The Instigator
kenito001
Pro (for)
Winning
25 Points
The Contender
cody30228
Con (against)
Losing
23 Points

The United States should fund alternative energy research

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/6/2008 Category: Technology
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,582 times Debate No: 1457
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (12)

 

kenito001

Pro

Alternative energy research is the future of America. Subsidizing and providing government funding for alternative energy research will allow the United States to ease its dependency on oil, boost the American economy, reduce pollutants, and save money for the American consumers.

This debate should not be restricted to alternative fuels, but also include alternative energies to power the country.
cody30228

Con

So here are your arguments
"Subsidizing and providing government funding for alternative energy research will allow the United States to ease its dependency on oil, boost the American economy, reduce pollutants, and save money for the American consumers."
1. oil dependence
2. economy
3. pollution
4. save money

To debate this, I will debate the method of finding alternative energy.

METHOD
You say we should use government subsidies and funding. I am assuming this goes into businesses. How bout we go through government agencies to try and find alternative energy. Like NASA must research solar power. The branch of our military that works on building nuclear weapons must research nuclear power. This method is better than through the private sector because the private sector is out for profit, quick solutions. While the government would not have any motives but the ends goal.

This solution still stands on the con side because it counters pros method to the topic.
Debate Round No. 1
kenito001

Pro

"This solution still stands on the con side because it counters pros method to the topic."
Don't worry, I completely agree with the eligibility of your stance as Con.
First, to address the comment by "the instigators opening statement seems unclear as to if the government should just fund the initial research or if it should continue to make it viable (eg.Further research, or funding of Infastructure.", I will present a case that supports the current infrastructure of alternative energies, and the main factor on why they are not more technologically advanced today is a lack of funding.
The most efficient manner of researching alternative energy is through the private sector. Directly funding companies instead of government agencies will grant growth in both the economic and technological sectors.
"This method is better than through the private sector because the private sector is out for profit, quick solutions. While the government would not have any motives but the ends goal."
This is only the case when the government restricts the contracts to one or a few companies, typically known as no-bid contracts. Before granting a contract to the private sector, the companies must compete for the contract not only by giving the government the best deal but also by having the strongest business proposal. There are risks involved in funding the private sector, but if the companies begin to work out of line and diverge away from the desired goal that the government seeks, then the government can pull its funding as a breach of contract.
It seems that the both of us agree on the potential of alternative energy reducing oil dependence and rectifying America's long-term future.
The solution to alternative energy has been found, however it has not yet been implemented because of a large gap in technology. Solar voltaic cells and nanotechnology are the future of the United States. Professor Nate Lewis of California Institute of Technology presents a lecture series evaluating and assessing both the theoretical and practical yield of power output for several forms of alternative energy including geothermal, solar, nuclear, and wind. He states that the most efficient manner is solar power, which holds the potential of harvesting 600 Terawatts, but can practically yield 60 TW. This is enough power to solve the world's energy for over a century. Dr. Lewis goes so far as to even provide geographical positions where the solar panels may be placed to successfully provide this much power. Once solar power is instituted, it will lower the cost to all consumers worldwide, emit no pollution, and solve the obvious problem of a limited supply of fossil fuels on earth.
The annual consumption for the world is 13 TW annually, 10 of which are fossil fuels, and by the year 2050 it is estimated that the earth will consume almost 25 TW per year. At this rate, unless there is significant alternative energy source, the world will not be able to power itself by 2050.
The main flaws with solar power are:
1)Perfecting the nanotechnology of voltaic cells
2)Perfecting the preservation of energy
3)Lowering the cost of the cells by improving technology
These projects are a main focus for many engineers, businessmen, and corporations in America, as their production capabilities are limited by their available funds to spend on such projects. These projects need not to be started by the government, but provided additional funding. This eliminates a strong possibility of government spending being inappropriately allocated.
Your solution, of government funding its own projects, is inefficient because:
1)Current projects already exist, and merely need funding
2)Less economic benefits
3)Less options for success
The solution to alternative energy is an increase in funding, a realistic goal that can be accomplished more subsidizing and government spending.
cody30228

Con

We all agree on the need for alternative energy.
You claim private sector is better.
You state:
1. Competing companies will yield better results
2. Govt. can can funding if company is bad
3. Large Gap in Technology

3. We both agree that we lack technology. We agree that we need technology. The private sector would need a lot of development. This means more funding, and less initiative.

3. ALTERNATIVE
Let me add that as my opponent stated, we need technology. Who better to ask than NASA? Try to prove that NASA has a loss in technology. NASA has more satellites, more orbital objects, more scientists, and more time focused on technology. NASA can divert a larger amount of funding to solar power. NASA is the answer to technology. And since technology is needed, NASA is needed.

