First of all I would thank my opponent who accepts this challenge for their time

and knowledge.

I would like to add that by space I mean outer space, beyond the Earth's
mesosphere.

Position descriptions

Pro: has to say why the U.S. federal government should increase its exploration
and/or development of space.

Con: has to say why the U.S. federal government shouldn't increase its exploration
and/or development of space.

I will leave the first round for my opponent to ask any questions and/or to say any
comments or concerns to the topic.

Thank you and good luck.

*My first debate here so bare with me*

I would like to pose several questions for my opponent:

- Would you go so far as to say the U.S should do away with space exploration and
never consider it again?

- Are you debating against the idea of space exploration/research as a whole(As in

all the nations) or just the United States' involvement with the endeavor? By this
I mean are you saying that the U.S. should cease to ever get involved or "step up"
it's participation in extrasolar exploration?

My opening thoughts and comments:

- Should the U.S allow other nations to surpass it in this field?

- Isn't the technology and knowledge acquired worth the costs?

I think space exploration is the next logical step in the human endeavor. We are an
exploratory species with philosophical differences that have been getting slightly
better over the centuries with some low points and high points. The trials of a
space program unite and inspire not just a country, but the entire world. Science
done in space and potentially other worlds could lead to wonderful technologies
that could improve the lives of people on Earth, and the overall condition of the
planet.

I thank my opponent for accepting to this debate, now lets get this party started
then.

To answer your first two questions.

"Would you go so far as to say the U.S should do away with space exploration and
never consider it again?"
-It is not forever it is saying that the U.S. should do it now or in the very near
future.

"Are you debating against the idea of space exploration/research as a whole(As in

all the nations) or just the United States' involvement with the..."
-It is only for the U.S. and I am saying that the U.S. should not increase it's
extrasolar exploration and/or development.
I propose that the exploration and/or development of space should be the last thing
taken care of from the U.S. federal government. Why must the U.S. federal
government worry about space when there are many problems on the planet we all live
on right now.

Now for the definitions.

1. Exploration: "the investigation of unknown regions."[1]
2. Development: "the act or process of developing; growth; progress"[1]

Now for my case, which consists of 3 main points.

1. There are too many problems with planet Earth.
2. It is far too expensive.
3. It is far too dangerous.

1. There are too many problems on planet Earth.

Earth, it holds about 7 billion strange beings who walk on two legs, called human.
There are too many problems on the planet Earth, let alone America, to even
consider going out into space.

There is no world peace.

There needs to be a world peace before America go out into space, the risk for
space war fair would be too high if the world isn't at an agreement on peace. The
world would have to come together and create a world peace before the world let
alone America goes out and does space missions. For example, al Qaeda, now that
Osama bin laden died "Lone individuals are the most likely to launch attacks in the
United States following the death of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, according to
a joint Department of Homeland Security/FBI bulletin sent to state and local law
enforcement."[2].

2. It is far too expensive.

America's economy is going in a downward spiral into the extreme pit of debt.
Something like putting a person in space would take a lot of money to do.
Everything about sending things into space would require money that America doesn't
have. "Q. How much does it cost to launch a Space Shuttle?
A. The average cost to launch a Space Shuttle is about $450 million per
mission."[3]. How can America spend money if there is no extra money? If America
got $450 million dollars, America should use it for more important issues like
education or public health.

3. It is far too dangerous.

Taking a look back to history, when the explorers came to the Americas, they have
been introduced to new things that they weren't ready for such as disease, and new
hard ships.

Sub point A, foreign disease possibility.

In the T.V. movie "The Adromina strain" an asteroid hits the earth and it contains
a new disease called the Adromina strain where it would infect the human race and
leave the population dwindling, luckily Hollywood added the happy ending of the
human race finding the cure and then saves their race, but reality isn't Hollywood.
Exploring new and foreign planets could contain a new disease that could wipe out
the human population. The discovery of ice on the poles of Mars could hold new
bacteria or viruses that could be taken back to Earth and, because humans haven't
been introduced to this new disease, it could cause deaths on the global level.

Sub point B, accidents, radiation, and harsh condition, oh my!

Accidents can happen any where you might say, but if someone broke something in
space, or someone was hurt and needed to be rushed to the hospital, how can they
get this person to the hospital if there isn't hospital's in space, which could
lead to more deaths. The sun emits high amounts of radiation, with out the
protective gear, the radiation would give people cancer, or other medical problems.
Trying to colonize on a new planet could be very hard, going back to my example of
the explorers going to the Americas, when they got to the Americas they had to live
in harsh environments, but unlike the uncolonized Americas, other planets, like
Mars, would be a challenge to colonize. All of these problems could lead to an
unwanted death rate that would cause problems.

So, because there are problems on Earth, it is far too expensive, and it is far too
dangerous, the U.S. federal government shouldn't increase is exploration and/or
development of space.

Now for my opponent to construct his/her case, and to attack my case.

Okay then, I will adopt a response structure similar to that of my opponent's. I

will first present four points of my own with elaboration followed by a rebuttal to
each of my opponents points.

