The Instigator
Rourke2011
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
shipman37
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

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

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: 10/5/2011 Category: Economics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,431 times Debate No: 18637
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

Rourke2011

Pro

Hello, this is my first debate on DDO, although i have read a few of the debates. As i am debating this topic this weekend for my high school debate team, i was hoping to check the solidity of my case. As i understand quite a few people use this website to siphon cases from others, so i will be presenting my points first (Also, is there any way to hide your debate from public view? I would rather avoid my case being taken [assuming it's worth taking]). All that being said, i will now present my case.

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

Contention 1: Private is preferable because space exploration is not worth the governments money.

Private sector investment is preferable because it opens up the American government to spend their money on more important things. America is in a desperate need for money, our debt is massive, and there are many important organizations that need funding. If America continues to blow trillions of dollars on space exploration, then we will never get out of this money hole we find ourselves in. When a private sector invests in, say, a new shuttle, then a few individuals and their investors put their personal money into the attempt. If they fail, they lose money, but if NASA were to attempt this and fail, every tax payer in America loses money, also the hundreds of life saving causes that need funding lose money. Just one example, NASA wasted billions on the space shuttle "Endeavour" due to a months worth of failed launches. This government money could have been better spent in so many other ways, just one being medical research for heart disease (which is killing 600 thousand people every year).

Contention 2: Private companies save the government money

Private companies that are currently working towards space exploration such as Spacex are saving the government billions of dollars, while at the same time producing similar or identical results. Why spend money that could be put to better use (as mentioned above) when you can spend private volunteered money?

I do apologize, as my case is not completely finished, but i was more so hoping for this debate to be a test to see if i can recognize (and hopefully counter) the information my opponent puts out.
shipman37

Con

Because NASA has more promise than any individual company in the private sector, the following resolution is false: Resolved: Private sector investment in human space exploration is preferable to public sector investment. The thesis of our case is that NASA, which is part of the public sector because it is a federal administrative agency, is
a better place to invest money in space exploration than in the private sector. Our first contention is that NASA is better for deep space exploration, it is only handing off low-orbit development to private firms. Larry Dignan, writes in an article entitled, "NASA's last Shuttle mission: What does this mean for the future of manned flight?,"
for TechRepublic on July 7, 2011
6: Contention !
But we have to do things differently. For one, we have to get out of the business of
owning and operating low Earth orbit transportation systems and hand that off to the
private sector, exercising sufficient oversight to ensure the safety of our astronauts.
We need to focus on deep space exploration, while empowering today's innovators and
entrepreneurs to carry out the rest. This new approach to getting our crews and cargo into
orbit will create good jobs and expand opportunities for the American economy.
Our second contention is that NASA is handing off travel to the space station to the
private sector. This shows that the private sector is always a step behind the public
sector. Mike Wall, a Senior Writer for Space.com, wrote an article called "NASA
Unveils New Spaceship for Deep Space Exploration" on May 24, 2011, in which he
reported
7: Contention 2
"The NASA Authorization Act lays out a clear path forward for us by handing off
transportation to the International Space Station to our private sector partners, so we can
focus on deep space exploration," NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden said in a
statement. "As we aggressively continue our work on a heavy lift launch vehicle, we are
moving forward with an existing contract to keep development of our new crew vehicle
on track."

6
http://www.techrepublic.com... nasas-last-shuttle-mission-what-does-thismean-for-the-future-of-manned-flight/7323
7
http://www.space.com... Forensics Files � The PFD
Debate Round No. 1
Rourke2011

Pro

My opponent states that "NASA has more promise than any individual company in the private sector", however i am not arguing that an individual private company is preferable. neither public nor private sector can exist without the other, however i argue the it is better to spend private sector resources BECAUSE the public sector's could be spent on more important things (SUCH AS HEART DISEASE, WHICH IS KILLING 600,000 AMERICANS ANNUALLY). Pretty much, my case is not that private sector is better at exploring space, its that it is better for private sector to spend more money on space because public sector should be focusing on more important things (such as funding medical research)
shipman37

Con

shipman37 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Rourke2011

Pro

Rourke2011 forfeited this round.
shipman37

Con

shipman37 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Rourke2011

Pro

Rourke2011 forfeited this round.
shipman37

Con

shipman37 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by JackX04 5 years ago
JackX04
you have stated (however i argue the it is better to spend private sector resources BECAUSE the public sector's could be spent on more important things (SUCH AS HEART DISEASE, WHICH IS KILLING 600,000 AMERICANS ANNUALLY) dont state that that much i fell like thats your main point ...dont state that much more
No votes have been placed for this debate.