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

I have not misunderstood the contextualization argument. All my arguments in that section talk about Pro's notion that we are steadily and quickly headed towards unsustainability. I would define that as a resource crisis, while Pro would define it as a resource crisis being imminent. Whichever one you agree with, my arguments still stand. a. Food In the same article I use to for this section, it explains that we provide 10 billion people's worth of food and that will only be increased by adding more people, logically. [2] In fact, the ocean provides nearly infinite more potential for food solutions than space. Not only because space agriculture is just simply not a thing but because, "mariculture must close the production cycle to abandon its current dependence on fisheries catches; enhance the production of edible macroalgae and filter-feeder organisms; minimize environmental impacts; and increase integration with food production on land...Accommodating these changes will enable the oceans to become a major source of food, which we believe will constitute the next food revolution in human history."[7] The next food revolution! In order for Pro to win this argument they have to prove that food is a problem and that space will solve it, and nothing pro has provided even suggests that space has the answer to any food problems whether real or not. b. Water It is quite logical that the extensive research of the ocean would produce more water than space exploration, to conclude otherwise is ludicrous. But let's suppose it's an actual opposition. Solar desalination plants could be the key to the future. Billy Nye states, "We could have all the clean water we wanted for everybody all over the world and we would power the pumps with solar power." [8] The main, and really only, issue with solar desalination is that it is simply ineffective and expensive to be employed at a large scale.[8] This would undoubtedly change with the research of the ocean. Not only could this solve any problems we may have or will have with water, this will also revolutionize ocean research as well. The current ways of being self sustainable out at sea are limited to nearly zero options, other than being a fish. With this technology being researched it will become more efficient production wise and space wise. Thus being able to be implemented on large ships. c. Nonrenewables This is the main argument that many people believe space is needed. However, as my sources show, we have made the tendency to solve these fears on our own. Either we have vast amounts more than enough, as in the case of tellurium, or we simply find a solution. These solutions manifest in two ways, for the most part. The first, we just simply move on to another material. The article stated that if we ran out of the metal used to make solar cells we would simply move to making them from silicon. [3] Pro can not make an argument that space has the answer for fossil fuels because space has not shown any indication of an energy resource that is able to be harvested and used like fossil fuels. I have also proven that fossil fuels are not a problem. [4] We can as a species maintain our current rate of consumption, what needs to change are the huge missteps in distribution. This was stated in my previous round of arguments. Using this article. [2] "We are not in a resource crisis as of now [3]. Like stated before, what I do dispute is the proposed solution." Pro stated this in their last speech which validates all of my arguments in the contextualization part as well, we are talking about solutions to "the nearing resource crisis." My solution is the ocean and the part of the contextualization arguments were me explaining why it isn't a problem in the first place. Pro claims that me pointing out that we are farther away from mining the cosmos than we are mining right beneath us is illogical because the extensive research he is proposing solves that. Whether or not it does, my argument still stands. There is a larger technological gap to harvest space than there is the ocean. Not only does this mean that we would be able to solve the resource crisis faster with the ocean, but also that space is an unrealistic resource provider. If we are to rely on comets and/or asteroids what happens when those extremely precious space objects stop showing up or stop possessing exactly what we need. We are royally screwed! So the resource argument goes in favor of Con because I have proven that it isn't a problem and even if it were the oceans would solve for it better. Pro tries to combat my sustainability argument by saying "we have less than 60 years until we struggle to produce enough food for the population." Whether or not this statement is true, space has literally no means of solving this problem, while the ocean does. I won't go over all those arguments again but you can read through my previous arguments. To argue my resource potential of ocean v. space Pro states that "The ocean contains 1.35 billion cubic meters of mostly salt water (not drinkable.)" But as I stated in my previous argument it is impossible to use or destroy water due to the water cycle, the only way water becomes unusable is if it is contaminated, which is what Pro is trying to claim. My solar desalination argument disproves this, please reference those for more details. Pro then states that space contains billions of entities out there that are harvest-able for water. While this is true, the Oort cloud and Kuiper belt, the places where these entities are found, are literally astronomically far away from us in terms of distance and technology. They are outside of the solar system, and the farthest we as humans have gone is the moon. That gap is utterly huge. Even if these resource missions were to be done by automated machines, which are vastly more technologically intensive than the voyager 1, we've only been close enough to the outer planets to observe them by the voyager 1. While I'm sure these endeavors will be possible EVENTUALLY, it is simply not logical to work towards them exclusively, especially when the oceans is ripe for utilization. The following paragraph by Pro still falls underneath this argument, focus that effort towards the ocean and we are good to go. These past two paragraphs have clearly shown that space is just not a reasonable adventure at this point. I do agree that the potential for space is limitless, but if pro is going to claim there is an impending resource collapse, we need that done sooner rather than later, and the ocean does what the status quo cannot do. He takes my arguments on economics and uses that as justification as to why the US needs to get there first, but that is too far off into the future. He says it's inevitable, which I agree, so we must do it NOW. Doesn't make logical sense. With that argumentation we should be doing the same with oceans and our oil shale deposits in the US. If we get vastly farther ahead in ocean development, other countries will be on their knees to try to keep up with our food, water, and medical research advancements and capabilities. These arguments have gone largely unanswered thus far. Pro claims he doesn't need evidence because "some logic" does it for him. I've shown that the only extinction threat we face that would not also destroy any civilizations on other planets is a Jurassic level meteor. I then went to explain why that is nearly impossible for many reasons, I'll let pro have the virtually impossible chance that a giant meteor wipes us and ONLY the earth out because that means I claim much more and realistic advantages, while he would also have to bear the disadvantages I've shown. Technology If this argument can be used on space, the same can be used on the ocean, and with more proof. Ocean desalination, mariculture, deep sea exploration, military might, and more are all accessible in the foreseeable future while space would need ridiculously more time to provide the same advantages. Health and research So Pro tries to explain that space is better in this regard because it has given insights into our own creation, which has nothing to do with Health and medical sciences, and whether we are alone or not, which is also not relevant in this discussion either. Medical practices simply cannot benefit from the exploration of space, scientific studies may but that's a different field that ocean provides more in anyways. Pro ends the speech with, "Strictly speaking, there is a lot more scientific worth in space than our own oceans." Of course there is, there may even be infinitely more, but my argument is that the ocean should be the first priority because it provides more in a shorter amount of time and can solve the problems Pro put into question. This has been one of the most interesting and stimulating debates I've had on this website. Thank you! Sources: [7] https://academic.oup.com... [8] http://www.ecowatch.com...