The Instigator
Logical-Master
Pro (for)
Winning
49 Points
The Contender
Darth_Grievous_42
Con (against)
Losing
21 Points

DEBATE.ORG CLASSIC: SEMI FINALS: Logical-Master vs Darth Grievous

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/14/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,876 times Debate No: 5985
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (10)

 

Logical-Master

Pro

RESOLVED: The cost of the NASA program is worth the cost to support it.

Greetings ladies and gentleman. In today's case, I shall be demonstrating how the cost of the NASA program is worth the cost to support it. I would also like to thank those who are reading this debate and would advise that they only make their judgments after reading this debate in its entirety. With that said, let us proceed . . .

RESOLVED: The cost of the NASA program is worth the cost to support it.

Have it thee, Sir Grievous. Let this be a good one.

CONTENTION #1: Due to investment in NASA, the US has made many life changing contributions in the past.

We have NASA to thank for our satellites (at very least, the people who paved the way for NASA), artificial limb technology, the heart pump, video enhancing and analysis, solar panels, anti icing systems, safer runaways and roads, wireless electrical switches, liquid metal, better radial tires, fire fighter gear, tools used for car crash rescues, cleaner water, better baby food, better computer software, safer rail roads, less jet lag, cleaner oceans, etc.

I'm not going to list every invention/improvement, but you can find a list of the items I've discussed through both of my below sources:

http://space.about.com... (in fact, there have been over 1400 contributions which NASA has made in improving our society since its original debut far less than a century ago).

http://www.cleveland.com...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

In addition to the above, you'll find that the above links dictate has NASA has most beneficial when it has concerned fixing various environmental problems (ozone depletion is a good example)

Furthermore, we've learned a great deal of information concerning the universe thanks to research towards NASA (we've learned more about the other planets, we've learned that there are no aliens, we've learned more about stars, black holes, quasars, you name it! Research towards NASA has not only provided us with life changing utilities, but with life changing scientific information as well. Why should we put a halt to our feast upon knowledge?

Given all of the above feats performed by NASA, how is funding not worth the time and effort? How is it not worth the cost? I challenge the contender to show how even with NASA's contributions, it is still not worth funding.

CONTENTION #2: Investment into NASA can be used as a non homicidal means of combating global problems.

So now that we've covered NASA's feats and have reason to believe that NASA is more than capable of pulling its own weight when it comes to contributing the benefiting our nation, the next and most obvious direction of this discussion is this: "Given that we know NASA is more than capable of being an effective program, how can that further be used to our advantage in the future?" The answer to this question is rather simple. For quite some time, problems such as Global Warming and Overpopulation have been becoming a serious issue; an issue which we humans might not be able to deal with while remaining on earth. In addition, our species could very well end up like the dinosaurs. Thus, it would be most reasonable for our space and aeronautics program to place efforts towards colonizing in space, other planets or even our moon. If this were successful, global problems wouldn't be nearly as much as an issue given that our species could simply migrate elsewhere if our problems grew beyond our reach (as suggested earlier, we'd have a better chance than the dinosaurs did if we had more freedom).

CONTENTION #3: The NASA program is simply research that concerns space and aeronautics at its core.

In spite of the fact that NASA takes up no more than less than 1% of the US budget(17 billion during the year of 2007: http://www.thespacereview.com... ) I'm most certain that the contenders case will concern the US having other priorities to deal with on earth that do not concern NASA. If that be the case, an argument such as this will by no means be sufficient to affirm the contenders stance (to eliminate NASA entirely). Rather, we could simply lower NASA's portion of the US budget for the time being (so that research could still continue). Thus, taking this into account, CON's goal will be to establish why research into space and aeronautics is not worth the cost REGARDLESS of how much is invested towards it. However, given the evidence brought up in the first contentions (the MANY life changing benefits NASA has brought to the table), this task would seem impossible for the contender to fulfill.

Thus, for a brief overview of my case, I've covered how NASA has greatly benefited us in the past, have covered how it can astronomically benefit us in the future and have shown how CON will have a difficult time successfully arguing in this debate given the inherent flaw in urging that space and aeronautics research is not worth the cost no matter how much is invested towards it. For these reasons, I strongly affirm the resolution and now stand ready for my opponent's case.

