this has nothing to do with the technology itself, these are issues of social justice. Pro seems pretty side tracked here. Nevertheless, his own reference to the definition of caste undermines him, because unchangeability or the inherited nature of social status is an important feature of castes. I don't ever recall agreeing to the description of the Enterprise command structure as being "communism." I may have said "that would be communism" if everyone got a turn.Safe on a Space StationI didn't see anything here that counters my point, except to say that both my opponent and I would favor an "off switch" to the recreational holodecks, which by the way does not require their removal from the ship.Conclusion: Recreational holodecks are a valuable tool, and there are better ways to make them safer than complete removal from starships.