1. Space Exploration has the potential to inspire a society of Scientists and

Engineers.
2. By studying beyond the Earth we gain a better understanding of our planet and
our place in the Universe.
3. Space research and exploration leads to technological and scientific
advancements that benefit humanity and the planet.
4. The United States doesn't spend as much money as many believe on space related
development.

1. Space Exploration has the potential to inspire a society of Scientists and

Engineers.

When NASA put a man on the moon in 1969, the entire world witnessed a first not
just for America, but humanity. The object of many cultures folklore had become a
reachable, conquerable destination. This left an unquestionable impression on
anyone witnessing this event live on television across the world. This inspired a
generation to pickup science and engineering in hopes of one day getting involved
in something so monumental. A society abundant with scientists and engineers is a
very positive payoff for the amount invested in the program.

2. By studying beyond the Earth we gain a better understanding of our planet and
our place in the Universe.

Global warming, or climate change can best be understood from what we have been
able to gather from our study of the Earth's neighboring planets, such as Venus. On
Venus, we have been able to calculate surface temperatures over 800 degrees
Fahrenheit, which is hot enough to melt lead! [ 1 ] The reason this happens is
because of a phenomenon known as the "greenhouse effect" which occurs when there
are excess amounts of greenhouse gases[such as carbon dioxide, methane, or ozone]
present in the atmosphere. This very real example helps us understand just how
serious the concept is and how important it is to pay close attention to the
matter.

Other examples include the discovery of the origin of atoms, the formation of our
Sun, or the Hubble telescope. Knowing about these discoveries tells us a lot about
our place in the Universe, and teaches us a very important lesson about just how
important it is to take care of our planet. Having this knowledge available to us
also teaches us about the dangers of Universe, such as solar flares, asteroid
impacts, or cosmic radiation, and prepares us for figuring out how to prevent,
avoid, or minimize disaster. There's no guarantee such disasters won't happen in
the very near future, having the knowledge and resources ready to combat it is a
worthy investment.

3. Space research and exploration leads to technological and scientific

advancements that benefit humanity and the planet.

Before America entered into the Space Race there was nothing many of us take for
granted today. Examples include satellite technology, the space station, Skylab,
cell phones, telemedicine, or GPS navigation. The start of space research and
exploration has had a ripple effect on past and present technology, and
unfortunately present issues have caused NASA's priorities to shift. Without a
major goal, and a decreased budget, NASA stagnates, and there's no schedule or
restrictions to abide by that motivate anything major from happening. No research
and development yields no new discoveries. The type of advancement that could be
occurring through NASA is also decades ahead of what the private sector could
achieve. The sooner we start making advancement, the sooner we can begin to reap
the rewards.

4. The United States doesn't spend as much money as many believe on space related
development.

The most funding NASA has ever received from the government was approximately 5.5%
of the annual budget in 1966 during the Apollo program. After 1975, the budget
dropped off to values on average of less than 1.0 %, having an average of
approximately 0.76 % of the national budget from 1998-2008. [ 2 ] It's also
important to understand that not all of the money that goes to NASA is put toward
space related projects. NASA also does work on aeronautics, so some of the budget
is put toward other endeavors. [Could not find reliable data that specified
difference] In terms of the knowledge, technology, and inspiration acquired, isn't
the Universe worth a little bit more to us?

I shall now address my opponents points:

1. There are too many problems on planet Earth.

I disagree that because of the many problems on Earth we[America] should cease a
healthy push toward a more vigorous space program. I happen to agree with my
opponent that world peace would be essential for deep space exploration. However,
the potential benefits that going it alone for now, and by that I mean Mars and
Moon excursions, foster what I would lightly claim to be a "healthy space race."
Imagine rather than mustering military might we focus more on trying to accomplish
a common goal that is likely to lead to the same kind of benefits as the Apollo
program and other space endeavors have.

Also, there wasn't world peace when we launched the Apollo program, in fact we were
well into the Cold War. Yet the fruits of the program which led to satellites which
enabled the ability to see what the "other side" was up to, which could have been
responsible for calming both sides down by allowing them to truly see what was
going on in each others "back yards."

2. It is far too expensive.

As I've already addressed in my fourth point, NASA has received at most 5.5% of the
annual budget during it's lifetime, and the results of that higher percentage
[Namely Apollo] marked the starting point of many technologies that eventually led
to the components of what stimulates our economy to this day. If you could spend
'x' amount of dollars fostering a program that influences members of your society
to pursue paths that promote careers that are essential to solving world problems,
what would be your limit?

3. It is far too dangerous.

I have to apologize to my opponent and claim that accidents do happen. Accidents

are a part of learning and unfortunately great discovery and advancement often
comes with that risk. Gasoline is dangerous yet we sit on gallons of the stuff as
we drive to and from work day by day. There has even been serious attempts to make
hydrogen a fuel source in cars eventually. Nuclear Power even has it's risks as
we've recently been reminded of. We wouldn't have satellites, air planes, fossil
fuels, or medicines if we didn't accept those risks associated with the benefits.

