Main topic of debate -> Should the United States of America invest more money in the space program?
If you wish to make a sound argument, supporting your side, you should argue on each of these sub-topics:
Sub-Topic #1: Sound Investment?
On April 12, 1961, Soviet Cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin was the first human to journey into outer space when his Vostok spacecraft completed an orbit of the Earth. Losing the "race to space" to the USSR did not sit well with the USA. The government blamed education and called for a change in the way science was being taught in high schools. They invested an enormous amount of money in hiring university professors to re-write textbooks in Physics, Chemistry, and Biology. We've had about 50 years to brown townyze the results of this spending spree. Did it pay off? Was it worth it?
Sub-Topic #2: Stride or Step?
July of 1969 marked an exciting time for the USA's space program as Apollo 11 successfully landed on the moon. National pride was at an all time high. Across the country, people were riveted to their TV sets in anticipation of that "magic moment". Finally, astronaut Neil Armstrong emerged from the lunar module and made his way down the ladder. When he reached the bottom of the ladder he set his left foot on the surface of the moon, and proclaimed, "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind." When we look back at this amazing event, we have to wonder if it really turned out being a giant leap for mankind. Has mankind benefited by Neil walking on the lunar surface?
Sub-Topic #3: Home, Sweet, Home?
The USA has sent rovers such as Sojourner, Spirit, and Opportunity to study Mars, as well as space probes like Viking, Pioneer, Mariner, and Voyager to explore other planets. This has taken up a lot of time, a lot of energy, and a lot of money. Why are we so interested in learning about these other planets? Is it to see if they have any natural resources we may be able to exploit? Perhaps, because of Earth's increasing population, we are looking for new places where people can live. Suppose we actually find a place which is habitable, do you think people would be willing to live there? Would you want to live there?
Sub-topic #4: Star or Scrub?
A little over a decade ago, the world can together to create the International Space Station (ISS). The ISS is the largest & most complex international scientific project in history, drawing upon the resources of 16 nations. The focus on board the ISS is research into medicine, materials, general science, & technology for the future human exploration of space. In the summer of 2011, the USA launched our final shuttle to the space station. As America loses interest in the ISS, we face several important questions. Do the benefits of the space station outweigh the financial costs? Does the world benefit from nations working together? Is the research conducted on board the ISS benefiting humankind? Is it vital that this research be conducted in space? Should the USA remain a key player in the ISS project - or is it time to share more responsibility and cost with other nations?
Sub-Topic #5: Got Green?
With the 2012 U.S. presidential election approaching, politicians are debating the future of funding for space research. Unlike the climate during the 1960's, the American public is no longer as passionate about our ventures into space. Furthermore, NASA is receiving much less government support. As space programs lose funding, research projects such as gathering alternative fuel sources from the moon, developing technology to deflect Earth-bound asteroids, and sending a human to an asteroid by 2020 and to Mars by 2030 are being cancelled or postponed. In order to accomplish any of these feats, the space program will require at least an additional two to three billion dollars per year. Are taxpayers willing to dedicate this type of money to space exploration? Do the benefits of space research outweigh the costs? Should the government outsource some of these research projects to private companies?
Have fun debating everyone! :D
Poll