The Instigator
Krithi_18
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
smlburridge
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Money should be used to reduce poverty and not for science

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/25/2014 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 617 times Debate No: 65790
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

Krithi_18

Pro

Science can wait....Dying people can't
smlburridge

Con

First of all, I'd like to thank my opponent for opening this debate.

My opponent contends that money should be used to help alleviate poverty, and should not be towards scientific innovation. It is my purpose here today to convince the audience that this is false.

First, I'd like to address the mortality rates that can be attributed to poverty. The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey published in 1996 attributes only 6.0 percent of deaths among both white and African American demographics to poverty in 1971. In 1991, that number was 5.9 percent. Poverty in the United States is not a serious hazard to life, when compared to other sources of mortality such as conflicts like the war in Iraq and work accidents.
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...)

So how much of the US budget actually goes towards research and development?
According to whitehouse.gov, the official website of the Obama administration, for Fiscal Year 2015 only 3.4% of the budget will go towards research and development, a total of about 135.110 billion dollars. Now, that may seem like a lot, but it only totals 3.4% of our budget. Furthermore, in 2013 alone, Americans contributed 335 billion dollars to charity, triple the amount the United States gives to research development.
(http://www.whitehouse.gov...)
(http://www.nptrust.org...)

Logically speaking, innovation improves quality of life. It makes things more efficient. If we let our innovation stagnate, how will new technologies that increase our crop yields or the efficiency of our distribution system be developed? How will new, more affordable medical technologies be developed? Much of science has practical applications in our daily lives, more than one may think. Even NASA has contributed much to our safety- NASA funds many development programs for prosthetic limbs for amputees, as well as technologies that can improve road conditions, such as cutting small rows into the pavement to increase the traction of tires. NASA funded Thermowing, a project that developed a heater that helps de-ice plane wings to prevent them from freezing up in mid-flight. NASA also has worked on technologies that clear landmines, strengthen structural supports in fires, etc. (http://spinoff.nasa.gov...)

It is clear that scientific innovation has a significant impact on our lives. If we eliminate our science funding, we are preventing new breakthroughs that could easily improve our daily lives, and the lives of the poor.
Debate Round No. 1
Krithi_18

Pro

Krithi_18 forfeited this round.
smlburridge

Con

Since my opponent has forfeited the round, I'll list some more innovations NASA has contributed to our personal lives, also found on the previous site I listed (http://spinoff.nasa.gov...):

1. NASA, in collaboration with The Pillsbury Company, developed HACCP, the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point system for assessing certain foods' safety. This system has been approved by the FDA for use on consumer's food and assesses bacteria and other toxins found in food.

2. NASA has worked extensively with multiple companies over the past decades to develop better, more cost-effective water purification systems, which were primarily developed for the International Space Station but in recent years have been shown to have good potential in arid climates and developing countries.

3. In cooperation with the Martek Biosciences Corporation, NASA added special, non-toxic preservatives to baby food, which is now included in 90% of the United States' baby food, as well as sold in another 65 additional countries.

So, NASA has a definite effect on the quality of our food, as well as providing systems for water purification in developing countries. You can't say that it hasn't been a benefit to us.

Did we spend too much on the Apollo space program? No, we didn't.
As calculated in the book The Case for Mars by Robert Zubrin, the *entire* Apollo space program, including every single Saturn V rocket, cost the same amount as 150 days of the Gulf War did. NASA has had such a minimal effect on our budget, but has benefited us so greatly, especially the poor. The innovation we get from of it is far greater than the money we put in.
Debate Round No. 2
Krithi_18

Pro

Krithi_18 forfeited this round.
smlburridge

Con

My opponent has, again, forfeited, so I won't make any new arguments this round.
Instead, I must reiterate that government science organizations such as NASA do much more benefits than harms.
Debate Round No. 3
Krithi_18

Pro

Krithi_18 forfeited this round.
smlburridge

Con

Well, I think it's clear who the winner is today.
I'd like to thank my opponent, for this debate, and you, the audience for reading and voting on this debate.
I'd urge you to vote against this resolution.
Debate Round No. 4
Krithi_18

Pro

Krithi_18 forfeited this round.
smlburridge

Con

smlburridge forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
The money would be better spent on education.
The countries that have free education, and free post-secondary education have the lowest poverty rate and the smartest citizens .
The better educated there citizens the better the country does overall.
A stable and democratic society is impossible without a minimum degree of literacy
and knowledge on the part of most citizens and without widespread acceptance of some
common set of values. Education can contribute to both. In consequence, the gain from
education of a child accrues not only to the child or to his parents but also to other
members of the society. Most of us would probably conclude that the gains are
sufficiently important to justify some government subsidy.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
What makes you think throwing money at poor people will make them less poor?Poverty is in the heart of a man. Money cannot fix that. America proved that.We threw $15,000,000,000,000.00 at poor folks and all they did was get even lazier and taught their children how best to scam the system.

I contend that you could take all the wealth in America, redistribute it equally to everyone, and within 5 years, all those who were rich, will be rich again, and all those poor folks will squander their freebies and be poor again.

Jesus said it best. Take the one talent off the person who squandered it and give it to the one who doubled his talent.
Posted by Elijahhill97 2 years ago
Elijahhill97
Science should never take the hit. There are countless of things that the government could do with having a little cash flow slowed down. Also the 1% could very well help with the unfathomable surplus of wealth they have stock piled.
Posted by smlburridge 2 years ago
smlburridge
Without innovation, how we increase crop yields or increase the efficiency of our food distribution system?
Posted by Mike_10-4 2 years ago
Mike_10-4
To reduce poverty is a science on to itself. It is known as the social sciences.
No votes have been placed for this debate.