The Instigator
Kasemei
Pro (for)
Tied
18 Points
The Contender
polishgirlinar
Con (against)
Tied
18 Points

Funding for NASA is unreasonable

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 1/16/2008 Category: Science
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,587 times Debate No: 1862
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (18)
Votes (12)

 

Kasemei

Pro

Granted, NASA is an extremely important program for the United States, but $17.3 Billion? That's downright outrageous. Much could be done with that money, and I don't believe it's justified to spend that much money on NASA when there are more problems to take care of here, rather then on the moon. Looking to some of my research, it will only take $2 Billion to fund meeting Millenium Development water sanitation goals in all of Sub Saharan Africa! Helping people on Mother Earth, or going to the moon? I think we need to take care of ourselves here and now.
polishgirlinar

Con

NASA is an extremely important program for the United States, especially since Russia announced they would be the first nation to land a human on Mars.
As many know the current space shuttle fleet is being retired in 2010. Therefore, about $2.5 billion which is in the budget for this, this year is needed. In the long run the new shuttles will save taxpayers about $4 billion a year.

A lot of the budget goes to storing the shuttles between uses and preparing them to be launched.

Also more money goes towards the space station, research, and exploration of space itself, than goes towards the Moon.

As for using $2 billion dollars to meet the MDG for water sanitation in Sub-Saharan Africa, there are other portions of the fiscal budget that could be cut to come up with this money. Things that are irrelevant and are stuck in there so that the budget will actually be passed.
Debate Round No. 1
Kasemei

Pro

You talk about how Russia announced it would be the first to land a person on Mars, but what's the big deal about being the first? It's just an ego trip. Sure, it would be nice that the US would have the first person on Mars, but how beneficiary would it be to the rest of the world, especially since Russia will be there shortly after? There honestly wouldn't be a point. We explored the moon, but what did we honestly gain?

Again, I agree that NASA is an important program, but this much funding is not justified. You just said $2.5 Billion this year, thre where is the rest of the $17.3 billion going?

Also, you say that there is other places to get this funding for Africa. If there was, the action should have already occured. Also, that isn't the only problem. Many other problems exist, such as the universal health care problem as well. My belief is that we need to focus on our own problems at home on Earth before moving to outer space.
polishgirlinar

Con

Being the first on Mars may be an "ego trip" However, the way that a lot of Americans think, they would say that have to be the first on Mars. By being the first on the Moon a certain bar was set. Americans expect us to be the first and the best at what we do. It is not necessarily the right way to think, but it is the way we think. You would have an extremely hard time changing the thoughts of a nation!

Actually, I did mention where the rest of the $17.3 billion goes.
"A lot of the budget goes to storing the shuttles between uses and preparing them to be launched."
and
"Also more money goes towards the space station, research, and exploration of space itself, than goes towards the Moon." These just show you where the remainder of the money goes.

The fact that there is more appropriate funding which can be reallocated for Africa, means that it could just as easily be reallocated towards other problems.

I am not bringing my beliefs into this debate, I am only bringing the facts. The facts are that we need the space program and all the money that is given to it. The space program brings forth important research about the human body, human species, life on other planets, and much more.
Debate Round No. 2
Kasemei

Pro

In closing, I just want to say it was nice debating you!

Now...
Being the first may be nice and all, but the fact is, is that people have to push other things aside where other problems are in place. The fact is, there is other more pressing problems then the NASA funding.

Giving up lives and allowing other problems to run rampant in the US and in the world and instead going off to Mars is not something that can or should be justified right now, with how much could be saved right now.

You did say that you had those points, but however, there is no amount specifically allocated. You said 2.5 billion and something for the year. However, the approximate estimations weren't there for the rest of it.

There obviously cannot be reallocation, otherwise there would be some funding being switched around.

With that, it was fun. ^^
polishgirlinar

Con

It was nice debating with you as well.

NASA funding is important. As I have mentioned NASA has provided not just the United States, but the world, with valuable research.

Also the people of our country would not tolerate it if our country could not partake in the space races, both past and present.

As for the money that I mentioned that could be reallocated, has not because no one has taken the initiative to reallocate it. The money is there, the want to do something isn't really there.

Vote Neg. (Con)
Debate Round No. 3
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by polishgirlinar 9 years ago
polishgirlinar
Simply think of the amount of money NASA costs this country each year!
NASA simply adds to our country's debt!
Posted by AREA 9 years ago
AREA
Mindjob,
>NASA's is distinct from the DoD
In other words... it NASA used to be part of Dod... which is what I had said. Again, shall we assume it is decoupled from the DoD? Sure, things have been changing for a long time, but NASA's been doing work for the military since way after the Vandenberg Air Force was put into operation.

I'm not against media broadcasting, but how is it that we need NASA for our medicines?

I know there are scientific experiments to be made there, and that this is real science, and real scientists. I just don't see that the expenses for these experiments are reasonable.

I realize we cannot conduct experieents on living creatures in zero G without going to the ISS, but why conduct such tests anyway if we don't live that way, and will not survive in space anytime soon?
Posted by mindjob 9 years ago
mindjob
mmadderom, I do know of all the things we've gotten from NASA, such as medicines and all the channels I have on my TV. That's one of the many reasons why I support NASA.

As for AREA, I think you assume a lot about the inner workings of NASA and the government in general. Every agency has its own character, and NASA's is distinct from the DoD. The military doesn't even need to rely on NASA for much of anything considering Vandenberg Air Force base handles much of the military's space operations. There was even a debate at one point where some considered killing NASA in favor of operating exclusively out of Vandenberg. But while I might not agree with much of anything that you say, I can appreciate when someone uses humor in their arguments.

