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

Distinguished members of the audience, I would like for you to pay special attention the following clarification made by none other than my opponent: "Fist off before I discuss LM's three contentions, I'd like to clarify what NASA stands for: the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Meaning that its main purpose in existence should be the study of the sky, space, and flight." Keep this in mind as this clarification shall no doubt be the contender's undoing. 1) a) My opponent responds to the lengthy list of contributions I cited by pointing out that although they were all massively helpful, many of them had little to do with NASA's main purpose. However, if you would be so kind as to take a gander back towards my first round, you shall note that I've made mention of the PLETHORA of scientific knowledge concerning the sky, space and flight of which NASA has contributed to man kind. Given that to be the case, my opponent has no business making statements such as "NASA isn't doing their jobs" when they are doing PRECISELY what he stated was their purpose. Thus, being that this is the case, we have all the more reason to support NASA as not only is NASA doing their jobs in studying the matters which he agreed they should study, but there have also been many benefits that have come from their better understanding of the sky, space and flight Now if CON means to suggest that there have been no scientific improvements in matters which concern sky, space and flight, then I cannot help but point out the improvements (as can be seen in my articles) which demonstrate NASA's proficiency in regards to space travel as well as airplane/jet travel. Furthermore, we must keep in mind consistent contributions to technology which concerns the sky such as more reliable weather predictions:http://nasascience.nasa.gov... Furthermore, regardless of whether or not it is arguable that most of NASA's inventions do not actually concern improving its purpose (which actually, they do . . . given that most of the inventions were developed originally to make space travel more efficient), the fact of the matter is that through the increased scientific understanding of space and aeronautics, such inventions were possible. To suggest that we abandon NASA and simply push towards such inventors corp is rather absurd as it was the practices of NASA which enabled these devices in the first place. b) Next, the contender resorts to a desperate maneuver in order to discredit NASA by citing a laundry list space experiment failures which have occurred over the years. However, if you pay close attention to his source, you'll note that not all of those belong to NASA as it considers the failures from ALL the countries who have considered space operations. Although if we really are taking all spaceflights into consideration, then as noted by this graph here, the success rate is quite high: http://en.wikipedia.org.... Hence, not only is it revealed that CON"s "space travel results most commonly in death" statement is nothing more than an outright false statement . . . but if anything, CON has merely provided me the opportunity to strengthen my position. In addition to PRO's description of space flights being dead wrong, there is another matter which he has misconstrued and that is the principle of "Trial and Error." No c) CON gives us no reason to consider the notion that NASA is too hazardous to mankind and the environment, so please dismiss this comment of his until he does otherwise. d) PRO cites a website which demonstrates how it requires "tons of fuel" to launch stuff into space. His concern is that our fuel resource is precious. Given all the conflict which concerns oil at the moment, I would agree that our fuel source is precious, but not enough reason to eliminate NASA. If fuel truly is the problem, the solution is simply to cut back on manned/unmanned space explorations until we are able to make use of an alternative yet more efficient energy resources (if CON denies this, I'll go into more detail in the next round). Given that we are nearly at the brink of using up all of our oil resources (http://divorceinfo.com...), we shall need be needing a new resource regardless, hence all the more reason to follow my suggestion which manages to sacrifice nothing (hence more efficient than the suggestion of the contender) 2) CON starts off by clarifying that the dinosaurs were not downfallen by themselves, however, nowhere in my previous round did I instigate such a notion. Rather, my point was exactly what CON insist; the dinosaurs were eliminated by something totally out of their claws. This is exactly the problem with humans attempting to deter space research. If we merely remain content with all of what goes on through our own planet, we will end up just like the dinosaurs; we will be like a deer at the headlights . . . completely stationary as the moving vehicle moves in for the kill. Furthermore, CON suggest that we should try fixing our world before we run away from it, yet if you read my first round, that is precisely what I've insisted. However, I've gone one step further than PRO and have asked "What if we cannot?" The asteroid example in particular is something we wouldn't be able to deal with without thorough space/aeronautics research. When comparing our answers to solving the earth's problem, they are quite similar . . . however, my answer is superior given that it allows humans more options. To reiterate what I stated in the previous round, "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." Thus, essentially, CON has yet to even rebut my position. 3) a) Indeed, 17.6 billion is a lot of money (though still, far less than what the US is capable of). Fortunately, that mountain of cash is put to good use as can be shown by the many benefits that have come from research towards space and aeronautics. b) Once more, PRO has done nothing to demonstrate that NASA's existence is a hazard. At most, he has managed to prove that NASA isn't perfect (through listing the minute amount of failures space travel PERIOD has had over the years, but by that logic [or lack of rather], we may as well dismiss any study/research which had its fair share of failures. In other words, given that trial AND error is an integral part of study/research, we may as well dismiss ALL scientific study/research if we wish to appease the stance of the contender). c) Again, to reemphasize my initial rebuttal, we must keep in mind that it was the research into space/aeornautics that allowed our society more scientific capabilities. The more we understand, the more we are able to create, hence why we have that plethora of inventions from NASA. Hence, the claim that the current research is only good for tea party conversation is beyond absurdity. Thus, that'll do it for now. I now await CON's second rebuttal.