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. In his Rd. 4 Opening, he seems to support holodecks for deep space missions. Before we go any further though, I need to correct some misunderstandings that Pro has about Galaxy Class Starship design. Yes, we agree that the resource is scarce, but Pro misrepresents how scarce. There are 4 holodecks which can be shared by multiple users, but there are 22 holosuites which are essentially the same, but are designed for individual use. Only officers are normally permitted to use these facilities. This means there's quite a lot more access to holodecks than he implies, as he has been treating holodecks as if they are single user (see his discussion on mountain climbing) and holosuites as if they don't even exist. See the reference for more information. [1]Officers Only:Pro complains that it is unfair to only allow officers to use the facilities, but at the same time contends that if holodecks are misused they can be dangerous. So which is it, should cadets be allowed to waltz into a holodeck and, feeling frisky and full of teenage invincibility, turn the safeties off? Obviously not; stay out, Wes. Officers are commissioned for demonstrating responsibility, dependability, respect for the chain of command, and an ability to follow instructions. They are therefore the only ones starfleet has approved to be using this sensitive but worthwhile technology for recreation, and since safety is an issue Pro has called into question, one would think he ought to support this.La Forge:This is another complaint about preferential treatment shown for certain members of the Enterprise crew, but that really just boils down to being an issue of questioning Picard's command. It is non sequitur to the discussion of holodeck technology aboard starships.Mountain Climbing:In addition to my rebuttal above, the technology works in such a way as to make the user feel as if the space is larger than it actually is, so no, space is not nearly the concern Pro tries to make it.Vic Fontaine/DS9:How does an absence of holodeck malfunctions enhance his argument? He deems the technology as being safe to use on a space station by a similar crew, so thus holodecks should not be used on starships because they're unsafe? That doesn't logically follow. Moriarty was an extremely rare incident, but as I said before, that sort of problem can be avoided by having restrictions on how many times a character can be initialized, as well as by the nature of the character (no Khans). Compliance to protocol is partly accomplished by restricting access only to officers, making starship holodecks even more safe than casual ones that anyone can pay to use.Ethics and Morality:They can be ugly and full of difficult choices. So what? If that sort of thing interests you, you may enjoy this talk about the morality of murder by Michael Sandel. [2]Benefits:1) "Caste system" is both ad hominem and straw man. There is no "caste," crewmen can be promoted to officiers by demonstrating their reliability and working hard.2) Problem solving sims: There are some examples [3] [4]3) Pro contends that there are clear benefits to using holodecks for training purposes, not just for officers but for the whole crew. If I concede his point here, and I do, that means we agree that there should be MORE holodecks on starships, rather than none, and that at least some of them should be fully devoted to crew training. This point clearly strengthens my position towards the resolution, not his.1) http://techspecs.acalltoduty.com...2) 3) http://en.memory-alpha.org...4) http://en.memory-alpha.org...