PS: Some of these arguments may need some heavy elaboration depending on the my opponent's rebuttal. We'll see in R2.
Darth_Grievous_42

Con

Thank you for the debate Logical Master. Unfortunate our first has to take place in a competition. This is a incredibly hard subject for the Con side, but I will do my best.

Fist off before I discuss LM's three contentions, I'd like to clarify what NASA stands for: the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Meaning that its main purpose in existence should be the study of the sky, space, and flight.

1) All of these inventions are very well and good. No one, including myself, is arguing that they haven't been beneficial to mankind. However, after taking a close look at the lists I've seen that all of the inventions, as helpful as they are, had little to do with space travel or air flight. Yes, they are massively helpful, but have little to do with NASA's main purpose. It seems that NASA is good at doing just about everything accept their jobs. These by products of their studies are even more useful than the studies themselves! Rather than continue to fund NASA, it seems the whole department should be shut down and reorganized into something like the Better Inventions Bureau, or something, because that is just what NASA is doing now: everything but their jobs. I say that because while they are doing a good job trying, most of their attempts are failures (http://www.rense.com...) resulting most commonly in death, the most recent from the 2003 disaster over Texas. The actual space exploration they are trying to do is way to hazardous, to man kind and the environment. Not to mention that it take a few tons of fuel, an already precious resource, just to launch 'stuff' into space (http://www.polaris.iastate.edu...) only to come back with nothing but charred flesh and gossip for a few weeks, and if they were extremely lucky, a little tidbit to put into a Discovery channel special. None of which is in particularly useful for the here and now of Earths own momentous amounts of drama. It is not worth the cost because no matter how cool the idea of space travel is, it is very costly both in lives and money, and completely pointless except as intellectual conversation. Only one of 3 reasons why not to fund it.

2) First off for clarification, the dinosaurs were not downfallen by themselves, rather it was a massive cataclysm from an asteroid, something totally out of their claws. Humans more and more are seeming to be causing their own slow extinction, far before anything from space were to destroy us. Space colonization shouldn't be a last act of desperation to get away from our own mess. Our first priority should be fixing this world before we run away from it. But that would be very expensive. Where would that kind of money come from? How about the 17.6 billion dollars being dedicated to a totally pointless and faulty program? Say NASA? Rather than escape we should hit these problems head on. NASA is only causing more problems and fixing fewer, at least within the proper boundaries of what they are supposed to be researching.

3) 1% of the US budget is A LOT of money. 2.7 trillion is the estimated budget for 2009. 17 billion of that can fix a lot, despite what your article says. If it's enough to fund the building of space ships, its more than enough to put into better research for alternative fuels, or environmental conservation. As I've shown is contention 1, NASA's existence is a hazard, and must be changed into a form of research that is purposefully made to create what has only so far been by products of their research or completely shut down. Its current research is only good for 'tea party' conversation, in the past its practical experiments have been deadly, and overall its greatest achievements have been things that are outside its intended field of study. For these reasons, it is not worth the cost to fund NASA, but other projects that are far more useful and safe towards humanity.

Thus the overview of my rebuttals is that NASA has strayed away from it's original purpose, and that even when they are on track they end up wasting resources and killing people. They are not worth funding, and the money, as little as it may be in proportion to the entirety of the US budget, should be put to better use elsewhere.
Debate Round No. 1
Logical-Master

Pro

Distinguished members of the audience, I would like for you to pay special attention the following clarification made by none other than my opponent: "Fist off before I discuss LM's three contentions, I'd like to clarify what NASA stands for: the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Meaning that its main purpose in existence should be the study of the sky, space, and flight." Keep this in mind as this clarification shall no doubt be the contender's undoing.

