Space Exploration: Private Sector Investment vs Public Sector Investment

Good Luck! I would like to start by making a few points here. First I'd like to point out that my opponent did not make a case/contentions so he hasn't really explained why private sector investment is better. Next, I'd like to go over a few of his rebuttals: He says that defense is not related to the resolution at all, but this is simply not true. Research that NASA has conducted in space and the technology it develops is used in military applications, so space exploration is related to defense. We are looking at which is preferable so which investment effects a countries well being is important. . http://www.nasa.gov... . http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov... He agrees that losing NASA would hurt the U. S. defense, but he says we wouldn't defund NASA, we would just use private funds. This does not make much sense. Is he suggesting that private companies would fund NASA? Private sector would invest into their own companies investments and they would seek to make a profit. NASA would then be eliminated, which would hurt our defense. Next, to the private companies selling technology to other countries. If NASA were to be eliminated, they would sell this technology to other if they got a good share of money, because private companies mainly care about profit. Private companies have no allegiance to any country so it is not treason to the U. S. On the next point about safety, he says that Private companies are safer. But again read my quote, As both MIT and NASA Chief Ron Dittemore have said, "an overemphasis on profit can bias decisions, resulting in Program weakness with reduction of critical skills and erosion of checks and Balances. " I think that my opponent can agree that the main general goal of a private company is to make a profit. It has been shown throughout history that private companies are notorious of cutting corners. Take for example BP and the deep horizon oil spill. They cut corners, did not go through proper safety procedures, and a disaster occurred. My opponent says the topic is not U. S. specific. I guess he is pointing this out for my 1st and third contention. What we must look at in this resolution is what each individual country wants and is preferable to them. Each individual country wants a good job economy and good defense. There is no world economy or world government, so it is not plausible to think this way. Next, we we talk about jobs. He says we would gain more jobs. But again, we must look at how privatizing would affect America. NASA would hire domestic employees and have jobs kept here. Because Private companies care more about profit they would hire cheaper overseas engineers and employees. This is definetly not good for America. My opponent claims jobs would be created with privitization. But again according the MIT and Space review, there would be a ball park of 1 million jobs lost with privitization. This outweighs whatever his figures are. Lastly, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, we need to talk about funding. In the resolution we are comparing private sector investment and public sector investment. I am defining investment as putting capital/money into a program. Most Private space companies are being funded by NASA such as Space X. According to MIT and Space Review, 99 percent of space companies funds are coming from NASA. Because NASA is funding mainly all projects of private companies, no matter how successful they are, this is PUBLIC SECTOR investment.