Is NASA right to abandon the Hubble ?

[Saru]

Is NASA right to abandon the Hubble space telescope ?

This will be a formal debate in which two members will debate for and against the decision to abandon the Hubble space telescope. The two participants will take it in turns to each make up to 5 posts in this thread to put their arguements across, aswell as an optional introductory opening paragraph and conclusion.

Participants are allowed to quote from their oponent to discuss points made by that person. Quoting from other sources is also permitted in moderation, as long a link/source reference is included. Using large amounts of quoted material however is not allowed.

Please also note that only the two participants of this debate and the debate organiser will be permitted to post to this thread while the debate is running. If anyone else posts to the thread, that post will be removed.

The two members who will be taking part in this debate are Scar and UniversalAbsurdity.

We tossed a coin in order to decide which side of the arguement each participant is supporting. The result is that Scar will be arguing against the abandoning of the Hubble, and UniversalAbsurdity will be arguing for the abandoning of the Hubble.

To start off, both participants are allowed to post an introductory opening paragraph, however you may skip this if you wish. Once the introductory posts have been made, the participants can take it in turns to post in the debate. An optional conclusion can also be posted right at the end. There is no set time limit for this debate, participants can take as long as they need for each post.

Thank you again to you both for taking part, and good luck.

[Scar]

Hubble has provided us with the revelation of our universe "as it was in the beginning". We cannot allow such a travesty to transpire. Hubble has provided us with awe inspiring pictures of wonder and marvels that will engross the generations. This has been accomplished at a meagre 1% of NASA’s total budget!

Life without Hubble would be living without vision.

[Universal Absurdity]

True, the hubble is responsible for some of the greatest leaps in cosmology, and understanding our universe (not to mention some awesome pictures).

But lets look at the realistic side of the decision to abandon the Hubble.

The recent columbia disaster has shown that there are more problems with shuttle upkeep than previously thought. Because of this the columbia investigation board has urged nasa to have a higher standard of safety.

The next service mission for the hubble was scheduled for 2006. This puts a strict time limit on preparing the shuttle. Having a higher safety standard would not allow a servicing mission so soon, as the new standards have uncovered quite a bit of problems that had previously gone unchecked.

Optimistic views from O'keefe - NASA's administrator has placed the next feasable mission in 2007, in the meantime there are a number of things that could happen to the hubble which would require unique repair tecniques that NASA is not prepared for. If NASA is unable to come up with these repair tecniques by the time the shuttle is ready for launch it would delay the mission even more. Thus leaving a larger window of time for the hubble to wear out, or get beat up by cosmic debris, which would require more time to develop tecniques for repair...and the circle would go on.

Contrary to popular belief, this would not be the end all to space telescopes. NASA does have plans to send a telescope into orbit in 2011. The James Webb Space Telescope. It will be an infra red telescope (the main argument from astronomers is that the next service mission would include an infra red update to the hubble).

Not to mention that there are new ground based telescopes that rival the hubble.

The VLT (very large telescope) for example is an array of 4 telescopes each with an 8 meter mirror. They can be used together to create the largest light gathering source in the world link

The end of the hubble is not the end of space exploration. The issues of safety dont make it into the mainstream as much as than the upsetting news, which is unfortunate.

* on a personal note i will be sad to see it go. but what must be done, must be done. even if its nothing.

[Scar]

By the year 2000 Hubble had surpassed every mission in NASA’s history providing the world with 35% of all space related discoveries over the past 20 years . Over the past 10 years Hubble has continued to be the number one most scientifically productive mission by NASA to date.

The safety concerns that have been officially voiced by NASA, have recently been compared to the International Space Station missions, which regardless of safety concerns must be carried out in order to stop the 200 tonne station careering back to earth. According to the NASA shuttle launch schedule, (updated on January 30) seven shuttle missions to the ISS are scheduled to go ahead. Not to mention the most intrepid planned journey’s to date set out by the Bush administration,

AKA Mars.

