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

= Debate = Pro- C1. Astronaut Safety + As my opponent states, "...NASA has a responsibility to ensure the safety of these astronauts as much as it possibly can." Astronauts go into space knowing there's a chance they may not come back. And so while NASA has a responsibility to do all they can, the decision to go into space is ultimately one the astronauts make themselves. + To say such a thing, is to say that no scientific experiment should ever be repeated more than once; it is a fallacy. Furthermore, my opponent seems to ignore my prior made arguments on human efficiency, money and usefulness. ++ I would also like to point out the incredible margin of error that a machine is capable of. Factor this in with how little we truly understand about the human body, and we get the blazing revelation that we cannot improve human space exploration without sending humans into space. C2 Scientific Research SPA) Mission of NASA + "...to inspire the next generation of explorers... as only NASA can." Extend my own C3; my opponent's prior refutation is unviable as I will show later. SPA) End Goal + Several arguments need to be made here, first extend across my own observation 2. Next extend across my arguments that unmanned space exploration has already been established. This said, let's look at the resolution "NASA should focus more on unmanned space exploration than manned space exploration". The point is that by focusing more on manned space exploration than unmanned, we do no get rid of unmanned space exploration; When we do opposite, manned space exploration becomes nonexistent. As my opponent says time and time again, unmanned space exploration is already established and doing well; we need to focus on manned space exploration. + "To understand and protect our home planet," My opponent claims that it doesn't matter that the discoveries unmanned space exploration finds are useless. While this is true, it is also undeniable that any information that can be garnered from space travel which is beneficial to mankind is infinitely more valuable. To this I extend across my own C2 and we see clearly that we need to focus more on manned space exploration. Furthermore, and I cannot stress this enough, unmanned space exploration has already been established. We do not need to spend too much focus on it; whereas my opponent has acknowledged time and time again that unmanned space exploration needs work. + I have indeed refuted my opponent's prior arguments. The purpose of this debate is whether NASA should focus on manned or unmanned space exploration; not the ends these two different types of exploration. As I've stated time and time again, unmanned space exploration is already established. There is no need to focus on something that has already been established more so than something that desperately needs more research. SPC) Unmanned Achievements + Extend my prior arguments; we already have a knowledge and understanding in telescopes. All we would have to do is build and launch it, no effort in the realm of focus is necessary in great amounts. Whereas with Human Space exploration, there is. + What my opponent says here is an utter fallacy. While there is no unique benefit to unmanned space exploration, there is certainly a massive benefit to manned space exploration. + Extend my first argument on this point. C3 Cost Effectiveness + My point is that it doesn't matter if something is expensive if there is a benefit to it. If we spend money on enhancing human space exploration, then we get a substantial benefit; if not, the money will go to buy 16 dollar muffins for government employees. Or $900,000 buying sightly different road signs [4], or $60 million exploring shoe's harm to the environment [4], or even $1/2 million on rarely used offices for government employees. + My opponent claims that is alright for them to be biased, as it is my job to disprove their side. While this is true to a degree, it doesn't mean they have no responsibility to cover very avenue of the debate. You wouldn't expect a doctor to try to persuade his clients to use a certain drug without warning them of the potential negative side-effects; and you make an argument without acknowledging that your stance has a few short-comings. Con- C1 Human Efficiency + Extend my arguments on my opponent's C3; the money is going to be used somehow, better that we spend on something useful than on $16 muffins. + Extend my Observation 2; the word "should" in the resolution indicates this to be a debate of ideal situations. We must always use the most efficient option regardless of cost. C2 Practical Benefits + These are all new arguments first off. Secondly all of these benefits have to do with convenience here on earth, not benefits of unmanned space exploration. This refutation is completely irrelevant. + Medical benefits? C3 for the dreamers + My opponent offered no real refutation here, he simply says it's expensive to let's forget about it. To that extend my refutations on his C3 and my C1. + We already have the technology to fly through the stars; the issue comes in improving it. Something we absolutely cannot do unless we focus more effort into maned space exploration. = Conclusion = There is far too much ground in this debate to offer a single concise conclusion; so I'll use the next round for that in the form of voters. However I would like to point out that my opponent dropped the majority of his own C2 in favor of new arguments. = Sources = http://spacedebatesources.pen.io...