Might I suggest your teacher has the BS here? How could it profit a student to be forced to argue logically an argument to which there is no logic?

This isn't even as "meaty" as Creationism, where you can spin endless lies about silt layers and supernovae. The landings are so cut-and-dried it takes a creative monomaniac to come up with anything that looks suspect.

And as a further blow to anyone attempting to construct either a scientific paper, or even a decent creative writing essay, there IS NO ARGUMENT on the side of the HB'ers. They have no narrative, no fleshed-out hypothesis, no mechanisms. They play with a shotgun, seeing if they can make any holes in the narrative of the landings. They are shadow-boxing, shifting position moment to moment. There isn't a coherent, step-by-step argument to be had there.

I think a much better topic for the paper would be why your teacher is full of it. I'm sorry, but I find this an asinine assignment. Its only value is that it has caused you yourself to think and evaluate. Unfortunately, wandering into psuedo-science in this way (dividing the class to "debate" the subject) is only going to educate a minority. The majority will either discover plentiful new myths to be deluded by, or will make a haphazard job of describing the reality (as it will seem to them a pointless exercise). Neither will be convincing, but since psuedo-science thrives on any circulation, it will come out ahead.

This assumption that scientific facts are well approached in an adversarial, courtroom debate model, weakens science. It allows more politicization of science, increases the belief that management is capable of altering physical laws, and makes the fight against fake cancer cures and UFOs and other false science a matter of "who sounds the most convincing."

I would be interested in what Institute of Lower Learning has made this part of their syllabus.

__________________
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."