1)

a) My opponent responds to the lengthy list of contributions I cited by pointing out that although they were all massively helpful, many of them had little to do with NASA's main purpose. However, if you would be so kind as to take a gander back towards my first round, you shall note that I've made mention of the PLETHORA of scientific knowledge concerning the sky, space and flight of which NASA has contributed to man kind. Given that to be the case, my opponent has no business making statements such as "NASA isn't doing their jobs" when they are doing PRECISELY what he stated was their purpose. Thus, being that this is the case, we have all the more reason to support NASA as not only is NASA doing their jobs in studying the matters which he agreed they should study, but there have also been many benefits that have come from their better understanding of the sky, space and flight

Now if CON means to suggest that there have been no scientific improvements in matters which concern sky, space and flight, then I cannot help but point out the improvements (as can be seen in my articles) which demonstrate NASA's proficiency in regards to space travel as well as airplane/jet travel. Furthermore, we must keep in mind consistent contributions to technology which concerns the sky such as more reliable weather predictions:http://nasascience.nasa.gov...

Furthermore, regardless of whether or not it is arguable that most of NASA's inventions do not actually concern improving its purpose (which actually, they do . . . given that most of the inventions were developed originally to make space travel more efficient), the fact of the matter is that through the increased scientific understanding of space and aeronautics, such inventions were possible. To suggest that we abandon NASA and simply push towards such inventors corp is rather absurd as it was the practices of NASA which enabled these devices in the first place.

b) Next, the contender resorts to a desperate maneuver in order to discredit NASA by citing a laundry list space experiment failures which have occurred over the years. However, if you pay close attention to his source, you'll note that not all of those belong to NASA as it considers the failures from ALL the countries who have considered space operations. Although if we really are taking all spaceflights into consideration, then as noted by this graph here, the success rate is quite high: http://en.wikipedia.org.... Hence, not only is it revealed that CON"s "space travel results most commonly in death" statement is nothing more than an outright false statement . . . but if anything, CON has merely provided me the opportunity to strengthen my position.

In addition to PRO's description of space flights being dead wrong, there is another matter which he has misconstrued and that is the principle of "Trial and Error." No

c) CON gives us no reason to consider the notion that NASA is too hazardous to mankind and the environment, so please dismiss this comment of his until he does otherwise.

d) PRO cites a website which demonstrates how it requires "tons of fuel" to launch stuff into space. His concern is that our fuel resource is precious. Given all the conflict which concerns oil at the moment, I would agree that our fuel source is precious, but not enough reason to eliminate NASA. If fuel truly is the problem, the solution is simply to cut back on manned/unmanned space explorations until we are able to make use of an alternative yet more efficient energy resources (if CON denies this, I'll go into more detail in the next round). Given that we are nearly at the brink of using up all of our oil resources (http://divorceinfo.com...), we shall need be needing a new resource regardless, hence all the more reason to follow my suggestion which manages to sacrifice nothing (hence more efficient than the suggestion of the contender)

2) CON starts off by clarifying that the dinosaurs were not downfallen by themselves, however, nowhere in my previous round did I instigate such a notion. Rather, my point was exactly what CON insist; the dinosaurs were eliminated by something totally out of their claws. This is exactly the problem with humans attempting to deter space research. If we merely remain content with all of what goes on through our own planet, we will end up just like the dinosaurs; we will be like a deer at the headlights . . . completely stationary as the moving vehicle moves in for the kill.

Furthermore, CON suggest that we should try fixing our world before we run away from it, yet if you read my first round, that is precisely what I've insisted. However, I've gone one step further than PRO and have asked "What if we cannot?" The asteroid example in particular is something we wouldn't be able to deal with without thorough space/aeronautics research. When comparing our answers to solving the earth's problem, they are quite similar . . . however, my answer is superior given that it allows humans more options. To reiterate what I stated in the previous round, "If this were successful, global problems wouldn't be nearly as much as an issue given that our species could simply migrate elsewhere if our problems GREW BEYOND OUR REACH." Thus, essentially, CON has yet to even rebut my position.