You referenced "The Andromeda Strain" having it's "Hollywood ending" in which a
miracle cure is somehow found to save humanity. However we must remember that the
movie is also based on a "Hollywood premise" which we shouldn't take too seriously
when concerning what we actually know and theorize about life[or disease] on other
worlds.

I understand your point about how helpless a crew would be rendered if a critical
failure of some type were to occur. However these are challenges and risks the crew
of a mission accepts, and there many people who feel the same way. These problems
are viewed as challenges to engineers and scientists to solve and develop new
technologies that can be reworked and applied to problems on the Earth.

Seeing that the potential increase of knowledge, national pride, and technological
advancement vastly outweighs the expenditures, it is perfectly reasonable to
increase the federal spending on the advancement of space exploration.

Look forward to round 3!

I enjoy this debate so far, but the play must go on!

I will first defend my points from the attacks and then attack my opponents case.

So in my opponents first attack to my first point, to summarize it, if America were

to go to the moon and mars, then there will be great benefits like the ones at the
Apollo program. Well first of all, times have changed, and America would get more
harm then benefits for going out to Mars or to the Moon for expansions. The bush
administration wanted to put man on the moon again in the year 2020, but there was
nothing to back it up, there wasn't the money to do it, and there wasn't the
resources to do it either, so the Obama administration turned it down because it
would cost too much money and other reasons.

To my opponents second attack to my first point, basically saying that there

doesn't have to be world peace to go to space. Once again times have changed, and
there are some more countries that have hostilities towards America, like Pakistan,
and extremist organizations such as Al Qaeda who are willing to attack at any
moment if they saw America doing well in something.

There needs to be a world peace to expand in America's space program, because of

extremist groups and hostile countries to America will be willing to harm America
if they try to do any big progression.

To my opponent's attack to my second point.

Well first of all, "The U.S. government officially hit its $14.3 trillion debt
ceiling... The U.S. spends on average $118 billion more each month than it takes
in."[1] The U.S. is in major debt! The U.S. can't afford major missions to the moon
or mars or any where else in space! The reason why America could afford the Apollo
missions is because America wasn't in this much debt, so they had the money.
Besides, Obama is taking money out of NASA and putting it into private companies to
take care of all the sending things into space.

To my opponent's attack on my third point.

A. To the "everyday risk attack", on earth, there are hospitals if something were
to go bad like the gallons of gasoline that we sit on every day to get to work, but
in space, there are no hospitals, just like the Apollo 13 mission, because you love
the Apollo missions so much.

B. With the recent quest to find life in space, and the search of water on other
planets, which can harbor bacteria, viruses, and other disease that can harm the
human race because the human race isn't ready for it, that's not Hollywood, the
finding of a cure in a short amount of time is Hollywood.

C. Do you really think that new technology is more important than life?

Now to my opponents case

1. That is all childhood dreams, when I was a kid I wanted to be a scientist, but
now I don't. Anything can leave impressions on people to be something, but it is
their choice to choose to be what ever they want to be. A child could watch a rock
and roll band, then that kid would want to be in a rock and roll band. There are
more important jobs scientists and engineers, such as jobs that help society
function.

2. First of all, how can America know more about our planet by studying other
planets? They're different planets, they have different features, studying Jupiter
won't say how the Earth will turn out. Global warming is a myth, the earth goes
through both hot and cold cycles. America currently knows a lot of the universe all
ready, I can tell you the brief story of the creation of the universe to where we
are right now, the big bang theory of there was a big boom and that created the
simplest of elements, Hydrogen, in these big hydrogen clouds, the hydrogen started
to come together and then make heavier elements and soon that created stars, and
when a star super nova-ed, it would create even heavier elements where those
elements would come together and make planets and other bodies in space and then it
would create the earth and then through a long period of time of certain things it
would lead to us right now (there is a TON more but I don't want to explain it
all). Just by that we know a lot of this stuff already, so there isn't a big need
to obtain more knowledge.

3. If we look at the time line of technological discoveries, at the start it would

take a long time to come up with new technologies, but as soon as the human race
went further in technology it would get shorter and shorter to get some new
technology, this is called Moore's law, where technological discoveries would come
sooner as time went on. There has been many many more discoveries before the
ability to go out into space. America is going to get new technology, its only a
matter of time, space program or not it is going to happen, like the work on
artificial intelligence is now being worked on.

4. Going back to my defending, America wasn't in a big debt crisis back during the
Apollo missions, and now that America hit the debt ceiling.

I ask you to vote for Con!

I can't wait to see my opponents response.

I shall first defend my initial points, then rebut my opponents arguments.

