Judge: Trevor Reddick (Unaffiliated)
Resolution: THBT: An overriding ethical obligation to protect and preserve extraterrestrial microbial life and ecosystems should be incorporated into international law.
|Click to begin|
Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.
Posted at April 18, 2016 02:39:12PM EST by Ronald Cheung
Margaret S. Race, Senior Research scientist specializing in extraterrestrial organisms for SETI Institute and Richard O. Randolph, scientist for SETI Institute. 2002.
"The Need For Operating Guidelines and a Decision Making Framework Applicable to the Discovery of Non-Intelligent Extraterrestrial Life"
Page 5 and 6
Posted at April 20, 2016 05:39:33AM EST by Matsushita Momoka
None available for this speech.
Posted at April 20, 2016 10:31:24PM EST by Ronald Cheung
NASA article discussing the size of our universe.
Posted at April 21, 2016 09:54:16AM EST by Matsushita Momoka
None available for this speech.
Posted at April 22, 2016 03:53:50AM EST by Ronald Cheung
Quotation from Ellen Stofan, the Chief NASA scientist
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at April 24, 2016 07:40:45PM EST by Trevor Reddick
|Category||Ronald Cheung||Matsushita Momoka|
|Use of evidence:||4||3.6|
|Coherence of arguments:||4||3.6|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||4||3.6|
|Identification of key points:||4||3.6|
|Comments:||Ronald, do a better job of explaining what guidelines would do to make the stuff Momoka is speaking on MORE EFFECTIVE, eg. we have stuff to clean microbes and preserve them sure, but the declaration sets international guidelines and standards for their use so there's only a risk the proposition makes things more effective/better. Please make sure to extend/discuss in your later speeches about the pressing need to set regulations because there can be really bad effects of bringing microbes back or disrupting extra-terrestrial life and causing wars and such. That was undiscussed by your opponent and is some very compelling reasons to set standards for encounters now.||Momoka Matsushita you brought up good points but you provided only what I can explain as defensive arguments which does not overpower the propositions' argument that proper guidelines be in place to make sure everything you have said would be used properly. I think you miss the main thrust of this debate which is if innovation can be sustained through strict guidelines and that was undiscussed by you in exchange for a discussion on why there's enough stuff now without describing why putting in place the statement would actively hurt our exploration. Without that extra step your argument feels insufficiently developed|
The decision is for the Proposition: Ronald Cheung
Reason for Decision:
I think the opposition does not provide a compelling enough reason that the proposition's declaration wouldn't simply make what the opposition is discussing more effective. By that I mean the opposition boils down to an argument that technology and protocols already exist for managing human engagement with microbial life forms, but the proposition has provided reasons that their declaration would simply make the use of such tech and protocols more effective. I don't understand a reason that we shouldn't set protocols without a more robust explanation of BOTH why the declaration is unnecessary AND why it would be harmful or bad to make this declaration.