The US should put less money into military and instead put more money into education and NASA
Debate Rounds (4)
Sources- weboflove.org, washingtonpost.com, USAtoday.com
Nasa spent over $3 billion on other things that are useless.
Would you spend more money on something that dosent work?
The answer is no, noone wants to spend money on something that dosen't work. So why should more money go to education when we have a broken education system.
The U.S. Ranks 14 in education
2nd in ignorance
24th place in literacy
17th in educational performance in the world.
Before you want to spend money on something broken try fixing it first.
You do know that the military protects the Constitution, the entire nation, and including you. The military is more important than nasa. The military needs the money to keep being number one in the world.
The disabled veterans did an outstanding job protecting your children and everyone who lives in America. They deserve the money to be healed and to get them back on their feet for protecting you. Give the veterans the respect they deserve it.
You say NASA money is a waste, and it is clear to see that some projects have been failures. But building a rocket is much harder than forming a military team. Some NASA projects won't work, and we'll have to accept that. And most NASA projects have been tremendous successes, like the moon landing, Mars Curiosity Rover, and many others. You can see a list of successful missions here: http://www.nasa.gov...
I agree with your last argument, we need to respect veterans more. Did you misunderstand something I wrote? On that fact, I totally agree with you. We should spend more money taking care of them then current military. Only about 7% of US funds go to them. Veterans in America are treated horribly. They often have a hard time getting a job when they get back and the healthcare process is horrible. We should spend more money on our veterans then on our military.
We don't have to cut back on military much, but by doing so, we can improve many other fields and take better care of our veterans. We can also improve our standings on education leaderboards. I want you to look at this graph:http://pgpf.org...
I don't think we'll lose our standing as number 1 anytime soon.
Sources not listed: http://www.washingtonpost.com...
Money won't be the solution. In many places around the nation have something called a levy. In most places the school with the most votes gets the levy while the other school doesn't get the money. The solution is how the schools get the money.
Fix how school gets the money, a school with more people are getting the money in most places. That isn't fair to a school in need with fewer people. So the problem and the solution is how the schools get the money.
Did you know the military makes missiles, tanks, ships, helicopters, airplanes, weapons, grenades and much more?
These are just 9 more inventions by the military that you use everyday.
Do you know the cost of every invention used by the military or the ammo or guns they use? Don't you think that might be the reason why the military gets a lot of money?
This link says how much one bullet cost. A bullet is about 20 to 80 cents each. To fill a pistol it might require 8 bullets. If each bullet is 20 cents the we need to multiply 20 times 8. That equals $1.60 to fill a pistol. On September of 2009, 456,651 people enlisted in the army. If each person got one pistol that holds 8 bullets for 20 cents for each bullet. The cost will be $730,641.60. This is just the bullets alone. The cost for a gun is a few hundred dollars. I will be using the lowest amount of cost for a pistol that I find. I found a pistol that is $489.99. Let's multiply that by 456,651. The total cost is $223,754,423.50. The reason why the military spends a lot of money is because the prices for what they need is expensive.
If prices for guns and ammo is expensive, imagine the cost of an airplane or ship.
So you're saying that if something is harder then it deserves money. A rock is harder than a tissue. Should we give money to the rock?
It is not hard to make a rocket at all.
Step 1: make tubes
2: open rocket in computer
3: make new model
4: make motor
8: motor mount
9: fins and launch lug
10: nose cone
12: attaching bits
Only 13 steps to make a rocket. Is it still harder to make a rocket or to form a military team.
Can you swim 500 yards in 12:30 minutes. What about 50 push ups and 50 sit ups. Can you run 1.5 miles in 10:30 minutes while wearing boots and pants? If you can't then you can't join the navy seals. Those are the minimum requirements. Is it still harder to make a rocket than to form a military group?
Nasa does not need more money, it needs less. Nasa wanted to know when someone stays in bed for 70 days straight. It cost $18,000. $3 million for a seminar on how congress works. $390,000 to teach kids on climate change. $125,955 to make a 3D pizza printer. Was all this necessary spending?
Unless you work at NASA, I don't think you would understand the mechanics that go into making the rockets engines and thousands of intricate parts. They don't just slap fins and metal together. The process of building a rocket can take over a decade because of the process involved. This site offers insight on how hard it is to actually build a spaceshuttle: http://www.space.com...
I would agree with you, guns and ammunition in general is expensive. The government has to take this in mind when sending military teams somewhere. They can't change the price of this material, so I don't see where your argument is. If anything, the information you gathered helps me considering the cost of sending out supplies is so expensive. I understand why military is expensive. By cutting back the funds, money that would've been spent on a grenade or bullet could go to children's education or exploring unknown parts of our solar system. I would think these things are more important.
The navy seal information you gave me is vain. I know that it is hard to become a navy seal. What I meant is that it is not hard to take trained navy seals and tell them where to go/what to do. Since they are so well trained, this shouldn't be very hard for them to understand.
First off, the NASA information you gave me at the end needs a source, for I don't know if that's even true. Secondly, all those things seem important to me except the 3D printer, which would probably go to more important things then printing pizza. Do you think the moon landing is a waste? Or the rovers exploring planets for our benefit right now? I will refer you to the list I included in my previous argument.
I understand what a levy is, but by giving our education money, we can improve the standards and supplies we give the children. This money can also go to grants made available to schools who need it. They don't have to pass a levy to get a grant if they really need the funds.
All you have been doing is agreeing with me.
Also you say the U.S. spends to much on the military and i clearly pointed out why. Don't you see the prices of the things they need? How can the U.S. spend less when the prices are so high? One bullet or gernade can make a diffrence in a death or life situation. Of course you would'nt uderstand unless you have been in war before.
What's more important, exploring space, giving money to something broken, or to protect America?
Without protection there wouldn't be nasa or education.
Whenever you debate you need to specify on what you say. You said "building a rocket is harder than forming a military team". The way you used the word forming is a verb so that means creati g a military team. To make that team you need to create soilders. And how do you think you do that?
The answer is by training soilders and they have to meet those standards.
For some reason i forgot to post my source so here it is.
Again you are using opinion in your debate. "all those things seem important to me". They might be useful to you but not to the economy.
A lot of school needs money, but again the problem is still how the schools get the money.
The rovers exploring mars have done nothing but sent back photos of red dust over and over. What are the benifits in that? We know that its red, nothing new has been found. The mars rovers are a waste of money, they do the same thing over and over. The cost of a mars rover is $2.5 billion. Nasa spent that much money to put a camera on mars.
I ask the voters to vote bases on the information that you have read and to keep biased feelings out to vote fairly.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.