I am arguing that the new plans adopted for space exploration and travel that have been adopted by NASA and other international space agencies, which propose cutting human spaceflight programs for beyond LEO, are taking a step back in history of space exploration and will argue that the cost of such a program is a worthwhile investment.
Yes, perhaps Spaceman, it may be a wise choice to continue the space program or put more funding towards it. However, that costs a lot of money. It was projected in the year 1999 that NASA was spending $14 billion dollars of our nation's money. With inflation and better technology, what do you think they spend now? Trust me, I know that NASA has done many great things, but it's first success, the Apollo 11 mission, was commenced out of competition with other nations; namely, the USSR or the Soviet Union. I am positive with a great amount of money and federal funding, NASA will continue to amaze us Americans. However, in this unpropitious economy and a nation that is trillions of dollars in debt, programs that are not completely necessary, and sometimes even the necessary, must be sacrificed for the greater good (as in our nation's well being). Unfortunately, one of those programs has to be NASA. Believe me, I live in Daytona Beach, Florida, and in my class, some of the kids' parents have already been let go from work in Cape Canaveral. It is devastating, but far less devastating than what could become of our nation if we didn't cut the program. If you can convince me and the people reading this debate that NASA is an utterly necessary program, then be my guest, I want to know. Otherwise, you can already consider this debate over in my mind. Convince me I am wrong on the spending cuts. Therefore, on a closed mind to your side of the debate, I am done with this round.
Here is the source I found on NASA's spending as of 1999:
The World Almanac and Book of Facts 2000, World Almanac Books, PRIMEDIA Reference Inc., 1999, ISBN 0-88687-847-0