DEBATE.ORG CLASSIC: SEMI FINALS: Logical-Master vs Darth Grievous

RESOLVED: The cost of the NASA program is worth the cost to support it. Greetings ladies and gentleman. In today's case, I shall be demonstrating how the cost of the NASA program is worth the cost to support it. I would also like to thank those who are reading this debate and would advise that they only make their judgments after reading this debate in its entirety. With that said, let us proceed . . . RESOLVED: The cost of the NASA program is worth the cost to support it. Have it thee, Sir Grievous. Let this be a good one. CONTENTION #1: Due to investment in NASA, the US has made many life changing contributions in the past. We have NASA to thank for our satellites (at very least, the people who paved the way for NASA), artificial limb technology, the heart pump, video enhancing and analysis, solar panels, anti icing systems, safer runaways and roads, wireless electrical switches, liquid metal, better radial tires, fire fighter gear, tools used for car crash rescues, cleaner water, better baby food, better computer software, safer rail roads, less jet lag, cleaner oceans, etc. I'm not going to list every invention/improvement, but you can find a list of the items I've discussed through both of my below sources: http://space.about.com... (in fact, there have been over 1400 contributions which NASA has made in improving our society since its original debut far less than a century ago). http://www.cleveland.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... In addition to the above, you'll find that the above links dictate has NASA has most beneficial when it has concerned fixing various environmental problems (ozone depletion is a good example) Furthermore, we've learned a great deal of information concerning the universe thanks to research towards NASA (we've learned more about the other planets, we've learned that there are no aliens, we've learned more about stars, black holes, quasars, you name it! Research towards NASA has not only provided us with life changing utilities, but with life changing scientific information as well. Why should we put a halt to our feast upon knowledge? Given all of the above feats performed by NASA, how is funding not worth the time and effort? How is it not worth the cost? I challenge the contender to show how even with NASA's contributions, it is still not worth funding. CONTENTION #2: Investment into NASA can be used as a non homicidal means of combating global problems. So now that we've covered NASA's feats and have reason to believe that NASA is more than capable of pulling its own weight when it comes to contributing the benefiting our nation, the next and most obvious direction of this discussion is this: "Given that we know NASA is more than capable of being an effective program, how can that further be used to our advantage in the future?" The answer to this question is rather simple. For quite some time, problems such as Global Warming and Overpopulation have been becoming a serious issue; an issue which we humans might not be able to deal with while remaining on earth. In addition, our species could very well end up like the dinosaurs. Thus, it would be most reasonable for our space and aeronautics program to place efforts towards colonizing in space, other planets or even our moon. If this were successful, global problems wouldn't be nearly as much as an issue given that our species could simply migrate elsewhere if our problems grew beyond our reach (as suggested earlier, we'd have a better chance than the dinosaurs did if we had more freedom). CONTENTION #3: The NASA program is simply research that concerns space and aeronautics at its core. In spite of the fact that NASA takes up no more than less than 1% of the US budget(17 billion during the year of 2007: http://www.thespacereview.com... ) I'm most certain that the contenders case will concern the US having other priorities to deal with on earth that do not concern NASA. If that be the case, an argument such as this will by no means be sufficient to affirm the contenders stance (to eliminate NASA entirely). Rather, we could simply lower NASA's portion of the US budget for the time being (so that research could still continue). Thus, taking this into account, CON's goal will be to establish why research into space and aeronautics is not worth the cost REGARDLESS of how much is invested towards it. However, given the evidence brought up in the first contentions (the MANY life changing benefits NASA has brought to the table), this task would seem impossible for the contender to fulfill. Thus, for a brief overview of my case, I've covered how NASA has greatly benefited us in the past, have covered how it can astronomically benefit us in the future and have shown how CON will have a difficult time successfully arguing in this debate given the inherent flaw in urging that space and aeronautics research is not worth the cost no matter how much is invested towards it. For these reasons, I strongly affirm the resolution and now stand ready for my opponent's case. PS: Some of these arguments may need some heavy elaboration depending on the my opponent's rebuttal. We'll see in R2.