We need to fund NASA's space exploration
Debate Rounds (3)
Second of all, this debate isn't CONTROVERSIAL, it is simply an opinion. I can convince the audience to vote my way, because that's the way the debates on this website works. This is the way I will present my argument.
Third of all, who is "we"? I doubt Vladimir Putin would donate money to NASA, nor the Chinese government. I will hold these facts against you because you did not state them before the debate. Also, what type of "space exploration"? Exploring planets like Mars? Exploring the moon? Or just chilling out in the cosmos. These facts are important.
I just want to take this round to say I accept this debate, because I am confident I can win this debate in two rounds.
1. be respectful
2. play by the rules
3. use evidence
4. no claims
5. have fun
rebuttal and closing remarks
Intro: "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win."
R13; John F. Kennedy
1: The world is getting smaller. We are running out of room. More and more schools are growing. Here is an example.
2: What is NASA's purpose if not to explore? Here is our answer on NASA's own website.
3: Recent find. Here is something really cool that could help all of mankind for future generation to come courtisy of NASA.
Conclusion: In the voers please make all points out to me.
It is a request and if the voters would look up my past rules and regulations you would understand how I set up the debate. My opponent must agree to the terms and conditions to accept the debate. I will answer these questions in r4.
First, I'd like to make it clear that this topic is AN OPINION, so I'm going to PERSUADE the audience to vote in my direction.
Intro: Though space is vast, infinite and truly brilliant, my argument is to provide evidence to state that it isn't within our best interests. My argument begins here. I believe that there are many types of diseases that are deadly, that would be in our best interests to spend our money on. For example, 1 cancer patient costs 257,000 per year to treat and even this treatment isn't guaranteed to cure their specific type of cancer.
NASA's best rocket technology to date is called "VISIMR", and even this new found fusion technology can only cut the time to travel to Mars. NASA didn't state how much it would cut the time in the article, so don't ask. We need more advanced technology to safely explore space.
Finally, an article on www.livescience.com stated that there are currently 3.5 acres of land that is usable, just for humans. They estimate it could sustain over 10 billion people. We currently have 7 billion. This sustainability issue is relevant, but not dangerously relevant. You would have to reasearch very advanced technology to even consider travelling to another habitable planet. This idealism is far fetched.
Sources; NASA.gov, www.livescience.com
Here is why we must vote with me.
1: I provided more evidence
2: The cancer patients do need more help, but we can't take it away from NASA. Take it away from a group that isn't finding new planets, new ways of life, and so forth. This is like band doing really well while the football team sucks. The school board then cuts band to fund football. NOT SMART!!! The world is getting smaller and NASA has found a new, possible Earth! Don't cut their funds. Expand those said funds instead!
3: My opponent just helped my case. They cut time to Mars. Awesome! Also found a new planet here people!
4: NASA is to test the limitations of man. View my second point. We need to keep funding them and expand the said budget!
5: Through all this evidence please side with me!
FHPSdebate forfeited this round.
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.