The Instigator
Cheezoncrack
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Wallstreetatheist
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

Should we continue to fund NASA?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 4 votes the winner is...
Wallstreetatheist
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/12/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,578 times Debate No: 25120
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (4)

 

Cheezoncrack

Pro

For starters, NASA creates jobs and inspires yonger genarations to get into science. It expands our knowladge of the universe, and it improves daily things in our lives.
For every dollar we spend on it, we get 10 dollars back from newly improved and invented technology. It will be the first step (Along with other space agencies) to colonize other worlds, thus expanding our race and our knowledge of the universe.
Wallstreetatheist

Con

I thank my opponent for starting this debate!

NASA doesn't create jobs, it uses the government to steal money from the private sector to fund those public sector jobs. This is a classic case of Bastiat's seen vs. the unseen. You see those public sector jobs being filled, but you don't see the jobs in the private sector that are being destroyed by this diversion of resources.

NASA is unnecessary. The private sector can conduct research, plan space missions, and receive private investment to act in "expanding our race and our knowledge of the universe."


NASA's Costs are high
Edward L. Hudgins writes, "John Glenn's 1962 spaceflight and the Apollo moon landings were inspiring achievements. Unfortunately, the recently announced plan to give the 77-year-old Mr. Glenn a seat on a space shuttle is NASA's version of bread and circuses. It is entertainment, a way to draw attention from that agency's truly astronomical costs.

Why are no regularly scheduled commercial spaceflights available for Mr. Glenn to book? Because no government agency that runs with the efficiency of the Pentagon and the U.S. Postal Service will ever realize the dream of commercially viable orbiting stations or moon bases." [2]


Private sector can do a more efficient, economical job

The private sector already has sent people into orbit and regularly sends satellites into orbit. [3,4]

Dave Netsam writes, "The skeptic soon finds that space technology ought to be treated like all other forms of technology, such as computers, cell phones, and the Internet. That is, with as little government intervention as possible. Truly, there is no definitive or otherwise distinctive feature about space technology that renders it necessary that government funds and operates it via NASA. However, the many challenges of space flight will be sorted out across time by the engineers and entrepreneurs just as the private railroad industry standardized rail-gauge sizes and time-zone adjustments without the oversight of the state. The high barrier to entry is to be mounted slowly but surely, as awe-inspiring innovation brings these achievements from beyond the horizon into the frontier." [5]


Conclusion


Tim Swanson writes, "In the end, regardless of what the state did or did not fund or invent, the take-away principle is the unseen. While everyone with a TV has been able to see the hordes of chemical rockets dramatically blast into the cosmos over the past decades, they were similarly unable to see the productive opportunities foregone and ignored via the reallocation of scarce resources.

The perceived benefits of a vain, nationalized space program include, among others, the fallacious need to fight the mythical shortage of scientists and engineers. Whereas in reality, it has stymied private tourism, exploration, and research for nearly half a century.

It is a monumental drain of capital resources to simply satisfy a nationalist ego; and its motto should be changed to reflect the only groups that benefit from its existence, politicians and contractors: For Benefit of Few." [6]



[2] http://www.cato.org...
[3] http://www.virgingalactic.com...
[4] http://www.astrotechcorp.com...;
[5] http://mises.org...;
[6] http://mises.org...;

Debate Round No. 1
Cheezoncrack

Pro

Cheezoncrack forfeited this round.
Wallstreetatheist

Con

Extend my arguments like the Curiosity rover's Alpha Particle X-ray Spectrometer.
Debate Round No. 2
Cheezoncrack

Pro

Cheezoncrack forfeited this round.
Wallstreetatheist

Con

Extend my arguments like antineoplaston treatments extend the lifes of cancer patients.
Debate Round No. 3
Cheezoncrack

Pro

Cheezoncrack forfeited this round.
Wallstreetatheist

Con

Extend my arguments like the Bush tax cuts.

Vote for Con, the irreligious investment banker.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by bossyburrito 4 years ago
bossyburrito
Spaceeeeeeeee
Posted by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
Easy win for con.
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
lives*
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Contra 4 years ago
Contra
CheezoncrackWallstreetatheistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had a good case and a funny closing line.
Vote Placed by MouthWash 4 years ago
MouthWash
CheezoncrackWallstreetatheistTied
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: I love concessions. They're so easy to judge.
Vote Placed by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
CheezoncrackWallstreetatheistTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
CheezoncrackWallstreetatheistTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for forfeit. Arguments because Pro forfeited and was therefore unable to defend his position. Sources because Pro didn't use any while Con used several.