1.) "That is all childhood dreams, when I was a kid I wanted to be a scientist, but
now I don't."
Many people don't follow their childhood ambitions through, however I was saying
was that the impression that the program left sparked an interest which, even if
someone strayed, would have set them on a career path that would land them in a
field related to science and engineering. If we look directly at what the space
program yielded at the time, it was the moon landing. Children, as impressionable
as they always are, saw this event, and to the ones who took an interest found a
goal, "I want to be an astronaut!" they would exclaim. Even if they changed their
mind later in life, the very drive instilled in them from the program was a
positive force in shaping their lives. Of course there are other important career
fields that exist to help (or impose) society to function properly, however I'm
discussing the space program benefits, and the career fields which it could affect.
(scientists and engineers)

2. "... how can America know more about our planet by studying other planets?
They're different planets, they have different features, studying Jupiter won't say
how the Earth will turn out.Global warming is a myth... "

Planets have different features, however matter and physics behave the same way
throughout the Cosmos. I was referring to a comparison of the Earth with Venus, not
Jupiter. Venus has an atmosphere just as Earth has an atmosphere. However Venus'
atmosphere contains a high abundance of greenhouse gases. These gases behave the
same way on Venus as they would on the Earth. By studying the average surface
temperature of Venus we can see what happens to planets that have high amounts of
these gases. The amount of greenhouse gas in Earths atmosphere is rising[1] and the
Earth is getting warmer. So Venus is a very real example of what happens to worlds
with high levels of those gases. We have our study of space to thank for what we
know about the Big Bang, along with the origin of the chemical elements in the
nuclear fusion process that occurs within the stars, which is the concept we are
now basing nuclear fusion reactors on.

3. "...as soon as the human race went further in technology it would get shorter
and shorter to get some new technology, this is called Moore's law, where
technological discoveries would come sooner as time went on."

Moore's law applies to computer hardware, not technology in general.[2] Not to

mention Moore's law will start to become invalid around 2030 at the latest due to
physical limitations. The spin off technologies developed by the space program
yield wonderful benefits. These include aircraft controls, microcomputers, golf
ball aerodynamics, shock-absorbing helmets, fire resistant material, MRI, radiation
hazard detectors, the list goes on.[3] [Note: Yes some of these have not been
invented because of the space program, however they were fine tuned and improved
drastically because of the innovation and technology the space program yielded
which would have otherwise have taken decades or more to advanced to the present
level they are at today]

4. "...America wasn't in a big debt crisis back during the Apollo missions, and now
that America hit the debt ceiling."

Despite the "debt crisis" as it's so called, America is still spending money.
Spending money on social security, income security, and international affairs. When
you examine the specifics of these matters you come to find that a large portion of
funds are going to the "wrong places" as many would say. Or that they are even
regulated in such a way that's causing the debt to skyrocket. "For every $1 the
federal government spends on NASA, it spends $98 on social programs(2007). In other
words, if we cut spending on social programs by a mere one percent, we could very
nearly double NASA's budget."[4] Associating America's large debt with no context
can mislead people into thinking space research is getting some unreasonable amount
of the budget, and this simply isn't the case.
Now my responses to my opponents defense:

1. "Well first of all, times have changed, and America would get more harm then
benefits for going out to Mars or to the Moon for expansions."

It's difficult to really pin point what the potential harm and benefits we would
incur from such a project, however if Apollo, Hubble, or the Space Station are any
indication, more benefits surely will follow despite several horrible disasters.
Projects don't have to only involve Mars or Moon colonization either, they can
involve anything related to space research such as new satellite technology,
interplanetary study via robots, or more experiments on the space station. The
material resources do exist, however the problem was the goal process, money, and
political figures, that generated an "artificial" scarcity that crippled the idea.
It's highly likely we won't see world peace until quite far into the future,
assuming we(humans) even have one. Even so, we can't neglect the avenues that
provide advancement, grant knowledge, and promote scientific literacy, even if our
enemies find reasons to attack us. These enemies want to attack us regardless if we
are advancing some aspect of ourselves or not.

2. "The U.S. is in major debt! The U.S. can't afford major missions to the moon or
mars or any where else in space! "

[Addressed in more depth in my defense of my point 4] The spinoff technology

provides plenty of opportunity for economic stimulation, not to mention the vast
array of jobs it provides.

3. "...there are hospitals if something were to go bad like the gallons of gasoline
that we sit on every day to get to work, but in space, there are no hospitals, just
like the Apollo 13 mission..."

A. Thankfully, the crew of Apollo 13 made it back to Earth alive though. This
exemplifies how important it is to be self-sufficient, and have plenty of
redundancy built into the vessel that is to be used. The way things seem to play
out is that a few people will take risks and eventually everyone else will gain the
benefits. We owe a lot to the people in the past who have taken risks, and without
them we wouldn't be where we are today.

B. Presently we haven't found life anywhere else in our solar system, the quest for
life doesn't necessarily imply we will find life, or life as we know it for that
matter. What's to say that life would form elsewhere in the Cosmos with the exact
same chemistry as we have? Viruses that lie dormant on a planet or asteroid
throughout time only to come in contact with Humanity with dire consequences? The
only place anyone hears premises like these are in the movies or fiction books.

