The U.S. Federal Government should increase its exploration and/or development of space

On my opponents case: 1. World Peace One can say the same thing about anything being stolen or hijacked, and used for terrorism. I doubt terrorists would make much progress[or be very successful] in hacking satellites, let alone hijacking a space vessel which requires the extensive training, inspection, and the "okay" from many people to launch. I'm not saying that it couldn't happen, yet procedures and precautions would develop over time to ensure this would not happen. Again though, America will be the target of terrorism regardless of whether we do space or not. We shouldn't cease it[space] because of such, it wouldn't make sense if we abandoned air flight because people could use airplanes against us. I refer to the quote my opponent used in round 4, other nations are developing their space programs, so simply because America ceases space development doesn't mean other nations will stop, or that it would somehow protect America from space related terrorists attacks. 2. Debt and Money The recovery from debt doesn't lie in cutting what programs that don't appear to produce immediate benefits, it relies on undoing the problems that put America in debt. The amount of money NASA receives is so modest that increasing it slightly would open the door for bigger projects and still take a near meaningless amount of the budget. [See my point 4 in argument 2] There are many aspects of our budget we could look at and clip to begin pushing our debt amount in a positive direction before having to cut up the space program. 3. Various Dangers A. The point I was making was that regardless if help was available or not, they put their lives on the line, they were all in great danger at some point or another. The space endeavor is no different in that respect. I must repeat, we should not shy away from the forefront of discovery, especially when we have people willing to risk their lives to aid the advancement of the human endeavor. The safer methods would be developed in the process. We can't develop these methods if we are not engaging space exploration. B. It think it's a bit of a leap in logic to say that increasing the space program will potentially exterminate the human race based on the hunch that life could be on Mars because it has ice. The fact remains that we haven't found life on Mars. There's definitely no risk to us [at the very least] to send rovers there to find out. C. As I said in A, advancement in our methods will come from partaking in space flight research and development. Decreased funding has America sending non-manned vehicles into space, in the future we will be relying on other countries such as Russia to get people to and from the Space Station. On defense of my case: 1. Inspiration The debate as to what is the cause of America's lack of zeal for education and knowledge is a completely different topic. My original statement was about the influence the program had on people who became scientists or engineers, regardless if they eventually worked at NASA or not. I don't believe that simply because people or times were "simple" back then was the reason the moon landing "wowed" them. It was because it had never been done before, and it proved to the world what America was capable of beyond War[Or in a sense, capable of with War]. One thing that wasn't around at the time of Apollo was an unhealthy amount of "pop-culture" which seems to have a very dominating effect on youth at the present, which seems to take precedence over scientific and educational interests. 2. Knowledge I would have to disagree with you said in your first attack, "The reason is because all the youth don't care about anything. " Youth cares a lot about musical artists, pop-culture media, fads, ect. Yet this happens because from a young age the priority has shifted over the decades. In the late 60's the children had basic toys, chores, schooling, and the events of the Apollo era. Now, with that minus Apollo, they have access to Miley Cyrus, smart-phones, and the Internet. These new aspects of the modern-era are distorting priorities and, in essence, training youth not to care about scientific undertakings of many kinds. These aspects are unavoidable of course, however we can control how children obtain access to them. I believe the means and methods by which children are accessing those aspects these days are having detrimental effects on our society. 3. Technology and Advancement There's no way one can say that we have received the best we will get from the space program. The economical/technological benefits are unforeseeable, as are many that come with new scientific discovery. New technology, and technological refinement are what the space program has proven to provide over the past several decades. [I re-invite readers to visit my [3] source in round 3, point 3] Why "burn" this bridge? The space program has a strong influence on any technology that's involved with it. 4. Cost and Payoff If we pretend for a moment that we upped our space program funding while continuing to make the same economical decisions, then it's easy to see how America would continue to go into debt. However that's not what I'm saying. What I was saying is that it is in fact possible to maintain or increase the amount of funding for space research and development while reworking the other aspects of the budget that are causing America to go into debt. I'm not saying that we forget about our debt, but that our debt is manageable while keeping and advancing our space program. This doesn't mean that educational programs would be subjected to cutting. There are many other aspects to the budget that can be reworked, and reconsidered without singling the space program out. My initial fourth point was that space research doesn't receive as much funding as many people think, and I believe that I have demonstrated just that. When one considers how much money NASA receives relative to the national budget it's hard to make the case that space research is the cause, or the potential cause for the debt of the nation given the benefits I have mentioned throughout the course of this debate. I don't think I have contradicted my points by stating that other aspects of the budget could be targeted. Yes, education is one of them, yet that doesn't mean I'm referring to that aspect specifically. Closing Remarks: I've based my arguments on solid facts, credible evidence, and critical thinking. However my opponent seems to have based much of his arguments on speculation, generalization, and exclusion of the "big picture" so to speak. The figurative and literal prices we pay undertaking such ventures are not small. However, as I've discussed, we have many technologies, knowledge, and advancements thanks to the space program. It's easy at face value to see amount of money we spend on such ventures as intimidating numbers. However one needs only to look at the amount relative to the total national budget to see that we don't necessarily spend very much on space as it is. Knowing what the space program has given to us in the past, there's plenty of reason to see that it will provide many exciting discoveries and technologies into our future. If we should decide that discovery is no longer important, then we lose not just what makes us American, but human. Space exploration provides a motivational boost to many people, and the few that it touches the deepest become very productive scientists and engineers who help discover the technology that benefits mankind. The knowledge we obtain from space research helps us understand our place in the Universe, and make scientific discoveries that motivate more questions and technologies that make life for humans easier. This is indeed an avenue worth expanding upon.