A document with an anonymous author, recently circulating capitol hill has made a sturdy argument for the continuation of the Hubble servicing missions

“The final planned HST Servicing Mission, SM4, will be at least as safe as shuttle flights to the International Space Station (ISS). If shuttle return-to-flight occurs prior to the full implementation of an autonomous inspection and repair capability, the overall risks during a flight to Hubble would be comparable to those associated with an ISS flight in which the shuttle failed to reach ISS. Ultimately, when an autonomous inspection and repair capability is implemented, a mission to Hubble will then be as safe as any mission to ISS. Thus, an HST flight requires few, if any, unique capabilities to ensure safe flight beyond those developed for flights to the ISS. NASA plans to provide a Shuttle rescue capability for all flights. The flexibility to schedule SM4 immediately prior to one of the ISS flights provides a ready capability to mount a rescue mission if needed. Risks of micrometeoroid and orbital debris damage to shuttle on ISS flights exceeds that on flights to HST, given the flexibility in the latter to place the shuttle in a protective orientation.”

The full article can be found at the link below, detailing all the scientific evidence to back up their argument.

Cont

in the meantime there are a number of things that could happen to the Hubble which would require unique repair techniques that NASA is not prepared for

When space exploration is the topic not one person alive could account for every eventuality. This is proved in everyday life where the unexpected can happen at anytime. With aeroplane and train disasters to name but a few, occurring despite humanities best efforts.

Key points to note with regards to the components previously planned to be installed in 2006

* Wide Field Camera 3 (WF3): This camera, which sees in both infrared and ultraviolet wavelengths, would have replaced the Wide Field Planetary Camera 2. It is two to three times more sensitive in the infrared than Hubble's Near Infrared Camera and Multi-Object Spectrometer (NICMOS).

* Cosmic Origins Spectrograph (COS): This high-resolution spectrograph, a prism-like instrument capable of studying the chemical composition of far-distant interstellar gas, would have replaced the Corrective Optics Space Telescope Axial Replacement (COSTAR).

Both of these components have been constructed, and if the previously planned servicing mission were to go ahead this would increase Hobbles observational capabilities by a factor of 10 , making the final years of Hubble’s planned lifetime the most scientifically capable and productive. Further to that the servicing mission would have extended the proposed life of Hubble to 2012 allowing the earth for the first time in its history to have to two space based telescopes in orbit for the first time in our history.

Lets not forget that Hubble offered a ringside seat to a once-in-a-millennia event when 21 fragments of comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 collided with Jupiter. As each comet fragment crashed into the giant planet, Hubble caught mushroom-shaped plumes along the limb of the planet, detailed views not possible using any other telescope.

Hubble continues to provide scientists a new way of pin pointing possible Apocalyptic asteroids,

Could we live with ourselves if for the 6 years we had no space based observatory,

mankind was wiped from the face of the universe by such an asteroid ?

(The objective of the above question is to highlight the requirement for a constant space observatory to limit the possibilty of such an event occuring (I am aware that you could not live with yourself if the hypothetical situation came to pass))

Chart of source of space related discoveries

Courtesy of AURA

[Universal Absurdity]

The safety concerns that have been officially voiced by NASA, have recently been compared to the International Space Station missions,

Comparing a hubble mission to an ISS mission is like comparing a walk in the park to a 5 mile run. The hubble is two times farther from the earth, not to mention it's near equitorial orbit which itself is a safety issue ( any hubble mission would put a shuttle above the atlantic, nowhere near an emergency landing site).

A document with an anonymous author, recently circulating capitol hill has made a sturdy argument for the continuation of the Hubble servicing missions

"Some “leaked” memos from anonymous “NASA insiders” allege the Hubble mission is actually safer than a space station mission. (This despite the fact that the shuttle crew can actually take refuge in the space station should they need to,

and from there inspect and repair their vehicle.) I’ve seen these reports and as a veteran of 22 years at Mission Control in Houston, I don’t see any indications that the authors have the slightest working familiarity with shuttle operations." -source

When space exploration is the topic not one person alive could account for every eventuality.

What can be accounted for is the fact that a mission to the hubble is much different than a mission to the ISS. Any problem on a mission to the ISS is nothing compared to the same problem on a Hubble mission. A shuttle can dock on the ISS a luxury not capable with the hubble.

Another eventuality is that the Hubble's gyroscopes and battery will expire in early 2007. Placing a large burdon on preparation time schedules which would go against NASA's new safety standards. Sending the 4th maintenence visit to the Hubble is just cutting it too close for comfort.

Both of these components have been constructed, and if the previously planned servicing mission were to go ahead this would increase Hobbles observational capabilities by a factor of 10

increasing observational capabilities would offer new discoveries. What would a mission to mars offer? The benefits of putting a man on another world offer different discoveries not possible with Hubble.