3)

a) Indeed, 17.6 billion is a lot of money (though still, far less than what the US is capable of). Fortunately, that mountain of cash is put to good use as can be shown by the many benefits that have come from research towards space and aeronautics.
b) Once more, PRO has done nothing to demonstrate that NASA's existence is a hazard. At most, he has managed to prove that NASA isn't perfect (through listing the minute amount of failures space travel PERIOD has had over the years, but by that logic [or lack of rather], we may as well dismiss any study/research which had its fair share of failures. In other words, given that trial AND error is an integral part of study/research, we may as well dismiss ALL scientific study/research if we wish to appease the stance of the contender).
c) Again, to reemphasize my initial rebuttal, we must keep in mind that it was the research into space/aeornautics that allowed our society more scientific capabilities. The more we understand, the more we are able to create, hence why we have that plethora of inventions from NASA. Hence, the claim that the current research is only good for tea party conversation is beyond absurdity.

Thus, that'll do it for now. I now await CON's second rebuttal.
Darth_Grievous_42

Con

Your right. I have no counter argument. I have no idea how I am suppose to argue this obviously flawed position, and would very much like to know what possible statments I could have made in my favor. Thus, I concede this debate to Logical Master, so that he may continue on and, hopefully, win this exausted tournament against theLwerd. Congratulations to my opponent, and I apologize for wasting your time. I will now officially be able to delete this account so I can finally leave this shamble of what was debate.org. Darth_Grievous_42 out.
Debate Round No. 2
Logical-Master

Pro

Whereas I'd prefer my opponent to continue this debate, I will wholeheartedly accept his concession given that my goal is to win. I thank my opponent for the debate and the judges for reading. Thank you.
Darth_Grievous_42

Con

Darth_Grievous_42 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
theLwerd
Posted by ournamestoolong 8 years ago
ournamestoolong
Who is the other finalist. (I have to be sure to see this)
Posted by Johnicle 8 years ago
Johnicle
since he conceded, I declare the winner (and finalist of this tournament) to be Logical-Master. Time to begin the final round. I will message the appropriate people.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Though for what it's worth grievous-kun, there was an argument which would have completely given my position a run for its money. The only downside is that it is seemingly a "semantical" approach so I'm not sure if the judges would buy it. That said, if I were in your position, I would have argued that the term "is" suggest status quo. In other words, NASA is not worth the cost AT THE MOMENT (as in, it could be worth the cost in the future, hence, NASA WILL be worth the cost to support it) In fact, I had feared that you would use this argument after having posted by 3rd contention. Nevertheless, I have thought of a way to counter that stance, but it certainly wouldn't have been easy to deal with. Anyway, good debate. Later.
Posted by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
In need be, I would love to help judge.
Posted by Johnicle 8 years ago
Johnicle
Alright... I'll see what I can do.
Posted by Darth_Grievous_42 8 years ago
Darth_Grievous_42
I'd prefer Judges, and I can't vote, though I'm sure I know which way this one will swing.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Appointed judges. I think at this point, you are well aware of the voting "influence" which joshand has.
Posted by Johnicle 8 years ago
Johnicle
Alright! Almost there! So since there are only 3 people left, I can begin to ask everyone else what they want to do. SO... Do you want appointed judges or have everyone vote in general. Also, do you both have the capability to vote and do you want to reveal them or keep them secret?

Either way, good luck to both! From 53 in April to 3 in November, it will be interesting to see how it turns out!
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
Logical-MasterDarth_Grievous_42Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
Logical-MasterDarth_Grievous_42Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by LakevilleNorthJT 8 years ago
LakevilleNorthJT
Logical-MasterDarth_Grievous_42Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Metz 8 years ago
Metz
Logical-MasterDarth_Grievous_42Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by theitalianstallion 8 years ago
theitalianstallion
Logical-MasterDarth_Grievous_42Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:34 
Vote Placed by Labrat228 8 years ago
Labrat228
Logical-MasterDarth_Grievous_42Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:43 
Vote Placed by draxxt 8 years ago
draxxt
Logical-MasterDarth_Grievous_42Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by ournamestoolong 8 years ago
ournamestoolong
Logical-MasterDarth_Grievous_42Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Johnicle 8 years ago
Johnicle
Logical-MasterDarth_Grievous_42Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Logical-MasterDarth_Grievous_42Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70