English 9 Argumentative/Debate Essay Assignment

Purpose: The purpose of this essay assignment is for your debate team to lay out your arguments in a clear fashion before the actual debate, so that you are well informed and prepared. This essay will also be given to your opponents in advance of the debate so that they can prepare for your case, and vice versa. Your main task, as it is in the debate, is to convince a reasonable but previously uninformed reader to support your side of the proposition.

Time ScheduleMonday, 5/9: Introduction to the essay and the powa.org website. Tuesday, 5/10: Pro/Con lists, tentative resolution, as well as three additional cited sources due. Weds.., 5/11: Statement of the case due; resolutions finalized and sides assigned. Thurs., 5/12: Plagiarism lesson. Practice paragraphs due. Friday, 5/13: Rough drafts of individual essay sections worked on in class. Assign sections so that each member has a clear responsibility and equal workload. Weekend homework is to work on drafting separate components of essay. Monday, 5/16: Rough drafts of essay sections due—individually. Revise and edit essay sections and merge into one document. Tuesday, 5/17: Rough drafts of merged essay due—transition to preparing for a speech. Thursday, 5/26: FINAL COPY OF ESSAY DUE, REVISED, EDITED, DOCUMENTED, AND COLOR-CODED.

Format

This is an argumentative essay, which is an extension of a typical thesis/support essay. You have a stand on the proposition (resolution), which will serve as your thesis. For example, if you were the affirmative team arguing about the death penalty, your thesis would be something like, “The death penalty should be abolished because…” If you are the negative team, your thesis would be some variation of “ We need to maintain capital punishment in the United States because…” Please see the Paradigm web site for suggestions on structure. Each essay should contain an introduction, statement of the case, proposition statement (thesis), refutation, confirmation, and conclusion. Note that some of these components may be combined, but others, especially the refutation and confirmation, may take multiple paragraphs. So, I would suggest a total length between 5-10 detailed, developed paragraphs.

Collaboration and color coding

This unit is a mixture of individual and group work. Ultimately, as in any group endeavor, your success will depend upon your teammates to a certain extent. Historically, teams who have not worked well together have not won many debates, and indeed, working together successfully is one goal of this project. At the same time, I also realize that sometimes, despite our best efforts, groups do not work out. I do not want anyone to be unfairly penalized by a group member who drops the ball; nor do I want anyone to get a "free ride" thanks to a superstar group member. Therefore, while you will win or lose the debate as a team, you will be graded individually on the essay and on your speeches. To make it clear on the essay which group member writes which part, I ask that you simply color code the respective sections. For example, if Claire and Clai are working together, perhaps Claire's section would be in blue and Clai's in red. For parts of the essay that you truly write together, choose a third color.

Documentation

In both the essay and debate, any statements presented as facts, and any direct quotations from authorities, survey results, or statistics must be documented, or they will not be counted. This means that from the moment you begin your research, please DOCUMENT EVERY SOURCE!! Consult the Bedford Handbook for guidelines on documenting sources, especially those of the electronic variety.

On-line resource As was noted on the first handout, the Paradigm Online Writing Assistant is a great place for help. We will be viewing parts of the site in class, but click here to go right to the section on argumentative essays. Almost all of the guidelines and suggestions that I have summarized above can be found here in greater detail: http://www.powa.org

Greensboro Day School English DepartmentArgument Essay Rubric: Grades 9-12

Name: _____________________ Assignment: ___________

Evaluating Criteria CommentsQuality of Thought1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Quality of argumentative proposition Depth, complexity and development of ideas Use of appeals to logic, reason, and emotion

where appropriate

The best features of this paper are:

Organization and Continuity1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Global o Unity – Focus on argumentative

proposition Paragraph

o Focus on topic sentenceo Coherence – use of transitions

Support1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Specific details and quotations Facts and statistics Explanation of examples

Word Choice 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Vocabulary Diction Usage

The aspects of your writing that need the most improvement are:

Grammar and Syntax1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Complete and grammatically correct sentences Sentences varied in structure and complexity

Mechanics 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Punctuation Spelling Documentation of sources (in-text citations and

works cited list)Format and Process

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Color coding or indication of section(s)

completed Title Final Essay submitted to turnitin.com

Specific instructions:

Paper Grade:

Adjusted, if late, to:

Final grade:

Sample Essay 1

Affirmative Funding of Space ExplorationGracie Tewkesbury and Kelly Carty

IntroductionOn February 1, 2003, scientists eagerly awaited the return of the seven astronauts

aboard the Space Shuttle Columbia. They were about to come home from a 16-day

research mission in orbit 300 kilometers above earth. Just 16 minutes before the

scheduled landing, NASA lost radio contact with the shuttle. Smoke and debris were

seen in the skies of Dallas, where the shuttle was slated to land. Upon re-entry into the

atmosphere, Columbia broke into flames and essentially disintegrated. None of the seven

crew members survived.

