Space Debris Astronaut advantage?

[The1 4]

I was thinking what if i made an astronaut advantage talking about how space debris threatens astronauts lives? Probably the first thing on everyone's mind is that the impact is not very significant in comparison to other impacts like war and extinction. i was thinking that i run this advantage, and then when the 1n attacks the small-ness (for a lack of better word) of the impact, I run offensive value to life arguments against them. Would this be legitimate?

[BlueWaffle 1]

I think that its a good idea but i always thought the idea of space debris was that space debris is on the brink now. too much space debris risks shuttle damage. and it stops going to space altogether because there is virtually a layer of debris surrounding the earth. so we wouldnt be able to go out in space in the first place so astronauts wouldnt be there to be harmed. that may be on the same lines as your advantage but it seems like a good idea

[The1 4]

I think that its a good idea but i always thought the idea of space debris was that space debris is on the brink now. too much space debris risks shuttle damage. and it stops going to space altogether because there is virtually a layer of debris surrounding the earth. so we wouldnt be able to go out in space in the first place so astronauts wouldnt be there to be harmed. that may be on the same lines as your advantage but it seems like a good idea

 

I'd say that was more of an impact of space debris and the astronaut advantage is more of an inherent harm.

[Luminite2 101]

You very well could do something like this, and I commend you on avoiding silly nuclear war/extinction impacts; those are dumb, in my opinion. However, I will say that such an advantage could be difficult to prove, because the chances of an astronaut being hit are quite small. Proving harms for satellites and stuff that's always up there is fairly simple, but you would have to find some really good cards to show that astronauts face large risks specifically from space debris. If you manage to find something like that, then you may be able to make a neat case.

[Cheese Fries Master 2]

Them astronauts are always bein' ignored. Good for you, ol' chap! They put their lives on the line just because they love this here country!

[jonathanchou711 34]

I was thinking what if i made an astronaut advantage talking about how space debris threatens astronauts lives? Probably the first thing on everyone's mind is that the impact is not very significant in comparison to other impacts like war and extinction. i was thinking that i run this advantage, and then when the 1n attacks the small-ness (for a lack of better word) of the impact, I run offensive value to life arguments against them. Would this be legitimate?

 

Pretty legit, but impacts are pretty hard to win. Maybe you could win that astronauts are key to the world's technology/safety or whatnot and then win an impact from there.

[ButteredMuffin 1440]

Pretty legit, but impacts are pretty hard to win. Maybe you could win that astronauts are key to the world's technology/safety or whatnot and then win an impact from there.

 

He's describing more of an ethics impact, like it's unethical to intentionally put men in even more of harm's way than just going to space. You're looking at it from too much of a util point of view.

 

However, I think that an impact like this would be hard to win, because really, going to space is already risky in itself. There are plenty of other possible tech failures. The neg can just turn this against the topic and be like "yeah, you're right, we shouldn't put astronauts in danger, why send them to a vacuum where they can be effected by radiation and have negative effects from anti-gravity." Reading that by itself puts you in a tenuous position to have to explain why astronauts aren't put at any risk right now and why space debris poses any more of an unexpected danger than say a faulty O-ring in a booster (Challenger) or having a damaged heat shield from a piece of foam falling off and hitting it (Columbia).

[jgorman 92]

He's describing more of an ethics impact, like it's unethical to intentionally put men in even more of harm's way than just going to space. You're looking at it from too much of a util point of view.

 

However, I think that an impact like this would be hard to win, because really, going to space is already risky in itself. There are plenty of other possible tech failures. The neg can just turn this against the topic and be like "yeah, you're right, we shouldn't put astronauts in danger, why send them to a vacuum where they can be effected by radiation and have negative effects from anti-gravity." Reading that by itself puts you in a tenuous position to have to explain why astronauts aren't put at any risk right now and why space debris poses any more of an unexpected danger than say a faulty O-ring in a booster (Challenger) or having a damaged heat shield from a piece of foam falling off and hitting it (Columbia).

 

This. Also, the only people eligible to be an astronaut (in the current, astronaut-for-NASA sense of the word) are already fighter jet pilots for the Armed Forces so the added space exploration really doesn't up the danger that much.