I don’t see how I could’ve “moved the goalpost” any more than you are doing right now.

This right here is moving the goalpost:

I also struggle to see how the scientific achievements required going to the moon (Besides learning about earth/moon origin). The other achievements like wireless tools and head seats did not require a moon landing.

Where in my comment that consisted of quoting your question and providing two links that answer that question did I address any of this?

Moving the goalposts is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed (the links provided to address the specific quotation from you) and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded ("how the scientific achievements required going to the moon").

Who’s to say the technology would’ve been made w/out the moon landing?

I assume you meant wouldn't have been made without the moon landing? Either way, this is tacitly acknowledges the technological improvements made as a result which would be "good for the average man".

See how this is a pointless argument we’re both making?

I'm not arguing with you. You asked the question and I provided links with answers to counter the allusion you were attempting to make that it didn't do "the average man" any good.

As I already stated, what you seem to want to debate is whether it should have happened and your about 60 years late for that discussion. I have no interest in arguing that with you or anyone because it happened and that's not going to change.

And btw the first question isn’t an argument or my main idea. It’s a question added for emphasis.

Yea, and it's a poor question, which is why I addressed it specifically. The moon landing and the space race leading up to it led to numerous advances and improvements for everyone, including "the average man" (sexist language by the way).

Using that question for emphasis is disingenuous and attempts to minimize all of the advancement that occurred as a byproduct.