Hubble continues to provide scientists a new way of pin pointing possible Apocalyptic asteroids,

Hubble was incapable of pinpointing Sedna, the newest Oort cloud object/planet.

the discovery of Sedna was made by a ground based telescope on Mt. Palomar in california. Even without hubble, it is still possible to see whats coming at us.

The pros outweigh the cons when it comes to the abandonment of the Hubble. It will be a great misfortune to astronomers, but what discovery would be worth the loss of life that would be possible with another hubble mission? Nothing that wont be discovered in the future by the next space telescope, or even a ground based telescope thats already here.

Another tidbit of info not previously mentioned , is that there are only 3 shuttles left in nasa's posession, another factor in the decision to abandon the hubble.

Even the astronauts are for the abandonment of the hubble. Grunsfield, a left handed astronaut that had been on a previous hubble maintenence mission agrees with NASA that the new safety standards would prevent the 4th visit to the hubble before it's condition would be beyond just maintenence.

[Scar]

"Some “leaked” memos from anonymous “NASA insiders” allege the Hubble mission is actually safer than a space station mission. (This despite the fact that the shuttle crew can

actually take refuge in the space station should they need to,

and from there inspect and repair their vehicle.) I’ve seen these reports and as a veteran of 22 years at Mission Control in Houston, I don’t see any indications that the authors have the slightest working familiarity with shuttle operations." -source

First off the Memo’s properties has William S. Smith. As the author (or source) he happens to be AURA's president (Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy) further to that the below editors note at the very beginning of the article say’s

“Editor's note: I have subsequently learned that Dr. Smith personally distributed these documents to Congressional staffers”

So you would imagine that the man knows what he’s talking about, he wouldn’t go putting his reputation on a line pulling a stunt like that.

Rather than get off course and debate the authenticity of the article remember its NASA who wishes the telescope’s final servicing mission not to go ahead, so think about the “Cap” he was wearing when he debunked that article.

What can be accounted for is the fact that a mission to the Hubble is much different than a mission to the ISS. Any problem on a mission to the ISS is nothing compared to the same problem on a Hubble mission. A shuttle can dock on two the ISS a luxury not capable with the Hubble.

Yes , but as you kindly pointed out they have three shuttles left , they could easily prepare two shuttles, if anything happens to go wrong send the second one up for a rescue mission.

Also its important to note the same would be required for the already planned ISS missions as part of those “safety” standards that you have previously mentioned.

Lets look at the facts about travelling too ISS and HST

HST - Leave Cape toward the east southeast , if a launch abort occurs Hubble flights can ditch in the warm tropical waters

ISS - In the same situation ISS missions would end up in the North Atlantic , where the survival chances are substantially reduced

Also the ISS takeoff have a much heavier payload, using all three engines at full power for a staggering 100 seconds longer than HST missions. This would mean the likely hood of abort to orbit to considerably increase.

While Actually in space NASA’s own calculations show that fatal impacts by micro-meteors and space debris to be over 60% more likely on ISS missions than HST

Which by the way is what that article I posted earlier was about !

So As I Asked What “Cap” are the NASA men wearing when they forget to tell us about those “safety” ?

Another eventuality is that the Hubble's gyroscopes and battery will expire in early 2007. Placing a large burden on preparation time schedules which would go against NASA's new safety standards. Sending the 4th maintenance visit to the Hubble is just cutting it too close for comfort.

This has being planned for years, they haven’t yet came outright and said that definitely without doubt Hubble is coming down, its on the cards nothing is set in stone. As I also pointed out $200 million worth of components have been constructed already , they knew the batteries would run out round about 2007 , hence the servicing mission scheduled for 2006. The planning has been done, stating anything else would show NASA to have the worst planning and control ability since ENRON.

increasing observational capabilities would offer new discoveries. What would a mission to mars offer? The benefits of putting a man on another world offer different discoveries not possible with Hubble.

Mars would be more of milestone in space exploration , there is absolutely no way it could provide more scientific discoveries than Hubble. Remember Hubble can ;

* Peer 13 billion light years into the past

* Spot evidence of planets forming among far away stars

* Hubble has provided the world with 35% of all space related discoveries over the past 20 years

These points (among others I have posted) wipe the floor with any scientific discoveries Mars has to offer.

Don’t get me wrong Mars will be a great accomplishment but for you to compare the scientific benefits of MARS V HST and go on about the ISS V HST safety issues.

