Resolved: The United States Federal government should mine asteroids.

Rebuttals "Contention 1: Funding NASA" - The Orin spacecraft is designed to take astronauts into deep space and to other planets, not mine asteroids. Those are two completely different functions. "My opponent says that the US federal government cannot fund NASA, but may I remind you that I stated in my Round two opening argument that the money will be reallocated so as to not create more spending and add to our large deficet. " - I just posted a link to a recent news article saying how NASA can't even afford to launch their rockets. Where are we going to get the trillions it is going to take to research and develop, launch, bring back and process this material. Yes the tech is within our reach but it is not developed and ready to go tomorrow. From where are we going to "reallocate" these funds? Welfare is taking us down, we spend most of our money on defense and even that is being cut back by a lot. We have a terrible education system, debt is everywhere both federally and locally. Are you going to take what little money is left there and focus it all on one program that may or may not work? Because that is what you would have to do to have anywhere near enough funding for the years it will take to make it happen. Not only would that collapse practically the entire country but it will provide the perfect opening for China or anyone else to fill the empty space we used to have. You would have a higher chance for war then than now. Private space companies are the key to outer space and even NASA knows this and the incentive for private companies is already there. . http://www.space.com... - I have already pointed out how the Orion is not a mining vessel so my opponents argument about legality is irrelevant. - My opponent clearly ignored and dropped my points about the Railroads and Panama Canal. Yes the government provided incentive we already established that. But the government contracted the work out the federal government themselves did not build either. My opponent uses examples of the power of private companies not the government. Like I said before there is a difference between providing incentive and actually building it yourself. My opponent also clearly dropped my point about the X Prizes and has simply ignored what I have said and argued around my evidence. Mt opponent continuously uses the terms intervening and kick-starting. The motion is "Resolved: The United States Federal government should mine asteroids. " not the United States Federal government should provide incentive to mine asteroids. Those are two very different motions. "Contention 2: Why we need it. " - How have I dropped your argument? Just because private companies would be better to mine asteroids it doesn't mean we don't need to mine them. This argument doesn't support either case as we both have already agreed on it. The argument isn't if we need to do it is how we should do it. "Contention 3: China War" -Once again how have I dropped this argument? You say that the global economy would be wrecked. Well actually it wouldn't until a war broke out. I have already provided very realistic evidence as to how the federal government mining asteroids could backfire and collapse our economy in turn collapsing the global economy. Plus we won't be the only nation mining asteroids. My opponent uses China as a reason the federal government should mine, but then turns around and says that everything that the US mines would be shared. If you share it gets shared with everyone. Both allies and rivals alike. How is boosting our rivals economy helping America or national security may I ask? International space law prohibits national claims in space but not private ones. Plus there would be national transgressions in space which guess where that leads? You guessed it, war. My opponent is making conflicting arguments therefore this contention is void. "Contention 4: US Deficet" - Once again with the dropping your arguments. Once again where are we going to reallocate these resources from? Our other very large problems just don't go away because we need space metals. My opponent also claims there will be no new spending. Well if that is true you have just sucked most everything dry to support this government enterprise that may or may not work. Not to mention that because there would be no new spending most programs would go bankrupt and collapse therefore collapsing our economy etc etc. Really? Our economy is fueled by enterprise. Private organizations are the only realistic and best way to mine asteroids. "Contention 5: US Economy" - My opponent continuously drops most every point I make and then accuses me of dropping his. I will give this to my opponent, the government being in control won't necessarily mean the market gets flooded. But the same applies to private corporations. American business could control the global market just as much if not more than the federal government. They do it all the time. How did I drop your point about making a trillion dollar industry? How about we highlight the term [INDUSTRY]. That has business written all over it. Industry literally means business. Businesses have more capability of creating jobs than the government. The reason our economy went into the toilet is because there were no jobs because BUSINESSES were shutting down. Business is the American economy. Not only does this contention contradict my opponents position but my opponent completely dropped every point I made about enterprise and our economy. "Contention 6: Legality" - Once again my opponent ignored my response I gave regarding this argument. The very source he used even stated that the definition of celestial body was not clear. There was no definitive within the article. The article was pondering whether or not asteroids should be considered a celestial body but the article never gave a clear yes or no. So your argument is an assertion. I have already covered his arguments about "Reaganomics" and this argument creates a contradicting argument and this contention should be considered void. -Let me quote words from my opponents own mouth. "I do not care if private companies have the green light the debate is about the United States Federal Government mining asteroids not private companies" - Well apparently, you are arguing that the government should mine the asteroids, I am arguing that private companies should mine the asteroids. Your point? All this shows is that you have a bias against everything I say which since you have simply ignored every argument I have made this shows. And no saying I dropped your arguments is not a rebuttal. My opponent doesn't even prove how I dropped his points besides simply saying I dropped them. -A lot of what my opponent argues is either wrong or wishful thinking. Most if not all my opponents sources either don't support either side or support and mention private corporations. Even within my opponents own arguments private corporations play a big role. Also the treaty my opponent mentions has nothing to do with national claims. It had to do with claims made by private corporations and no one signed on so private corporations have a green. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOESN'T. Most of my opponents arguments are either contradicting or irrelevant. He has conceded multiple times to the need of private corporations. Despite my opponents claims I have not dropped any of his main points, the only formal rebuttal he gave my arguments is that they aren't arguments therefore I dropped his points. Really? I have provided more than adequate evidence to why the federal government mining asteroids ( That is what we are arguing) would be a bad idea and instead we need to encourage and push private companies to set up shop. My opponents failure to truly rebut even one of my arguments should mean a default win for me, but based on evidence I have shown why this motion is a bad one.