C. "Do you really think that new technology is more important than life?"

I'm not sure how I came across that way but as I touched on earlier; the people
undertaking these missions are intelligent, well-informed people who assume all the
risks with the endeavor. The final launch of Space Shuttle Endeavor occurred
Monday, May 16, 2011 and Endeavor's commander Mark Kelly had this to say moments
before lift off, "As Americans, we endeavor to build a better life than the
generation before and we endeavor to be a united nation. In these efforts we are
often tested. It is in the DNA of our great country to reach for the stars and
explore. We must not stop."[5] I think what this man conveyed makes it pretty clear
that exploring space is not just about spinoff technology, which is an economical
and technological stimulator, but the medium through which advancement and oneness
with eachother and the Universe is realised.
I will first attack my opponents defense, then re-defend my case.

1. When you ask a young kid, "what do you want to be when you grow up?" the usual
response would be "a firefighter" or "a veterinarian" but only a very small few
would be of those careers. It is the same with all careers, children get impressed
with all different kinds of careers but only a small few choose that career. If
there was a huge advancement in, lets say acting, do you think a bunch of children
would go running off to be actors or actresses? No, once again a small few would,
it is the same with advancing the space program.

2. I will bring up again, the other planets are different, "Each of the planets has
a different atmosphere..."[1]. Besides the fact that America already knows enough
about Venus, to know about the CO2 and greenhouse gasses, so there is no need to
increase its exploration and/or development of space. America doesn't need to
increase its space program because we know enough already, America knows that:
solar flares emit tons of radiation that the earths atmosphere protects us from,
everything came from the big bang and how we(America) knows that is because the
universe is expanding, our sun was formed by "light elements" such as hydrogen, the
effects of asteroid impacts are fatal by seeing where the asteroids impacted the
earth a long time ago, and there is more and more. Clearly America knows enough
about the universe already, so there is no need to increase its exploration and/or
development of space.

3. Moore's law still concerns with technology, just with the computers, and
computers are important in modern life. Yet there is also great advancements in
times of war, so the space program isn't the only thing that advances America's
technology. I also go back to the fact that we have enough to keep our technologies
advancing so there won't be a need to increase the space program.

4. To your source about the $1 spent on NASA compared to the $98, that was at 2007,
but now its at the debt ceiling, so the money paying would have to change. It is
better to use as much money to help lower the national debt then to use money to
pay for the space program. Although it might be small but every penny counts to
help lower the national debt. Let America use the money on more important things.

Now to re-defend my case.

1. I still think that there needs to be world peace before America increases its
exploration and/or development of space, because there could be in a sense "space
bandits" or "space terrorists" if America increases its space program. If America
does, then other countries could and will find out about this information and then
use it against us. "Iran's announcement that it launched a research rocket has
called new attention to a space program that Tehran says is peaceful but which some
fear aims to produce long-range ballistic missiles that could reach Europe or the
United States."[2]. The change of space war is close, and it will be closer if the
space program is increased.

2. America still needs to focus on trying to lower the debt than to spend more
money on the space program

3.
A. Yes the Apollo 13 mission did come back to earth, but it started the road of the
dangers of space, there is still many other dangerous things in space, such as
radiation, small dust particles moving at high speeds, and many others, that would
lead the people in space in much greater danger.

B. You got to remember that the universe is very large, there is a high chance of
finding alien life or any thing else. There has been discovers of other planets
that have the potential of containing life, due to a strategy of finding planets
that circle stars and then they measure if it is in the "Goldy locks zone" where it
is a zone that the planet is a perfect distance of a star to inhabit life because
it is not to hot and not to cold.

C. Although the space shuttle Endeavor has launched, it has had problems already
"Mike Fincke, one of NASA's most experienced spacemen, had to settle for a partial
lube job, after the bolts holding down covers on the massive joint started popping
off unexpectedly. "[3] Even though it is a minor problem it still shows that it
could still be too dangerous.

There is currently too many issues to increase the space program, and we are
already in the lead of the world space programs, there is no need to increase it.

Please vote Con!

As did my opponent, I will first address his defense, then re-defend my arguments.

On his case:

1. World Peace

I believe world peace, or whatever we call as close as we will ever get to it,
shall be very important for exploration and research along the caliber of missions
that take humans beyond the asteroid belt. Missions that take place on Mars, the
Moon, or the reconnaissance/exploration of worlds beyond though the use of robots
or satellites are reasonable endeavors that America could undertake on it's own.
Now let's consider what you proposed for a moment. "Space terrorists" could utilize
the acquired technology to do harm on America or other nations. According to your
quote, it would seem that other parts of the world are developing space technology
while America remains in the same place, despite the potential yield the program
has to offer. If America was to cut back on any/all space research and development,
how is it to thwart off potential attacks[space piracy included] based on such
technology?

2. Debt and Money

The debt crisis can be solved though a number of methods: stimulating the economy,
re-evaluating other government programs, increasing taxes, or educating Americans
on the matter. Making all other agencies stop what they are doing to focus on the
debt isn't going to solve the debt problem. 10+ years ago the space program existed
and wasn't causing the country to go into debt, and it isn't to this day. What has
caused this debt though? Wars, tax cuts, stimulus packages, bailouts, certain
administrations? No one seemed to have a problem where all the money was going
then, yet now the space program needs to take the heat?