* HST will undoubtedly provide more scientific discoveries than a MARS trip

* HST Is A safer mission than MARS will ever be

* HST can be pulled off cheaper and with the same safety requirements of ISS

* HST provides 6 CD roms full of clear Images a day, without the same atmospheric distortions that ground based telecopes have.

The Article you provided was most interesting , especially about the Astronauts who are willing to risk another Hubble Mission! Whatever happens either NASA spends double the money building a unmanned robotic rocket to guide Hubble back down to earth, or the spend the projected amount on the servicing mission fitting rockets for controlled re-entry when the 2012 comes around.

[Universal Absurdity]

So you would imagine that the man knows what he’s talking about, he wouldn’t go putting his reputation on a line pulling a stunt like that.

Astronomy and astronaut are 2 very different proffesions. although they have alot to do with each other. It is my opinion that an astronomer would not have the same working knowledge of a space shuttle that an astronaut (and nasa for that matter) have.

as you kindly pointed out they have three shuttles left , they could easily prepare two shuttles, if anything happens to go wrong send the second one up for a rescue mission.

A rescue mission at the hubble would require a shutle to shutle transfer. A procedure that has never been done.If we did send a mission to the hubble and it needed a rescue mission, say thr transfer from shuttle to shuttle does not go as planned, then we have 2 very valuble shuttles in danger. i could see why nasa would not want to risk it.

I pointed out that there are only 3 shuttles left for a reason. We have obligations with the ISS, and we are down one shuttle from the lack of safety standards nasa previously had. if theyre sending any shuttles up there they had better have a way to repair it if needed before re-entry or we woont be a space faring country for long.

HST - Leave Cape toward the east southeast , if a launch abort occurs Hubble flights can ditch in the warm tropical waters

ISS - In the same situation ISS missions would end up in the North Atlantic , where the survival chances are substantially reduced

either way the astronauts would not be abandoning ship. i dont see what the water temperature's relevance is here.

While Actually in space NASA’s own calculations show that fatal impacts by micro-meteors and space debris to be over 60% more likely on ISS missions than HST

a comparison made from calculations of service mission 3 (2000) to an ISS mission in 2004. A far reach from an upset astronomer

...I also pointed out $200 million worth of components have been constructed already ...The planning has been done, stating anything else would show NASA to have the worst planning and control ability since ENRON.

nasa is working on an automated service mission. so they are doing the best they can at the moment... And comparing hubble's decision to that which happend to enron is the most hilarious thing ive read all day. thank you! I'm sorry, i must have missed enron's trajedy and loss of life when the news was reporting that enron was shredding their documents to try and cover up the corruption. how could you even think of nasa and enron in the same thought pattern? a cheap ploy to try and win this debate.

* HST will undoubtedly provide more scientific discoveries than a MARS trip

so finding water on another planet , and deeming it capable of sustaining human life would be less impoetant than seeing what galaxies looked like 13 billion years ago? oh , btw, we have already looked that far back, any 'new' discoveries would be small additions to previous discoveries.

* HST Is A safer mission than MARS will ever be

indeed but that is not the issue at hand, considering that a mission to mars is not planned to go untill 2020 (i think) at the earliest.

* HST can be pulled off cheaper and with the same safety requirements of ISS

Apparently the safety standards are up for debate. Unfortunately nasa has the final word and they say its a no-go situation.About the expense, a hubble service mission is not bringing vital parts to a space station. a cost which i am sure is added to the overall cost of the mission.

Some Astronauts are willing to go for the next hubble mission, some are not. too bad the decision isnt up to them. From what i know, nasa isnt going to take the hubble down any time soon. they are more interested in recent technological advances that may allow an automated service mission, which would allow the planned controlled re-entry in 2012.

[Scar]

The Whole basis of your argument is safety , I share your concerns as no one should have to die in order to carry out their chosen profession. You could sit and list all the jobs that require an element of risk in order to carry out their Jobs , but NASA, America, the world all know that space exploration is dangerous and life’s have been and will be lost over mans greatest challenge.

Your editing of my comments is reminiscent of Martin Bashirs Micheal Jackson documentry, Its easy to take a small sample of the quoted text and then answer the part you want!

