Choose

My opponent drops the claim; whoever controls space controls the battlefield. Which is another reason to keep the space program alive, for the military? 1. Cataclysmic Events My opponent has two rebuttals: a)Type 1 v type 2 civilizations Besides the fact my opponent has not actually explained what they were, how will this help humanity? The events I described are outside of human control. If Yellowstone decides to erupt nothing mankind can do will stop it. If earth's magnetic poles shift, nothing mankind can do will stop that. b)Sending man to another planet will take millions of years My opponent has not backed this up whereas I have shown NASA had the technological capabilities to send people to mars (another planet), as of 2009. 2. Economics a)Ending hurts the advancement of technology NASA's space program represents 35% of all academic scientific research in the USA. My opponent has dropped this point. b)Ending hurts the economy My opponent has dropped my argument about Florida, which is not based upon a NASA website. My opponents claims NASA lied. But, simply providing an unsubstantiated claim is not proof. They have not proven NASA lied; therefore, their rebuttal is irrelevant. c)Keeping helps the economy by creating technology My opponents sole rebuttal is "THIS DEBATE IS ONLY ABOUT THE JUSTIFICATION OF SPACE EXPLORATION. It doesn't matter about their inventions and scientific patents. " But, here is the thing, space exploration directly led to these patents. Therefore, it is because of space exploration that these technologies exist. These technologies have allowed companies such as Microsoft and Apple to exist. Unless my opponent wishes to argue Microsoft is bad for the United States economy, space exploration has directly led to the creation of Microsoft. Patents arising from technology needed to explore space are entirely relevant within this debate. Under my opponents logic, all arguments that do not directly pertain to space exploration are invalid, so therefore, my opponents entire case is invalid, as it is based solely upon economics which does not directly pertain to Space exploration, while I still have a few contentions not relating to economics. According to my opponent, NASA's economic influence is irrelevant within this debate therefore, conceding their entire case. d)Costs of Space Exploration NASA's budget is a minute percentage of the United States National Budget. At its peak it only represented about 1% of the US Budget. Overall, over its many years, it has spent 400 billion dollars, less than the Department of Defense's Budget for 2009, but, has created so many scientific innovations which affect and sustain the United States economy. The economic cost of space travel is far outweighed by the economic gain. "For every 1 dollar spent on the space program, the United States government makes 8 dollars". How is this bad? 3. Issues in world (my opponent has not provided any more issues so I'll just use the ones from last round) a)War This will not be solved by ending the space program. This was dropped by my opponent. b)Poverty I addressed this above. Cross-apply my logic here c)Over-population Solved with more area, why not another planet? This was dropped by my opponent. d)Limited Resources "NASA has the most scientific patents of any organization in the world. To use resources in an economical manner you need scientific innovation. The United Stated should invest MORE money into NASA to allow it to patent technological innovations in this field. They have the most patents. You see these inventions every day. The money and jobs created by these inventions is exponential. " This entire argument was dropped by my opponent.