> And by all that I mean your nuts.
I can always rely on mindjob for touching upon my nuts.

You had me laughing pretty hard at that one. Touche.
Posted by mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
"We aren't funding NASA so we could cure aliens of their cancer."

Actually our space exploration has led to innumerable inventions with both medical and commercial applications.

I can only assume you enjoy turning on your television and having 200+ channels to choose from, for example...
Posted by AREA 9 years ago
AREA
- mindjob
Thanks for interpreting me as a leftist.
Hell, based on what I said, you don't know if I'm leftist, or a believer in small government, and local economies/communities.
I must also thank you for noting what you consider to be my lack of interest in the origins of the universe. It seems you are the one with a lack of interest in the origins of the universe. What else can explain your attempt to hijack the thoughts of people like me who do care, and try to get us to wait for NASA to teach them to us. People who do think about these things do not rely on political machines. We know of them, but we do not rely upon, and we do not believe in them when they are broken.
Posted by AREA 9 years ago
AREA
> not supported by history
Read. 1/3 of NASA's space missions have contents that are classified. The rockets are made by weapons manufacturers. We can debate on weather or not this is reasonable, but it is factual.

- reason for NASA
OK Mind job, so if those are not the reasons for NASA< then what is? A spiritual journey to the center of the universe so we can have hippie love with extra terrestrials?

> NASA believing
What our nerd friends in NASA believe about international politics is irrelevant. What the Department of Defense thinks of it is. Remember that NASA was, until recently a part of DoD (as was MIT, for that matter). There was a reason most of our astronauts had titles like "lieutenant". You cannot depoliticize that. Things that involve funds get politicized by the people attracted by those funds. Surely there is a history to show that much in human affairs?
If you bothered to look up the missions of NASA you can see that 1/3 of them are secret military missions. Why would all those poor innocent nerds allow for that if they were not a part of the same universe as foreign policy? Well, maybe he doesn't, but his boss does. Anytime huge globs of money exchange hands (between taxpayers and high tech industry, in this case) government is at least going to say "ok, we're doing our job... now that we are doing it, we may as well make it meaningful for us strategically."
Posted by AREA 9 years ago
AREA
> With the wars going on right now, I seriously doubt all those companies you listed are hurting for money.
Therefore they got tired of money and they decided to make hippie love to space aliens…
Or more likely, they liked the money, and thought "since we like this so much, we'll keep making it"

> Besides, most of those have nothing to do with aeronautical and astronomical engineering. So I fail to see how they would get any money out of space exploration.

Raytheon? Boeing? I hadn't even mentioned Lockheed Martin, but you know what they make! Sure, Aerospace may not make handguns, but they are a military animal.

>
consider myself a liberal, but that leftist diatribe by AREA was just plain off the mark and without merit. I hate Bush like just about everyone else, and he just might be motivated by what you say, but the rest of your analysis isn't backed up by history.

For starters, NASA believeing that anything goes and the world is made up of competing forces? This is NASA we're talking about, not Henry Kissinger's school if international relations.

We do have those aspirational goals, but curing cancer and ending world hunger are entirely different areas than space technology. We can do those too, but out of different agencies and funds. We aren't funding NASA so we could cure aliens of their cancer.

With the wars going on right now, I seriously doubt all those companies you listed are hurting for money. Besides, most of those have nothing to do with aeronautical and astronomical engineering. So I fail to see how they would get any money out of space exploration.
Posted by AREA 9 years ago
AREA
> If you actually think we want a first-strike on China or Russia, you need to restudy all of American international political history.

By "we", I will assume you mean your government. And the ones who own it. I hardly blame you for this. I know I'm not involved. No, I don't think they want to. They never said they wanted to, only that they want the ability to do it. "Deterrence" means not actually doing it. I used the word "deterrent" in my post, remember. Look it up.
Yu still have yet to admit that China and Russia oppose the "Missile Defense System". Got something about engaging with me on the issues?

> And by all that I mean your nuts.
I can always rely on mindjob for touching upon my nuts.

The assumption I see you making is a common one: that arbitrary walls exist between conceptual entities. "politics", "economics" and "science/tech" are taught in three separate classes in school, so we should just assume that science/tech is never politicized or capitalized upon. You also assume that a company that makes rockets can also make missiles. Yet, dual-use technology can be applied for peaceful or military purposes. Once you have a company invest in something as expensive as a "rocket", why not use it to make some more money back by selling that tech as a "missile"? You also confused NASA's leadership with "we", as you put it.

You might want to look up "ad hominem" in the fallacy dictionary too.
Posted by polishgirlinar 9 years ago
polishgirlinar
Kasemei,
are you in debate in high school by any chance?
Posted by Kasemei 9 years ago
Kasemei
mmadderom, yeah I am. I'm in high school right now, but I will definetly go and look that up. Thanks!
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by turtlecool2 9 years ago
turtlecool2
KasemeipolishgirlinarTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 9 years ago
Derek.Gunn
KasemeipolishgirlinarTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
KasemeipolishgirlinarTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by AREA 9 years ago
AREA
KasemeipolishgirlinarTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by ZedLoch 9 years ago
ZedLoch
KasemeipolishgirlinarTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by solo 9 years ago
solo
KasemeipolishgirlinarTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by nat12137 9 years ago
nat12137
KasemeipolishgirlinarTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Richard89 9 years ago
Richard89
KasemeipolishgirlinarTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Csavage472 9 years ago
Csavage472
KasemeipolishgirlinarTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Lacan 9 years ago
Lacan
KasemeipolishgirlinarTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30