If you are familiar working with large Government or Corporate companies at least in the United Kingdom, Planning and Control is usually a fundamental part of each division's attempt at ...... Planning and controlling the things they do. The fact that I work for a company that does exactly the same thing as Enron did (In USA and UK) and that after that incident I was part of a team which investigated in partnership with PricewaterhouseCoopers, the area's of our business to make sure our accounts where in a... reasonable fashion. I reckon that I would be right in saying that if Enron Financial Planning and control team had a better understanding of the problems they would have been able to better plan and subsequently control the situation before it became their demise.

My comment comparing NASA's Planning and control team for Hubble and Enron’s financial team, was to illustrate that Planning happens years in advance and doesn’t happen the day before otherwise you cannot control the situation. Therefore Hubble would have disappeared a long time ago along with the entire space program if they didn’t already have a good grasp of this concept.

In actual fact it was to debunk your comment below;

Another eventuality is that the Hubble's gyroscopes and battery will expire in early 2007. Placing a large burdon on preparation time schedules which would go against NASA's new safety standards. Sending the 4th maintenence visit to the Hubble is just cutting it too close for comfort.

So in plain English, that comment is completely false, in stating this you are suggesting NASA have not planned for such things, which would mean they have no concept of planning and control (Risk assessments etc). Which They Obviously Do!!!!

either way the astronauts would not be abandoning ship. I don’t see what the water temperature's relevance is here.

Cold water V Warm Water, which would you prefer to crash into to increase your chances of surviving ? simple really.

so finding water on another planet , and deeming it capable of sustaining human life would be less impoetant than seeing what galaxies looked like 13 billion years ago? oh , btw, we have already looked that far back, any 'new' discoveries would be small additions to previous discoveries.

Look at the chart I posted, Look At what I said !

Scar posted

* HST will undoubtedly provide more scientific discoveries than a MARS trip

I said more !! not more important, but since you brought it up. With the new components I have previously listed Hubble will essentially be a new telescope therefore we cannot actually say for definite what it may or may not find.

Didn't they already find confirm water exists on MARS ?

"Mars Odyssey found water-ice in vast quantities just below the surface across great swathes of the planet away from the poles.

Technically, Mars Odyssey detected evidence of hydrogen beneath the surface, but almost everyone agrees that the hydrogen is associated with water.

Even before Mars Express sent back its remarkable images water and Mars were synonymous"

BBC Link

I think The major points have been stated on this debate.

I am not going to start re-debating the same points using different words, I have stated my case. Unless of course there is another issue other than Safety.

[Universal Absurdity]

The real issue here is exactly what the topic of this discussion is about "Is NASA right to abandon the Hubble?"

To which your main replies have been all about the discoveries that hubble has made and what would be possible with the next service mission. Thats fine and dandy. The decision made however IS the right decision, which is what i have been arguing. Safety is my main issue, as is theirs.

About planning and controlling issues, no one could have predicted the columbia accident, or the effect it had on nasa's decision making. Not everything can be planned, its not right to put that on nasa's shoulders.

It's funny that you actually contradict yourself, trying to down nasa for their planning and controll comparing them with enron (a fallen company) and not two short breaths later stating that they obviously do have planning and risk assesments. And who's to say that abandoning the hubble was'nt a risk assesment? How long since the last service mission did they have the new parts ready to go? They did have everything planned pretty well untill an accident happened, which made them want to be extra careful. i dont blame them.

Look at the chart I posted, Look At what I said !

Charts can be changed.

Its easy to take a small sample of the quoted text and then answer the part you want!

obviously you've shown this. I replied with quotes on all relivant posts. Anything not quoted was something i simply could not argue with.(mainly facts about hubble and instrument information, hardly worth debating considering that they're simply facts stated

i do see many more points on my side that have not been challenged by you.

[Scar]

It's funny that you actually contradict yourself, trying to down nasa for their planning and controll comparing them with enron (a fallen company) and not two short breaths later stating that they obviously do have planning and risk assesments. And who's to say that abandoning the hubble was'nt a risk assesment? How long since the last service mission did they have the new parts ready to go? They did have everything planned pretty well untill an accident happened, which made them want to be extra careful. i dont blame them.

First Off , You have never read the initial thing I posted or the second so here hopefully for the third time ;

You said

Another eventuality is that the Hubble's gyroscopes and battery will expire in early 2007. Placing a large burdon on preparation time schedules which would go against NASA's new safety standards. Sending the 4th maintenence visit to the Hubble is just cutting it too close for comfort.

