The Instigator
ObsidianHunter99
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MyDinosaurHands
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

should NASA have more funds?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
MyDinosaurHands
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/13/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 664 times Debate No: 42298
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

ObsidianHunter99

Pro

I'm going to come out right now and say that I'm not trying to say that NASA should get $1,000,000 right now, I'm just trying to say that when america isn't broke anymore, one of the top priorities should be that NASA gets more funds. One thing that you should know is that the tech that NASA reasearches for out there, (AKA space), helps us advance our tech down here. Also, guess what happens when the earth is out of resources and we haven't found a habitable planet? That's right, we're goners (sorry, that was a little harsh, but necessary). Now, I know that some countries right now aren't in a good position moneywise, but it could be 30 years until their problems are solved, now before you rage on me, i want to say that I'm not saying they're a lost cause, I'm just saying that some of that cash could be spent on space exploration then things like Obamacare.
MyDinosaurHands

Con

I accept the Con position.

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?
Debate Round No. 1
ObsidianHunter99

Pro

First of all, I'd like to say that my opponent made some really good points in the last round, however I'm seeing one problem with letting the private business owners compete, they're not helping advance our technologies down here, they're just going to be looking to get more cash in the coffers, (no offense.) Also, if they're making good profits, where is that cash going to go other than the workers? They're not paying any rent, (unless there's a realty business up there,) and i doubt that they'll be feeling generous and send some to earth,so the result is a BIG money pileup, (still no offense to business owners.) There is another thing I'd like to point out, 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 and have a mutually beneficial agreement and not let one monopolize everything.
MyDinosaurHands

Con

1) "they're not helping advance our technologies down here, they're just going to be looking to get more cash in the coffers"

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.
Debate Round No. 2
ObsidianHunter99

Pro

ObsidianHunter99 forfeited this round.
MyDinosaurHands

Con

Hopefully my opponent gets back for the final round to post closing arguments. I hope voters note his forfeiture of Round 3 when considering who gets the points for conduct.
Debate Round No. 3
ObsidianHunter99

Pro

ObsidianHunter99 forfeited this round.
MyDinosaurHands

Con

End Debate.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by STALIN 3 years ago
STALIN
ObsidianHunter99MyDinosaurHandsTied
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 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: Con had better arguments and Pro ff.