The development of space travel should be primarily entrusted to private corporations.

The next round should be up much more quickly. The opponent presented a case of his own in the previous round. I will rebut his case, then present a net benefit analysis. Opponent's CaseThe opponent's case essentially consists of two arguments, one claiming that the private industry is not well-equipped for space travel and the second claiming that there exists a safety issue. "The private industry is ill-equipped for space travel. "This entire argument is one that experts might have speculated about prior to 2004. After all, it seems to make some level of sense. Fortunately for humanity (and my argument), we've since seen evidence that directly contradicts this speculative argument. This is because in 2004, as was mentioned in my own case, a law was passed that effectively made it legal for private organizations to begin space-related endeavors. The law specifically [1] allowed for the commercialization of human space flight. Since then, we've seen multiple companies emerge who are specifically targeting and engaging in this particular industry. Importantly, these companies are not having the problems that the opponent's experts speculated would happen. Consider the company SpaceX. They were the first private company to successfully launch a liquid fueled rocket in space; the first private company to launch a craft into space, have it orbit, then have it safely return; and the first company to launch a vessel beyond Earth Orbit. (The Deep Space Climate Observatory). What's more, they're the company that managed to launch a pod into orbit, then return the launching rocket back to Earth and land it upright, proving their ability to deliver on first stage reuseability. This task had never before been accomplished. [2]They're not the only private company heavily involved in the space travel industry. Virgin Galactic is developing "space planes" meant for non-astronaut use. This company had great success with their first iteration, "SpaceShipOne", but had a malfunction with "SpaceShipTwo". [3] In 2007, the SpaceShipTwo blew up during a ground test, killing two people. The opponent's sources speculate that such a disaster would signal the "end" for a private company, but Virgin Galactic is still working on their space planes as vigorously as ever, proving that such speculative "program killers" are unfounded. -------------------------------------------------The claim that "the private sector is not suited to long term projects" is made by the opponent, but his own evidence illustrates the flaw in this argument. It essentially argues that since corporations are based on quarterly reporting, long term projects hold little appeal. This type of "managerial mindset" may be the case in companies that typically take on an array of diverse projects, but it does not logically hold for companies geared toward a very specific industry. If current trends hold, it is clear that the private sector is going to accommodate for space flight in the form of companies specifically dedicated toward that. SpaceX and Virgin Galactic are both only interested in activities that fall under the definition of "space travel". This means that, while one project might be cut if it isn't fruitful, there will be other projects that are fruitful and they will necessarily be space based. What's more, whatever replaces the cut program will be necessarily space based. In other words, companies solely interested in the space travel industry will only produce goods relating to the space travel industry. The idea that space travel development would be "cut" simply doesn't hold for these companies, since that is all they do. Counterpoint:The opponent's argument can even be used against him. The government does operate as a "multi-interest corporation", in the sense that it takes on many programs at once that expand across multiple industries. The government has a finite amount of capital that must be spread across these programs. Whenever a program is not producing results that the government likes, it simply cuts the program. We know from experience that the government is already cutting space travel funds. The retirement of the space shuttles and the continual decrease in NASA funding each year demonstrates that the government is less and less interested in pursuing space travel. [4]Private companies who specifically and solely work on space travel and space technology development are the natural response to this decreased government interest. If the private industry doesn't take up this slack, no one will. ------------------------------------------------------The final points in the opponent's case reference articles that clearly refer to a time before SpaceX and Virgin Galactic, a time in which the private industry had yet to successfully take up the mantle of space travel development. That evidence is clear outdated, as is indicated by the existence of many successful private companies involved in the space industry. Conclusion:The opponent's evidence is entirely speculative and seems to be based off of old information. The more recent history of private industries and space (after ~2006) proves that these companies are willing and able to provide meaningful development of the space travel industry. Prefer my (recent) historical evidence of actual events over the opponent's speculative evidence. SafetyThe opponent (correctly) points out that space travel is a dangerous thing. He then concludes two things:1. Private businesses are not willing to take this risk. 2. The government can afford this risk. The first point is easily countered with the fact that private businesses are already doing this. They are already involved in the industry and they are already taking these safety risks. This itself clearly defeats the idea that private companies are unwilling to take the risk. The second point is a little more complicated. The opponent is correct in saying that the government can get away with more than the private sector. However, this doesn't really matter. Allow me to explain:Private companies are already taking these safety risks. As the opponent has explained, these risks are an inherent part of space travel. These companies understand this and they do it anyway. If a company behaves in a way that is negligent and hurts somebody, they may well be put out of business. If they do not behave negligently, they may survive the mishap. Regardless of what happens, market forces will ensure that demand is met. Consider what would happen if Bluebell ice cream shut down. Would people stop eating ice cream? No -- there is a demand for ice cream and there are other companies that make it. Now what if all ice cream companies were to simultaneously go out of business. Would people stop eating ice cream? No -- there is a demand for ice cream and someone will form a company and start making and selling ice cream. This is because the market always tries to respond to demand. Similarly, there is a demand for space travel. If a company fails, another one will take its place and begin offering the same services. This is an inherent quality of a free market. If a private space company fails because of a catastrophe, that does not spell doom for space travel or the innovation associated with it. It simply signals that there will soon be a new player in the game. In the world in which there is no demand for space travel, then this entire topic becomes moot. Neither the government or the private sector will bother with it, since there is no demand for it. Just like private companies, the government isn't going to spend a great amount of money on something that nobody demands. This is evidenced by the fact that the US only started its space program because there was a great demand for it. (Beat the Russians. ) In order to debate this topic at all, we have to assume that demand exists for space travel. (And thankfully, it does. ) Given that, we can confidently assume that one company's catastrophe will not destroy the development of space travel to any degree. Finally, it's important to refer up to a previous point in which I discussed the Virgin Galactic mishap. They had an accident that killed two people, and yet the company is still alive and developing technology. This indicates that the private industry is not so fragile that a single mishap can destroy it. And this makes sense. Consider that other industries have a much higher death toll than the space industry. While the percentage of astronaut deaths is considerably great, the actual number is very low. It is a common mistake to look at a percentage and attempt to draw conclusions from it without considering the actual values it represents. Overall, the space industry is responsible for extremely few deaths. Net Benefit AnalysisIf we affirm the resolution:1. We get more innovation and developmental efficiency.2. We see our demand for space travel met.3. We see that each dollar spent "buys" more usable product, meaning a higher ROI. If we deny the resolution:1. We might see programs last longer.2. We will be less willing to blame accidents on the responsible agent. Weights:It should be clear that affirming the resolution produces the best results. Private companies are more efficient and innovative than the government, allowing for a higher ROI. No more or fewer lives are lost because of who does the development. ConclusionI've demonstrated that private companies can and are developing space travel tech and that they do it well. The opponent's case presents two non-issues. We are left with one choice: affirm the resolution. Sources1- . http://www.faa.gov... 2- . https://techcrunch.com... 3- . http://www.spacesafetymagazine.com... 4- . http://www.lpi.usra.edu...