In response to that remark I said

This has being planned for years, they haven’t yet came outright and said that definitely without doubt Hubble is coming down, its on the cards nothing is set in stone. As I also pointed out $200 million worth of components have been constructed already , they knew the batteries would run out round about 2007 , hence the servicing mission scheduled for 2006. The planning has been done, stating anything else would show NASA to have the worst planning and control ability since ENRON.

Note the Has been "Planned for years" part, with the "planning has been done" Which Is me Saying Your statement is incorrect!!!!

I then mentioned the planning and control piece because the only way your statement could be correct. (I.e They hadn't planned for it) would be if they had Bad planning and control that of the same nature of Enrons.

I hope you understand this part now, Please feel free to PM me for further Clarification

I never said they could plan for everthing , But I bet you my life savings one entry on their risk register would have been "losing a shuttle".

Charts can be changed but they represent the facts, thats it !

Saftey Is definetly a big concern for everyone on this planet. I understand that, Columbia was a big lose to the USA and especially the families of those lost in that tragic incident. But what has happened has happened we cant curl up in ball , we have to learn from our mistakes and continue going on ;

"Once there lived a king. He had a vast kingdom. In his administration people lived very happily.

After a few years, the king of his neighbor with his large army invaded. He defeated the king and imprisoned the king. He escaped from the prison and hid himself in a cave. In the cave he saw a spider building it's web. It tried and tried 7 times but failed. Then the next time it tried and succeeded.

This inspired the king. He once again built up his army. He bravely and courageously fought against neighbor king, killed him and succeeded in getting back his empire"

MORAL: "TRY AND TRY UNTIL YOU SUCCEED".

After the Enron comment I made I feel I must point out , I know NASA isnt a King or that a war doesnt resemble space exploration. Neither Am I belittling the Astronoghts that lost their life by comparing their lives to a broken spider web.

The Moral is the thing I'm getting at, we must continue doing the same in face of al obstacles.

Hubble was planned to live till 2012, Based On all those Facts of which you could not debate I belive as with many Scientists across the globe that Hubble should stay to at least 2012 with the possabilty of extending it at that point.

Whether or not Its manned or unmanned 2006 should see a new begging for the Hubble space Telescope

[Universal Absurdity]

Note the Has been "Planned for years" part, with the "planning has been done" Which Is me Saying Your statement is incorrect!!!!

i understood your posts all 3 times. The point which i made that you missed is the new safety standards, a decision brought about as a result of the columbia trajedy.

unfortunately that was something that could not be planned for. enron on the other hand had a bit more of a corrupt ending. i dont see the comparison as being valid.

Charts can be changed but they represent the facts, thats it !

here again you missed my point. Let me make it a bit more clear for you. i dont disagree with you at all on this, my point, is that facts can be changed when youre talking statistics on a chart. new discoveries will be made and who knows what a chart like that will look like after a mars mission. i hope we are clear on that.

But what has happened has happened we cant curl up in ball , we have to learn from our mistakes and continue going on

Obviously nasa has learned from its mistakes , and as a result they wont be sending a scheduled mission to the hubble. But they are looking into an automated maintenence visit. If you touch a stove and get burned would you not put an oven mitt on the next time you went to touch it?

The Moral is the thing I'm getting at, we must continue doing the same in face of al obstacles.

I'm glad youre not running nasa, we would'nt have a shuttle left for the 5th hubble maintenence visit. Change is good. If we nasa succeeds in the automated maintenence, good. if not, well, at least we tried , without killing ourselves , wasting billions of dollars sending a mission, and loosing a possible 2 shuttles.

True hubble was planned to stay in orbit and functional till 2012 but plans change. i planned on taking a week off for my birthday, instead im taking 2 weeks off for christmas. change is good.

The decision to abandon the hubble for now definetly was the right decision to make. i think i have proven my point in previous posts.

[Saru]

Thanks again to both of you for this excellent debate, you've done a fantastic job of debating this particular subject.

I should have some results for you later on today

[Saru]

This was a particularly difficult debate to judge, you both had very strong arguements, countered the points each other made and kept on topic.

The scoring is based on a score out of ten in four areas, relevancy, countering, strength of arguement and style.

I can confirm that UniversalAbsurdity scored the highest, which makes him the official 'winner' of this debate - beating Scar by just 5 points.

Thanks again to both of you for taking part.