should NASA have more funds?
Debate Rounds (4)
To open I'd just like to say that I am not against NASA, or space exploration. I am completely for space exploration, which is why I'm Con, and this leads into my first point:
1) Competition. For the past couple years, funding for NASA has decreased, and many private companies have stepped up to fill the gap left by NASA. My argument is that allowing many different private companies to fight for the superior space 'services' will expidite the process of reaching our desired goals in space, whatever we choose to make them. If we allow NASA and other countries' national space agencies to monopolize space, they'll be under less pressure than private companies in a free market would be, and thus wouldn't work as efficiently or speedily.
2) Cost-Effective. My opponent has made it pretty clear he doesn't want to spend money on NASA when we can't handle it. But I would ask, "Why should we even have to handle it?" We being the taxpayers. When there are plenty of companies out there ready to fight for commercial space dominance, without or taxpayer funding, why shouldn't we let them?
I would submit that this statement is at odds with itself, and for the following reasons:
If businesses are looking to fill their coffers, wouldn't it be in their interests to advance our technologies down here? Any improvements they make on current technologies they will sell to us, and I would say that they are more likely to make better and more useful technological improvements than NASA would, because the businesses will go under and fail if their technological improvements aren't up to the standards of their rivals'. NASA would not have this problem. With this argument of private companies selling technological improvements, the question of money building up disproportionately, in favor of the companies comes up. This problem will be addressed later in my argument.
2) "i doubt that they'll be feeling generous and send some to earth,so the result is a BIG money pileup"
I believe this idea that there'd be a big money pileup on the end of the companies is incorrect, and it is for this reason:
Space is a virtually unexplored frontier. This will bring tons of companies into space. If there are many companies who are selling space-related services, then you can be assured that there will be a competition among the companies to get the most business. The way to compete would be to drop prices and increase the quality of the goods or services. So, far from companies trying to ratchet up prices and 'fill their coffers', they will most likely ride the line of profit just above the cost of manufacturing, making enough to continue running their company, but not so much as to discourage their customers. Competition will keep the prices down.
3) " I'm not saying that the big national companies like NASA should monopolize space, more like, explore it for the private businesses and see where's safe and where's not"
In this statement, my opponent is suggesting that NASA and private companies can share space, each with their own roles. He gives two reasons for why this could work, but for right now I shall focus on the first reason:
He suggests that NASA can tell the private companies whether or not certain areas of space are safe or not. I have three reasons for why this would be an unnecessary arrangement.
A) NASA has already done much of this, especially for the planets in our 'immediate' vicinity. While it has been a while since NASA has sent a manned mission to another planet, there have been unmanned craft sent out by NASA with great frequency. Over 1,000 unmanned missions have occurred (referenced from: http://en.wikipedia.org...), a significant number of them being for exploration of other planets. If a private company wanted to know if a place was safe, all they would need is a quick internet search to see the atmospheric conditions of whatever planet or moon they plan on landing on, information courtesy of NASA drones. NASA has already done the job my opponent suggests they do.
B) I get back to my idea of cost-effectiveness. If we were to have private companies and NASA both in space, that'd be more money out of people's pockets, for no useful purpose (as shown in argument 3A). If they're both in space, everyone will have to pay taxes to NASA, and anybody who wants the services of the private companies will be paying NASA taxes as well as paying the private companies for their services. Essentially this arrangement would just make people put more of their money out in space, to accomplish the same things that could be done with less money.
C) Referring back to argument 3A, there is always the possibility that NASA will not have mapped out atmospheric conditions for a particular planet or moon, and I would argue that private companies will be just as able to create a drone to go investigate, without the use of involuntary tax payer dollars, but rather by utilizing the profits of willing customers.
4) "have a mutually beneficial agreement and not let one monopolize everything."
In this statement, my opponent suggests that with NASA and private companies in space, you could prevent monopolization. This is correct, but I have a better solution:
Having private companies fighting for customers would prevent monopolization. The competition inherit to this free market system I'm proposing for space would keep prices low, and keep the companies from getting so powerful they crush all the competition. Having NASA involved in this system would be like adding another company to the mix, but this company would require tax payer dollars. Having NASA and the companies share space wouldn't change the competitive atmosphere, but it would be more expensive. Unnecessarily expensive.
ObsidianHunter99 forfeited this round.
ObsidianHunter99 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by STALIN 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Con had better arguments and Pro ff.
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.