3. Various Dangers

A. The fact space exploration is dangerous shouldn't deter us from undertaking it.
I shall reiterate as I said before, great peoples throughout history took great
risk to give us what we have today, and we should consider where we would be if
they had not. Such as the Wright Brothers, Martin Luther King Jr, outspoken
skeptics of religious dogma, Hirsi Ali, the colonists who ventured out to find
America, and so on. To this day we still have the same type of people who are
willing to put their lives on the line to aid in the advancement in the human
endeavor, and turn a blind eye on the risks involved because they believe it to be
worthwhile.

B. Just because a planet resides in the "goldilocks zone" doesn't imply life exists
there, just that chances are the planet could have conditions that are favorable
for life to exist. What your referring to is deep space exploration for which I
agree a global effort is required, however the technologies required to undertake
such an achievement are so far into our future that I believe humans will have
either settled their differences and worked together to solve their problems, or
have perished. Now my argument isn't that life can or can't exist elsewhere in the
Universe, I'm just addressing your assertions on the facts you've presented.
However, I don't see how whether or not some extra solar planets have detectable
life at the present would be any reason why America should cease space advancement.
It would be good if we could find out more about such a world, like Gliese 581g[1],
unfortunately present satellite technology can only do so much.

C. Again, these problems, "come with the territory" so to speak, the advancement in
this field requires our knowledge to be fine-tuned. Not everything can go as
planned, however how is that a reason for degrading or ceasing our development of
space?

Defending my case:

1. Inspiration

What I was saying was that regardless of what any of them decided to do, the
program had a positive influence, and the ones that stayed with it for a good
number of years had the program to thank for giving them the knowledge that such
career fields even existed. Many people today working at NASA or highly technical
careers thank the happenings of the Apollo program for setting them off on the
right foot, for having that idea propel them in a direction that would lead to
multiple opportunities for careers in not just space study/exploration, but all the
fields of industry that employ scientists and engineers.

2. Knowledge

What I want to first address is that when one says America knows x about something
scientific, we should reflect upon what that really means. America is lagging
behind in both mathematics and scientific literacy when compared to other nations.
[2] If we are referring to the general American populace then we need to keep in
mind how this effects people, government elects, and eventually policy. Perhaps a
rekindling of public interest could be brought about from a new space related goal,
or discovery? Many scientists at the start of the 1900s felt that we knew all we
needed to know about the physical laws that govern the Universe, we all now know
how wrong they were.

3. Technology and Advancement

Moore's Law is concerned with technology only to the extent by which it effects it
so. What's to occur when we can no longer improve silicon based chips/boards?
Quantum computers[3] may very well take over from that point, however Moore's Law
would become a memory. Space research would likely warrant advancements in quantum
computing(QC), the rate other technologies evolved with it presents the likelihood
that QC would develop at a quicker rate as well. Scientific discovery is the
proponent of technological advancement, and I would rather America stick with that
as a catalyst than War.

4. Cost and payoff

I addressed some of this in my counter to my opponents case 2. I ask that all who
are reading this debate to consider what has been happening to America the past 10
years. What has been happening unique to this decade? I'm referring to recent
policies, bailouts, natural disasters, aiding other nations, and military presence
in foreign nations. I'm not trying to blame or suggest we turn a blind eye to other
issues in the world, however I ask that we consider the cause of debt, and what
will alleviate it. The space program throughout the decades has given us the tools
necessary to aid those foreign nations It has also given us the technologies re
purposed to defend out country. Also, the technologies we use and have become
dependent upon such as GPS, satellites, cell phones, and the Internet.

Lastly, it's given us the knowledge that my opponent has been trying to use to
suggest that somehow we don't need it any longer. I believe that it has paid us
back in full, and we should allow it to continue to do so.

I will first attack my opponents case, then defend my own, and then my final
remarks.

To attack my opponents case.

1. Inspiration

Today's youth are, lets say under qualified to be astronauts, scientists, or

engineers to work at NASA. "Overall, the federal figures report 57 percent of white
students finish their degree, compared with 44 percent of Hispanics and 39 percent
of blacks."[1] this is concerning college dropouts. Becoming a scientist, engineer,
or an astronaut requires a lot of education and a lot of training that the current
youth isn't achieving. With a lot of people dropping out of school, they are not
able to work for NASA. The reason is because all the youth don't care about
anything. The reason why everyone was so impressed by the first moon walking is
because it was a much simpler time then it is now. Today there is a lot of things
that would WOW! any one who never saw them. So if someone of today's youth were to
see that, they would be like "meh, I don't care". Therefore increasing the space
program won't inspire any youth, or kid to work for NASA because they won't care
too much.

