THBT space exploration should be pursued by private companies rather than governments.

Thank you to missmozart and biodome for an excellent debate.I'd like to make a note to the voters that both sides agreed to a slight altering of the format, and so the posting of case defeense by Con in the previous round was allowed. Con has also allowed TN05 and I to post new arguments in the final round as defense, as they will be the last ones to post and can provide short responses to our arguments. Neither side, however, will be providing entirely new rebuttals in this time.I'd also like to apologize for the formatting errors with regards to bolded, underlined, or italicized words in the last round. When copying and pasting TN05's parts of the rebuttal I did not account for the formatting and forgot to fix it.On one final note, missmozart brought it to our attention that our links weren't working well in the previous rounds. For example, if it was an article on the NASA site it'd link to the NASA homepage rather than the specific article. We have remedied this and all the appropriate sources are in the comments section. With that, we'll get down to business.CASE DEFENSEPoliticsDon't let Con fool you. Just because NASA gained funding doesn't mean that they will become more effective. This is a hypothetical impact that should not be weighed in this round. NASA's budget has hovered around the 19 billion mark for years, [1] this new budget won't help. If 18 billion dollars wasn't enough, there is no reason to believe that the extra 1.3 billion will make the difference. In fact, the budget proposed for next year actuallly cuts funding, specifically for deep-space exploration."The 2017 budget proposal would slash funding to the very programs designed to expand the frontiers of human knowledge and aimed at propelling humans outward to the red planet and robots to a Jovian moon that might be conducive to the formation of life. Absent sufficient and reliable funding to keep NASA’s exploration endeavors on track, further launch delays are almost certainly inevitable – thereby fraying American leadership in space and science." [2] So indeed, though on the surface Con's point may seem strong, when you explore deeper, it becomes evident that it is not what it seems, and that the US leadership in universal exploration will decay with NASA at the helm. Therefore, though or source is from 2006, its words still ring true today. Taxpayer Taste Aversion Since our opponents used the same attacks on this point, attacks that have been negated, this point also stands. "Private agencies are more concentrated and interested in profit and competition rather than being conscious of risks and carrying out every step carefully." Here Con fundamentally misunderstands privatization. The end goal is often profit. True. However, this forces innovation and carefulness. SpaceX and other similar firms will do whatever they can to make sure projects are successful, otherwise they will not make money. Public agencies are able to be more wasteful in their spending by this token. Private firms are integral for exploration Con's major argument here was that NASA's budget has increased, and that the SpaceX Falcon Heavy (FH) and NASA's SLS are essentially equivalent. With regards to funding, I have already proven that A. This does not necessarily mean NASA will improve and B. That the budget for next year specifically for deep space exploration has been cut. Furthermore, if you read the concluson in Con's own source it is clear that for most missions, the FH will be the superior vessel, and is still on a slightly faster track than the SLS. [3] The fact that the USFG already outsources massive amounts of work in this field to private firms went completely unrefuted. Keep this in mind when voting. NASA ineffective Con essentially ignores both of our examples of NASA wasting billions of dollars, brushing them aside by saying it was a result of inadequate funding. I'll get to why that doesn't make sense in a moment, but first please remember increased funding won't help considering the NASA budget has been around the same amount for years, the budget increase is irrelevant. What's important is the decrease in funding for deep-space exploration that is expected in 2017. We specifically stated that the IT debacle was a result of poor governance and ineffective leadership within NASA. This is not the kind of problem you can just throw money at and make it go away. Though in NASA's case, they may try throwing that money away anyway. The satellite example is also one that can't just be fixed with more capital on hand. Just because you have an extra $1.3 billion dollars doesn't mean you're going to remember to keep all units either metric or US Customary. VOTING ISSUES We urge voters to keep in mind these major points in the round when making their final decision. We'll start with a condensed version of Con's constructive. 1. Efficiency We have proven NASA is ineffective and will remain ineffective despite the short term budget increase, while the private sector would be much less wasteful. SpaceX's track to Mars is slightly faster than NASA's, and Con's source proved that the SpaceX FH is going to be the vehicle used for most missions. Con's own source is telling you to vote Pro. The government is also working to expand the private sector's role in future space exploration, proving the value in this premise. 2. Privacy We proved that Con's argument here was misleading, their only example being nuclear rockets aka nuclear-powered shuttles, not nuclear missiles. Con dropped this issue and it's too late to bring up a new argument. There is literally no issue of national security in this debate. Therefore, Con has literally no offense in this debate. Now we'll review the condensed version of the Pro points that still stand. 1. Public entities face unique challenges Private entities are not subject to political strife, nor are they responsible to the general public. 2. Private agencies are important and will continue to be The government's efforts to subsidize the private sector by outsourcing work traditionally handeld by NASA proves that the private sector is on the rise and should soon overtake its public counterpart. Private companies have a unique interest in efficiency, innovation, and are therefore a more effective investment. We have proven the SpaceX FH will be more important for further exploration than NASA's SLS and will still be finished earlier, despite delays. For these reasons we urge a vote in affirmation. Brief note: Con said "most" of our sources are outdated (2000-2010) however this is not the case. Of the 11 sources used in rounds 2 and 3, 2 were Wikipedia articles for general background information, 7 were from 2011 on, most of those being 2014-2016. In this round all of our sources are from 2015-2016. Do not buy this straw man argument. Thank you to Con for an excellent debate, and regardless of whether your next debate is in the winner or loser's bracket, we wish you luck in that matchup. Vote Pro! [1] http://www.debate.org...[2] http://www.universetoday.com...#[3] http://www.thespacereview.com...