Thanks to my opponent for a spirited reply.
My opponent has apparently conceded that knowledge is intrinsically less valuable than human well-being. At this stage, our only point of contention seems to be whether the knowledge gained by space exploration results in tangible benefits great enough to justify its classification as a top priority. I will continue to make my case that space exploration does not yield great enough tangible benefits to justify its classification as a top priority in the near term. To do this, I will respond to three key points from my opponent.
Violation of Debate Rules
Unfortunately, my opponent has knowingly and explicitly violated the ground rules of the debate. He has done so on the basis that the rules are not "fair" to him. I disagree, I think they are fair to both of us. Regardless, if my opponent did not like the rules, he should not have joined the debate. Simple as that. I politely request that voters accordingly penalize my opponent for conduct.
Physics, Math, and Eventual Value
With the examples of mathematics and physics, it seems my opponent was trying to argue that seemingly useless knowledge can one day be of immense benefit.
Newton's Gravity and Einstein's Relativity have saved the world by predicting the routes of countless near-earth Asteroids and colliding them with a man-made unmanned spacecraft to prevent them from hitting earth and damage innocents. Without them, we'd never figure out how to deflect an asteroid or to even calculate their paths. Newton's physics have little potential to save the world, and the science back then was unable to craft an asteroid-deflecting spacecraft, as the first asteroid-deflecting spacecraft was not developed until the recent decade.
There are several problems with this supporting point. For one, there is a factual inaccuracy within the claim itself. The source my opponent cites provides no evidence that we have "saved the world" by deflecting near-Earth asteroids. In fact, the source he cites clearly indicates that we do not yet have such a capability.
More importantly, even if we grant that 1) The early development of knowledge about math and physics had no immediate tangible value, and 2) said knowledge eventually led to substantial tangible benefits, my opponent has not made clear why the practically useless knowledge garnered from space exploration will similarly be of immense use one day. As I said in my opening round, the tangible value of knowledge gained from space exploration is often unclear and speculative.
Sharpening the Ax
To my understanding, my opponent is arguing that the pressing issues I have identified can be more easily addressed if we "sharpen the ax" through robust space exploration initiatives. I think he supports this claim with two points.
Now, world conflict and poverty sure is important, but that's only the overall task. The "sharpening the ax" part is the pursuit of knowledge, such as finding a more efficient method of producing vital goods.
So, it seems like my opponent is arguing that human suffering can be more easily alleviated if we pursue knowledge through space exploration, thus helping us find "a more efficient method of producing vital goods." My rebuttal is simple: my opponent has yet to show how the knowledge acquired through space exploration can help us address these pressing issues. In what way does space exploration "sharpen the ax"? The fact that my opponent hasn't been able to identify anything specific supports my overall point that the value of space exploration knowledge is often uncertain and speculative, making cost benefit analyses difficult, if not impossible.
Space exploration as a pursuit of knowledge has another use: To make people proud of being human. They have seen humans improve. To humans, going to mars is much more of an achievement for humanity than to fix refugees and poor people.
Here my opponent argues that space exploration could have tangible value my making humanity proud of itself. This is a perfect example of the point I have been repeating: the benefits of space exploration are uncertain and speculative. Will space exploration inspire people? How much? If they are significantly inspired, what kind of change will that result in? How positive will that change be, and how much of it will there be? These questions cannot be answered definitively in advance. Thus, a cost-benefit analysis is impossible.
A Qualification (and Conclusion)
I have stated multiple times that the benefits of space exploration are speculative, uncertain, and not amenable to cost-benefit analyses. Why, voters may ask, do I keep harping on this point about cost-benefit analysis? Simply put, in a world with limited political, human, and financial resources, humanity has to set priorities. Logically, priorities should be set according to a comparison of the cost-benefit analyses. If you have $100, would you rather put most of it into reliable investments that you are confident will yield great returns, or speculative investments that may, eventually yield great returns? Of course, if we had unlimited resources, we would just invest in everything, because we have nothing to lose. But that's not the world we have to make our choices in.
To be clear, I am not arguing that space exploration has no potential value. I consider it probable that space exploration will eventually yield tangible benefits of some sort. But because those benefits are far-off, uncertain, and impossible to calculate, and because humanity currently faces major threats to our well-being, space exploration cannot justifiably be considered a top priority in the near term.
Space will always be there waiting for us. The overall well-being of our species should take priority. Thank you for reading. Vote Con!
Yeah, its a shame that the mars rover recently had its funding cut a bit.
Thank you, I'm glad another person is interested in this subject.
I will keep your offer in mind.
Yo Jeff, after you are done with this debate if you wish to have a forum discussion or second debate on this topic please tag me. I don't want to go into any details at the moment that would give unfair help to either side in this current debate but would like to discuss this topic.
Oh sorry forgot to read the description. So it is 50 years.
Define how long it is "near term". It could either be a hundred years, or it could be a few days and anything in between. How long is that?