4. Production limited by funds
You basically claim that the companies would find alternative energy with enough money. Sorry, but no duh! I could solve the energy crisis with an unlimited supply of funds. What we must look at is who could do more, in less time, with a higher chance of success, and less finding. As I have stated above, NASA can do everything better than private companies.

You have some arguments against me:
"1) Current projects already exist, and merely need funding
2) Less economic benefits
3) Less options for success"

1) If they need funding only, and already have projects, then why not NASA? NASA would take less funding and 0% risk. Thank you sir, you just proved my point.

2) Less economic benefits? Like what. Sorry, three words and argument do not make. What benefits, why? No argument made. NASA works for less and is only one outlet for funding, only multiple private sector.

3) Less options for success. Well, you claim all they need is funding. So why is there any question of success?

NASA is cheaper, more effective, and going to solve the problem. Private industry is more expensive, chance of failure, and little initiative. We need NASA, we do not need private corporations to find alternative forms of energy.
Debate Round No. 2
kenito001

Pro

"We all agree on the need for alternative energy.
You claim private sector is better.
You state:
1. Competing companies will yield better results
2. Govt. can can funding if company is bad
3. Large Gap in Technology

3. We both agree that we lack technology. We agree that we need technology. The private sector would need a lot of development. This means more funding, and less initiative.
--The private sector needs funds because they are already on track for development. The infrastructure is there, but the technology hasn't been perfected.

3. ALTERNATIVE
Let me add that as my opponent stated, we need technology. Who better to ask than NASA? Try to prove that NASA has a loss in technology. NASA has more satellites, more orbital objects, more scientists, and more time focused on technology. NASA can divert a larger amount of funding to solar power. NASA is the answer to technology. And since technology is needed, NASA is needed.
--NASA, unlike the private sector, has no existing projects as advanced as some companies do. Funding NASA would require enough money to develop infrastructure that is already present in the private sector, and extend on that by perfecting the technology needed to implement the transition.

4. Production limited by funds
You basically claim that the companies would find alternative energy with enough money. Sorry, but no duh! I could solve the energy crisis with an unlimited supply of funds. What we must look at is who could do more, in less time, with a higher chance of success, and less finding. As I have stated above, NASA can do everything better than private companies.
--The funds need not be unlimited, but substantial enough to give a company flexibility and the capability to reach a solution.

1) If they need funding only, and already have projects, then why not NASA? NASA would take less funding and 0% risk. Thank you sir, you just proved my point.
--NASA would take more funding and equal risk. Just because NASA is under the government doesn't mean there is zero risk. If anything, there is more risk because NASA is much farther away from proliferation of solar power. The private sector has projects, but NASA specifically doesn't. The government need not be obligated under the Pro to give money to an unreliable project.

2) Less economic benefits? Like what. Sorry, three words and argument do not make. What benefits, why? No argument made. NASA works for less and is only one outlet for funding, only multiple private sector.
--To boost GDP, spending from the government into the private sector provides a greater increase than spending from the government into a government project.

3) Less options for success. Well, you claim all they need is funding. So why is there any question of success?
--NASA is one opportunity. A group of 5 competing companies provides 5 equal options that may be evaluated and judged by the government to allocate funding. NASA may be under the direct watch of the government but it does not make it the best project. By allowing competition, each company must present an offer to the body offering government funding. The body may choose the best proposal to take up the task.

NASA is an inefficient choice because:
1)They are behind the private sector because they have yet to have an existing project.
2)Restricting the options for companies to just NASA defeats allocative and technical efficiency.

Giving the project to the private sector would allow for greater economic growth given the rise in GDP, employment expansion, and because of the elevated involvement in the market that a qualified company may hold.

Allowing NASA to compete with the private sector is a more ideal choice, however the Pro side wins the debate if this is the most viable option.
cody30228

Con

This debate has been condensed into a few individual arguments
1. Current Technology
2. Risk
3. Funding

Now both 2 and 3 really fall into number 1.
My opponent's arguments is this
NASA lacks technology
NASA takes more funding
NASA has more risk
My arguments so far have been
NASA has technology
NASA takes less funding
NASA has less risk

I would like to FURTHER clearify NASA's role in solar energy
NASA employes scientists to work together and mkae tehcnological innovations
NASA works together with other agencies to gather technology
BUT THE KEY
NASA works with private companies
This is where a new argument is going to be put in
NASA with funding would work better with private companies than funded provate corporations would work with NASA.
Here is why.
If a private corporation creates new technology, it becomes copyrighted, NASA needs permission to use it, and anyone else NASA is working with needs permission. Competing companies would not share technology, because they would lose profit.
NASA gets funding, creates new technology, it becomes copyrighted, and NASA gives it to private corporations they are working with.
So what I am saying is:
NASA can share technology if they are directed the funding, while private corporations would not.

