The Instigator
Daffy
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Crevaux
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points

Private sector investment in human space exploration is preferable to public sector investment.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
Crevaux
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/6/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 932 times Debate No: 19146
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

Daffy

Con

I will be on the con side. first round will be the acceptance round. Last round will be voter issues and tying up loose ends. No new arguments may be brought up in the last round.

Looking forward to a good debate
Crevaux

Pro

I am accepting this debate. I will take the Pro side, as I do believe private sector investment would be better than government spending for the Astronomical industry.

I am as well looking for a good debate, that will be fought for the sake of a good question.
Debate Round No. 1
Daffy

Con

Daffy forfeited this round.
Crevaux

Pro

I am sure Con forfeited the previous round because of some private inconveniences of his own so I ask voters and readers not to count this act against him. But I will go on and bring about my arguments in order not to loose time and rounds. Con will now have to respond to my side as a beginning step.

In my opinion, private investment should be preferred to public sector spending when it comes to human space exploration and astronomy in general.

First of all, though, we need to establish that space exploration and astronomy is nothing but another branch of science and empiric data has shown that science in general is better off without government regulation, leadership, or involvement. Private laboratories are the ones that make the most efficient medications, private research institutes (such as universities) often make the best and most advanced discoveries, while governments distort, change, and manipulate science. In a wider sense, we just need to analyze the difference between the United States, where free market principles were applied to some sectors of science and incredible developments were achieved, and the Soviet Union, where the leadership's pseudo-science was applied in agriculture and caused the death of millions.

That said, space exploration would be better off without any type of government red tape or direction. The very obvious argument would be that in times of financial and economic crises such as the ones we live in, more government waste and pursuit of debt and deficit spending is unnecessary and does nothing but hurt the national economy overall. Even if NASA and such astronomical research departments are very low on public budget priorities, they still represent billions of dollars that could be saved, thus billions of dollars that would not be taxed from the workers and entrepreneurs.

Still financial-wise, a private human space exploration mission is definitely more cost-efficient than the long bureaucratic process. In our capital-based economy, it is important to target every dollar to its intended use and not to lose any dime in wasteful processes. Indeed, the capitalist economy works as a practical Chaos Theory example: any waste or wrong allocation of resources may bring about a larger cycle of unintended consequences.

Also, a private sector-issued astronomy company would be much safer than a government program. Competing companies would fight to attract more consumers by adding safety to its attractive advantages. Nowadays, a human-inhabited mission explodes in the sky or in space, virtually no consequence may happen because the government has not to fear any competition or liability suits. But if a private spacecraft is destroyed, the company might go bankrupt, just like PanAm after the Lockerbie bombing.

Finally, private space exploration would bring results much faster and development will be achieved at a speedier pace. An international competition of private astronomical companies, boosted by private investors interested in the future of science, will manage to accomplish things that the government cannot even dream of. Mars colonies by 2050? Man on Venus by 2200? Everything would be imaginable.

But now I ask, why do you think it is my duty (as a taxpayer) to fund a space program? Why do I HAVE TO do so? Where do you find the deontological answer to John Smith, the coal-miner living off $8.15 an hour and struggling to put food on the table, who wonders why he has to pay taxes to fund an unsafe space program with doubtful goals?
Debate Round No. 2
Daffy

Con

Daffy forfeited this round.
Crevaux

Pro

Con has again forfeited this round. Exceptionally, I will ask the voters not to consider this, but I will expect my opponent to give a lengthy response to my arguments.

Thank You.
Debate Round No. 3
Daffy

Con

Daffy forfeited this round.
Crevaux

Pro

It is sad my opponent wasn't able to pursue this debate. I was expecting a rich and interesting one.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
Why exactly would anyone want to privately invest in space exploration?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 5 years ago
Chrysippus
DaffyCrevauxTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: A pity Con didn't think it worth his while to put any effort into this. Pro wins by forfeit