NASA should focus more on unmanned space exploration than manned space exploration

Again, it's always a pleasure to be able to debate a new subject I've never debated before. As a brief road-map I will first be offering a bit of frame-work for clarity, then refuting my opponent's arguments, and finally present my own counter-arguments as time allows. ( It is also important to note that it will not be necessary for me to offer to many sources in this round, as my opponent has already provided plenty for me to use in his prior speech) Obs 1: If there can be no substantive warrant from Pro to focus more on unmanned space exploration, the vote must go Con. Obs 2: Since should indicates an ideal situation, the side that proves their stance to be more ideal should get the vote. Pro- C1) Astronaut Safety + These astronauts choose to put their lives in danger to fulfill their dreams. + We cannot enhance space-travel without sending individuals into space. C2) Higher level of Scientific Research + It is important to point out that my opponent acknowledges that the end goal ought to be to send humans into space. This is a huge Con impact, as it shows that having humans in space is the most ideal situation. a. Hubble Space Telescope- + Obviously I cannot deny the claim my opponent makes here, the Hubble telescope has indeed discovered many incredible things. However my opponent misses a crucial point here, that not only do we already have the Hubble Telescope, [1]but we've had it since 1990. There is absolutely no reason to attempt to focus any more on something we already have. + Furthermore, it is an undeniable truth that with human aid the Hubble Telescope would be able to function much better. I will expand upon this point further in a later argument. b. Magellann (Venus)- + There is no unique to this argument exclusive to unmanned space vessels. + Extend prior argument of increasing efficiency. c. Spirit and Opportunity (Mars) + Again it would be foolish for me to attempt to cast doubt on the points my opponent is making, however there are several issues I would like to examine. + Spirit and Opportunity already exist in the status quo, there is no reason to spend any more effort on an already established technology. + My opponent once again makes an argument that supports manned space exploration + There is on so much a machine can do without human assistance. d. Galileo (Jupiter) + Extend argument on already existing in the status quo. + Extend across my arguments on efficiency. + While cool, these discoveries have no practical value; thus they aren't very beneficial. e. Cassini-Huygens (Saturn) + Again while cool, these discoveries have essentially no practical value. C3) Cost Effectiveness + as the old proverb goes "I once had a child who cost me a lot of money. It costed me to feed him, clothe him, and send him to school. He died last week, and ever since that child hasn't cost me a penny". I will aim to show that while human space-travel is indeed incredibly expensive; it is necessary and worthwhile. a. Space Shuttle + Again, it was indeed expensive; but not without it's benefits which I will speak about in a later argument. + When we consider how astronomically our nation has been spending money in last 50-60 years, 150-200 billion dollars is nothing. [2]For goodness sake, the department of Justice has spent $121 million dollars on confrences alone in the past 24 months, all without achieving the things that the space shuttle has. Not to mention spending $16 dollars on muffins, and that's $16 per every muffin. There are multiple other examples of utterly ridiculous wasteful spending in the video link provided, the point is if we attempt to save money on the space front it wont matter anyway as the government will find some other innovative way to waste tax-payer dollars. b. International Space Station (ISS) + Extend my prior argument. especially on the $16 muffins. c. Apollo Missions + Extend prior argument + I would also like to point out my the amount of bias in my opponent's contention. with C2, he only points out the benefits without speaking about the costs; and on C3 he does just the opposite, he points out how expensive everything is without speaking about the benefits. + Again, even if we saved money on this avenue, the government would find some other way to waste money. Who knows maybe this time they'll spend $25 on chocolate bars. d. Constellation Program + This argument has nothing to do with cost + Nothing is unfeasible, NASA simply doesn't want to spend the money. Con- C1. Human Efficiency. The impact I want to drive home to every one is this; Humans are far more precise than any machine. Machines can only do what they're programmed to do, and once we send them into space there's no getting them back to alter a function they've been programmed to do. Whereas were we to to send a human into space (possibly even in conjunction with a machine) efficiency would surely go up. Cost is ultimately irrelevant as previously noted. C2. Benefits to Human Space travel In my opponent's C2 they speak about various successes of unmanned space travel, with a consistent vein of commonality running throughout; all these discoveries are useless. None of these discoveries have any real benefit to mankind; whereas the [3]study of zero gravity on the human body (one of many benefits) has multiple benefits. Such as the discovery of humans needing gravity to main bone structure, that the eyes become a primary motion senor, and much much more. C3. For the dreamers I'll keep this short but with this argument, I aim to prove that without any kind of real motivation, without the dream of man flying through the stars; we lose all motivation of studying the galaxy, except for a pay check. My opponent's profile picture proves this argument inherently true. = Conlusion = I'm almost out of characters, so I'll save this for later. Vote Con! = Sources = spacedebatesources. pen. io