2. Knowledge

The reason why America is behind in both mathematics and scientific literacy is
explained in my first attack. Increasing the space program wont change America's
math or science status compared to the world. America will get knowledge as other
nations make discoveries, so there won't need to be a need to increase the space
program. America will know more over time, as the need for new things on earth will
be needed, such as advanced warfare, preventing natural disasters, and/or creating
new cures, the point I am getting is that Knowledge will be obtained over time,
such as Albert Einstein, with his many theories.

3. Technology and Advancement

Alright so Moore's law would become obsolete over a matter of time, but in my
second attack, technology comes over time. Let's take a look at the time line of
technology, in certain points of history when there was great hardships like the
"dark ages" or the great depression, have brought forth great technological
advancements. Like I said in my second attack, America can get new technology with
out increasing the space program. America has already got the best of technology
from the space program in the past.

4. Cost and payoff

To increase the space program would leave America a greater cost then what ever the
payoff will be. I agree with my opponent that in the past 10 years there has been
many, lets say "bad things" that left a "pretty bill" on America's debt. To even
think about increasing America's program, America would need to take care of the
"bill from their expensive dinner". Sure America has spent a lot of money in the
past, but how could we drop the debt and work on the space program, I think that
America should try to fix the major debt problem first. If America were to spend
more money to the space program it would have to break some bones on some other
important things like education, and my opponent's second point cares about
knowledge. Therefore if my opponents fourth point is true then my opponent's second
point wont work, so my opponents fourth point contradicts my opponents second
point.

Now to defend my case.

1. World peace

I still believe that the world needs to be in a sense of world peace to increase
the space program. My opponent brought up robots or satellites going in for now,
but there could be hackers to hack these robots or satellites and then turn them to
go against America. There are many different ways a "space terrorist" could strike
the U.S. such as attack America in space, attacking America from space, or
attacking America through the Internet world. As soon as America increases it's
space program, they would broadcast to the world about it, so they seem stronger
then everyone else, but then the people behind wiki-leaks, could hack America's
government and get the technology and then sell it and then other countries could
use it to attack America. If America doesn't increase it's space program then it
would prevent this new way to attack America. Other countries are behind in space
technology so there is no need to increase America's space program.

2. Debt and Money

Just like I said in my fourth attack, America would need to make certain cuts to
increase the space program. Before America could increase the space program, it
would need to take of the debt crisis. Try to picture America's debt as a stack of
pancakes, each pancake is something to pay off, and America's plate is full and
can't have any more on it, so there isn't that much room to increase the space
program, so America would have to start to clean off it's plate.

3. Various Dangers

A. I do agree that a lot of people in the past have done many great things that
would danger their lives, but the fact that they are on Earth and they could get
help if their life was in danger is a different thing. But unlike space, there is
no luxury of gets any thing you need right there, to increase the space program
would increase the risk of people losing their lives in space. Before America
increases its space program, there would need to be a discovery to do things safer
in space, which won't need an increase in the space program.

B. There are many signs pointing to the potential of other life forms in the
universe, the universe is big and "A new discovery of bacterial life in a Martian-
like environment on Earth suggests our neighboring red planet could also be
hospitable to some form of microbial life."[2]. There is ice on mars, so it has a
very high chance of life, and certain bacteria or some kind of virus could live in
the ice which could harm the human race if brought back to earth. Increasing the
space program would lead to the possibility of exterminating the human race.

C. I will say, America needs to develop a safer way to send people in space, and at
the rate America's space program it will find it with out the need to increase the
space program. If America increases its space program it would put people in danger
in space.

Now for my final remarks.

There is no need for America to increase its space program, because America is fine
where it is and it would also cause more problem then benefits if America increases
the space program. I am not saying that America should throw away the space
program, but not to increase it. Everyone has to realize there are more important
things then the space program that should be taken care of first. Going back to my
pancake stack metaphor, America's plate is too full to increase the space program,
so lets let America start to clean off its plate before it tries to get seconds. If
America were to increase its space program, it would have to make certain cuts, and
the lowest priority is education. In the end, America will make the right decisions
to help everybody. So I ask you, to vote Con, because America is fine where it is,
and there is no need to increase the space program.

Vote Con!

On my opponents case:

1. World Peace

One can say the same thing about anything being stolen or hijacked, and used for
terrorism. I doubt terrorists would make much progress[or be very successful] in
hacking satellites, let alone hijacking a space vessel which requires the extensive
training, inspection, and the "okay" from many people to launch. I'm not saying
that it couldn't happen, yet procedures and precautions would develop over time to
ensure this would not happen. Again though, America will be the target of terrorism
regardless of whether we do space or not. We shouldn't cease it[space] because of
such, it wouldn't make sense if we abandoned air flight because people could use
airplanes against us. I refer to the quote my opponent used in round 4, other
nations are developing their space programs, so simply because America ceases space
development doesn't mean other nations will stop, or that it would somehow protect
America from space related terrorists attacks.

