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

We will dedicate this round to defence and a summary of our main arguments throughout the debate. CASE DEFENSE: Politics "Don't let Con fool you. Just because NASA gained funding doesn't mean that they will become more effective. " We agree, more funding does not equal more effectiveness. HOWEVER, that has proven to be the case with NASA in the past. As we can see from our opponents' graph (Round 4, source labelled 1), it was in the 1960s where NASA's funds were the greatest. That is not a coincidence that that was also when the first man landed on the moon. The early 1990s brought another increase which was also around the time the highly successful Magellan mission to Venus began [1]. It is not an unknown fact that NASA had been struggling with lack of funding from the government in the past decade but the recent increases has already helped NASA to get back on its feet. "In fact, the budget proposed for next year actuallly cuts funding, specifically for deep-space exploration (. .. ) 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" This is where our opponents are wrong- again. NASA's budget for 2017 is actually 19.5 billion dollars, which will be an increase [2]. A house appropriation bill was released on 17 May 2016, confirming that amount. Pro's source was from February while ours was from May, the exact same date the bill was released in fact. Therefore, while three months isn't a lot, the misleading information from Pro's source makes it outdated and therefore unreliable. "If 18 billion dollars wasn't enough, there is no reason to believe that the extra 1.3 billion will make the difference. " The extra 1.3 billion this year (2016) has ALREADY proven to vehemently help NASA. We've already given examples in the previous round but nevertheless, we'll add to that. Among the exciting things NASA has achieved this year because of the increase in funds, recent ones include the OSIRIS-REx launches to asteroid [3] and the discoveries of the Kepler Telescope [4]. Extra funding DOES make a difference. Taxpayer Taste Aversion "Con fundamentally misunderstands privatization. The end goal is often profit. True. However, this forces innovation and carefulness. " Not exactly. As we have already explained in our example from Round 3, SpaceX rushed into their plans for Mars and as a result, made a technical error which delayed everything for at least a few years. This rush was due to their goal- profit as you yourselves have admitted. Therefore, profit does not force agencies to be more careful and innovative, but in fact, can cause them to make mistakes. "Public agencies are able to be more wasteful in their spending by this token. " Government funding largely depends on the productivity of the past years. For example, if a public agency performed poorly overall in one year, their funds would decrease in the next. Therefore, public agencies cannot be freer in their spending, just like the private sector. I don't think this particular point differentiates public and private sectors to be honest. Private firms are integral for exploration "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. " We are not denying the fact that the Falcon Heavy is still slightly ahead of the SLS. However, only about two years ago, people believed that SpaceX would reach Mars about a decade or more before NASA. Now because of SpaceX's totally unanticipated error and delay of the launch as a result, the gap between the two companies is decreasing immensely. It is estimated that both NASA and SpaceX will be on similar tracks regarding the date of their first launch. There is still a lot of time before the goal of reaching Mars, who knows what could happen next? NASA is ineffective (? ?) "The satellite example is also one that can't just be fixed with more capital on hand. " That satellite example happened well over a decade ago. Besides, we can't say that SpaceX is completely effective either based on their first launch of the Falcon Heavy which proved to be a complete failure. There's not much to rebut ion this section as it has been done already above. We will be referring to one or two things in our summary of points however. "Con said "most" of our sources are outdated (2000-2010) however this is not the case (. .. ) Do not buy this straw man argument. " The date of your sources isn't the problem, it's the false information your sources give because of the fact that they no longer support your claims. We have managed to successfully refute a lot of your points in this debate simply by providing good counter-sources which are more recent and updated than yours. Brief summary of points and rebuttals 1. This is by far, the most important point in the entire debate. Private agencies are more suitable for space explorations and long-term projects in particular because they focus more on the overall benefit to society rather than profit. A prominent example is the revolutionary JWST, a project that no private company would have bothered to take on, as the affirmative even admits. 2. NASA has become more effective and efficient than ever due to the increase in funding this year (2016) AND next year (2017). Let us remind you that Pro's claim that NASA will have a decrease in funds is completely untrue and absurd to even think of. 3. While private agencies have to be careful with their spending, so do public agencies equally. 4. A lot of private agencies have required funding. This only proves that space exploration in general need government funding. 5. NASA is not that far off behind SpaceX regarding the journey to Mars. Although they are still slightly behind, compared to what it was only two years ago, NASA has improved considerably and SpaceX has fallen behind. If this continues, I wouldn't be surprised if NASA finished first, just like their journey to the Moon. Conclusion It is clear that space exploration should be pursued by the government for all the reasons above. The benefits of public funding outweighs the benefits of privatised organisations. Furthermore, a lot of Pro's claims throughout the debate (such as decreased funding, NASA's inability to carry out missions etc) are false due to their use of unfortunately outdated sources. We have proven and refuted these with much better counter-sources. We have to end it here as we are out of characters. Thank you for reading. Vote Con! I'd like to thank our opponents warren42 and TN05 for a wonderful debate. I've definitely learnt a lot. Good luck and may the best team win :) Citations: [1] . http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov... [2] . http://spacenews.com... [3] . http://www.livescience.com... [4] . http://www.nasa.gov...