So, onto the pats debates
1. Current Technology
http://science.nasa.gov...
partially off topic article, but gives proof NASA has technology present
http://www.nasa.gov...
shows gains made by NASA on solar technology
NASA has plenty of technology that currently employ. NASA uses solar panels on the ISS and on satellites. NASA has been using solar panels since the first Mars Rover. NASA has used, and enhanced technology, thus, they have ample, and EXTRA technology that private corporations do not
NASA 1, PVT 0

2. Risk
NASA, if employed by the government, can not give unless the government gives up. Why? Because they answer to the government.
Private Corporations, if funded by the government, can give up if they do not find the current workings profitable. They do not listen directly to the government.
NASA 2, PVT 0

3. Funding
NASA currently has a paycheck from the government. Government tells NASA to divert 10% from all programs into solar energy. Government gives NASA 10 million extra. (15 million comes from the diverted money)
Government funds a private corporation 25 million. Government hires 3 private corporations. 25 million times 3 is 75 million
PVT CORPORATION cost 50 million more than NASA.
This is just an example with made-up numbers, but the premise is sound.
NASA 3, PVT 0

As we can see, NASA can share technology, has technology, has no risk, and requires less funding. Thus, The government should not fund private companies for alternative energy.
Debate Round No. 3
kenito001

Pro

kenito001 forfeited this round.
cody30228

Con

1. TECHNOLOGY
And the private sector has more technology? NASA has a lot of technology in solar energy. A lot more than the private sector. NASA could develop technology. But added to that, you ignored my argument that NASA could share technology and the private sector can't. So NASA can easily get MORE technology through trading that private sectors can't.

2. RISK
So there is risk. In this instance, greater risk does not come greater reward. Not when there is only one goal, efficient solar power, we need to take the least amount of risk. We both agree in NASA.

3. Funding
NASA could easily build and buy infrastructure. NASA, also an ignored agruement, can simply re-direct current funding. So NASA would take less of an increase. Furthermore, if the government is only investing in one company, their is no greater chance of success.

NASA
has technology
can trade technology
has less risk
has less funding
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Kasemei 9 years ago
Kasemei
Hahha I've done Policy for 3 years after this year is over, and this is our new topic. HAhahaha
Posted by kenito001 9 years ago
kenito001
Sorry, I missed the time to post the argument. I will post some brief refutations here as to not waste the last round:

1. TECHNOLOGY
NASA has experience with solar projects, but none involving developing the nanotechnology necessary to construct a fully operational solarvoltaic cell.
I failed to clarify the difference between solar panels and a solarvoltaic cell. The cells needed for alternative energies require a much different makeup because the energy is not directly flowing (like in the case of a rover, from the panel mounted on the unit directly to the unit), the main problem with solar power is the conservation of energy between a "solar power plant" and the communities that it powers. This is where NASA is gravely inept.

2. RISK
The private sector comes with greater risk because it is not under the direct guise of the government, I will acknowledge, however, with greater risk comes greater reward.

3. Funding
REFUTATIONS
NASA would require more money to operate because NASA must establish the infrastructure needed to progress in technology. The private sector is ahead of NASA.
Also, the government wouldn't hire 3 corporations to ensure efficiency. They'd allow 3 corporations to propose their ideas and innovations, and the government may select the best one.
Posted by cody30228 9 years ago
cody30228
really? the best i can say was that i was elected presiding officer in TFA state senate.
That's really cool
Posted by kenito001 9 years ago
kenito001
nice. I won NFLs House last year in StuCo
Posted by cody30228 9 years ago
cody30228
Im a junior
I've done LD for all 3 years
Student Congress I started the last tournament of my first year. I did it off and on last year. And i've done it most of this year. So i would say 2 years.
Posted by kenito001 9 years ago
kenito001
I did Student Congress for 4 years. Do/did you do it too, cody?
Posted by cody30228 9 years ago
cody30228
Student Congress
have you never heard of it?
Posted by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
"i do LD, StuCo, and PF!!!"

whats StuCo?
Posted by leggomyeggo 9 years ago
leggomyeggo
the instigators opening statement seems unclear as to if the government should just fund the initial research or if it should continue to make it viable (eg.Further research, or funding of Infastructure.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by jimmye 6 years ago
jimmye
kenito001cody30228Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by cody30228 7 years ago
cody30228
kenito001cody30228Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by kenito001 7 years ago
kenito001
kenito001cody30228Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:70 
Vote Placed by astrosfan 9 years ago
astrosfan
kenito001cody30228Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by fightinirish1985 9 years ago
fightinirish1985
kenito001cody30228Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Vote Placed by buckaroo54 9 years ago
buckaroo54
kenito001cody30228Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Vote Placed by yoon172 9 years ago
yoon172
kenito001cody30228Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by johnwooding1 9 years ago
johnwooding1
kenito001cody30228Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Vote Placed by SportsGuru 9 years ago
SportsGuru
kenito001cody30228Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by VoterBot 9 years ago
VoterBot
kenito001cody30228Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30