2. Debt and Money

The recovery from debt doesn't lie in cutting what programs that don't appear to
produce immediate benefits, it relies on undoing the problems that put America in
debt. The amount of money NASA receives is so modest that increasing it slightly
would open the door for bigger projects and still take a near meaningless amount of
the budget. [See my point 4 in argument 2] There are many aspects of our budget we
could look at and clip to begin pushing our debt amount in a positive direction
before having to cut up the space program.

3. Various Dangers

A. The point I was making was that regardless if help was available or not, they
put their lives on the line, they were all in great danger at some point or
another. The space endeavor is no different in that respect. I must repeat, we
should not shy away from the forefront of discovery, especially when we have people
willing to risk their lives to aid the advancement of the human endeavor. The safer
methods would be developed in the process. We can't develop these methods if we are
not engaging space exploration.

B. It think it's a bit of a leap in logic to say that increasing the space program
will potentially exterminate the human race based on the hunch that life could be
on Mars because it has ice. The fact remains that we haven't found life on Mars.
There's definitely no risk to us [at the very least] to send rovers there to find
out.

C. As I said in A, advancement in our methods will come from partaking in space

flight research and development. Decreased funding has America sending non-manned
vehicles into space, in the future we will be relying on other countries such as
Russia to get people to and from the Space Station.

On defense of my case:

1. Inspiration

The debate as to what is the cause of America's lack of zeal for education and
knowledge is a completely different topic. My original statement was about the
influence the program had on people who became scientists or engineers, regardless
if they eventually worked at NASA or not. I don't believe that simply because
people or times were "simple" back then was the reason the moon landing "wowed"
them. It was because it had never been done before, and it proved to the world what
America was capable of beyond War[Or in a sense, capable of with War]. One thing
that wasn't around at the time of Apollo was an unhealthy amount of "pop-culture"
which seems to have a very dominating effect on youth at the present, which seems
to take precedence over scientific and educational interests.

2. Knowledge

I would have to disagree with you said in your first attack, "The reason is because
all the youth don't care about anything." Youth cares a lot about musical artists,
pop-culture media, fads, ect. Yet this happens because from a young age the
priority has shifted over the decades. In the late 60's the children had basic
toys, chores, schooling, and the events of the Apollo era. Now, with that minus
Apollo, they have access to Miley Cyrus, smart-phones, and the Internet. These new
aspects of the modern-era are distorting priorities and, in essence, training youth
not to care about scientific undertakings of many kinds. These aspects are
unavoidable of course, however we can control how children obtain access to them. I
believe the means and methods by which children are accessing those aspects these
days are having detrimental effects on our society.

3. Technology and Advancement

There's no way one can say that we have received the best we will get from the
space program. The economical/technological benefits are unforeseeable, as are many
that come with new scientific discovery. New technology, and technological
refinement are what the space program has proven to provide over the past several
decades. [I re-invite readers to visit my [3] source in round 3, point 3] Why
"burn" this bridge? The space program has a strong influence on any technology
that's involved with it.

4. Cost and Payoff

If we pretend for a moment that we upped our space program funding while continuing
to make the same economical decisions, then it's easy to see how America would
continue to go into debt. However that's not what I'm saying. What I was saying is
that it is in fact possible to maintain or increase the amount of funding for space
research and development while reworking the other aspects of the budget that are
causing America to go into debt. I'm not saying that we forget about our debt, but
that our debt is manageable while keeping and advancing our space program. This
doesn't mean that educational programs would be subjected to cutting. There are
many other aspects to the budget that can be reworked, and reconsidered without
singling the space program out.

My initial fourth point was that space research doesn't receive as much funding as
many people think, and I believe that I have demonstrated just that. When one
considers how much money NASA receives relative to the national budget it's hard to
make the case that space research is the cause, or the potential cause for the debt
of the nation given the benefits I have mentioned throughout the course of this
debate. I don't think I have contradicted my points by stating that other aspects
of the budget could be targeted. Yes, education is one of them, yet that doesn't
mean I'm referring to that aspect specifically.

Closing Remarks:

I've based my arguments on solid facts, credible evidence, and critical thinking.
However my opponent seems to have based much of his arguments on speculation,
generalization, and exclusion of the "big picture" so to speak.

The figurative and literal prices we pay undertaking such ventures are not small.
However, as I've discussed, we have many technologies, knowledge, and advancements
thanks to the space program. It's easy at face value to see amount of money we
spend on such ventures as intimidating numbers. However one needs only to look at
the amount relative to the total national budget to see that we don't necessarily
spend very much on space as it is. Knowing what the space program has given to us
in the past, there's plenty of reason to see that it will provide many exciting
discoveries and technologies into our future. If we should decide that discovery is
no longer important, then we lose not just what makes us American, but human. Space
exploration provides a motivational boost to many people, and the few that it
touches the deepest become very productive scientists and engineers who help
discover the technology that benefits mankind. The knowledge we obtain from space
research helps us understand our place in the Universe, and make scientific
discoveries that motivate more questions and technologies that make life for humans
easier. This is indeed an avenue worth expanding upon.

I thank my opponent and everyone who took their time to read this debate.

I shall ask only once, please vote pro!