Sadly, this was not the first time a space flight came to a fatal ending. In 1967, a

fire started inside the cockpit of the Apollo 1. Although the crew members tried

desperately to escape, all three were dead seventeen seconds after the fire had been

noticed. A similar accident occurred in 1986, when an unexpected fire caused the

Challenger shuttle to swerve off course and rip apart. The seven crew members died

instantly, just minutes after the shuttle took off.

How could these horrible tragedies have been prevented? All three resulted from

technological errors that probably could have been prevented. After each incident, NASA

has suggested several methods of improving the safety of the space shuttle. But the fact

that these types of disasters still occur on a rather regular, albeit seldom, basis indicates

that additional safety isn’t enough. In order to prevent disaster, our country needs to

regulate space travel so that only the most important and necessary missions are put into

action. We propose that this be done with a significant budget cut for NASA.

Statement of Case

            In 1958, President Eisenhower established the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration to aid our country in the “space race” against the Soviet Union. Over the

next decade, NASA developed the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo projects, the latter

sending man to the moon for the first time on July 20, 1969. Since setting foot on the

moon, NASA has continued to expand knowledge about space through the space shuttle,

the International Space Station, the Mars Exploration Rovers, and the Terra and Aqua

satellites. The four divisions of NASA are Aeronautics, Exploration Systems, Science,

and Space Operations.

In 2004, President George W. Bush announced his Vision for Space Exploration.

He plans to return the space shuttle to flight and retire it by 2010, complete the

International Space Station, begin robotic missions to the moon by 2008, return people

there by 2020, and develop a Crew Exploration Vehicle to send people beyond low earth

orbit (Bush). Once his vision is complete, we can consider more lofty goals, like

eventually setting foot on Mars.

Currently, the 2007 fiscal budget proposed for NASA is $16.8 billion, a 3.2

percent increase from the 2006 budget. President Bush has asked for an additional one

billion dollars over the next five years to help accomplish his goals. Of the budget, $724

million goes towards aeronautics research, $5.3 billion towards NASA’s science

missions, and $500 million towards cross-agency support programs which deal with

education, commercial leverage, and the management of finances.

Some people fully support the NASA’s big plans for the future.

They believe that further space exploration would lead to exciting discoveries that will

inspire young children and adults alike. Every new finding of NASA leads to a sense of

pride and patriotism for our country’s dedicated space program. The technology

developed through NASA exploration “will pay back incalculable dividends to everyone

on Earth during the coming decades” (Eicher). According to these people, NASA’s

budget, though high, is well worth it because of all of the benefits for humans.

Those who oppose NASA’s plans consider them to be a colossal waste of time

and money. As one writer puts it, “What is the value of admittedly mind-blowing

photographs of distant nebulae and galaxy clusters when weighed against the literally

astronomical sums of money spent on maintaining a leaky space station, an antiquated

and unreliable shuttle fleet, and a never-ending stream of hit-or-miss probes?” (Bonta).

Those against publicly-funded space exploration believe that NASA’s yearly budget is

robbing government money from more important aspects of life, like housing, healthcare,

and transportation. In a world plagued with war, disease, poverty, and famine, any

money our government spends on NASA could be better spent dealing with issues on our

own planet.

Confirmation

The United States government is currently allocating too much money to NASA

for space exploration. Space Exploration is an extremely risky business. Astronauts in

space have to face a loss of bone mass, unhealthy amounts of radiation, and challenging

psychological problems (Schneider). NASA also hasn’t addressed important problems

such as what to do if someone is seriously ill on a space voyage. The $16.8 billion budget

could be used for many other things such as helping with the devastation wrecked by

Hurricane Katrina and housing and health care programs. The government shouldn’t be

wasting its time dealing with NASA’s budget when there are other more prevalent factors

looming over the United States like the war in Iraq and the environment. The United

States government shouldn’t be allocating so much money to NASA when the future is

unclear and there are other, more overriding problems here on earth.

There are many medical reasons for not exploring space. Astronauts face the loss

of bone mass, radiation problems, and psychological problems on long term space flights

(Schneider). Astronauts experience bone loss because of bone resorption and decreased

intestinal calcium absorption caused by the lack of gravity in space (Smith). According to

an experiment conducted aboard the Mir Space Station, astronauts lose 1 to 2 percent of

bone density per month which triggers a rise of calcium in the blood and can cause

kidney stones (Hullander). Radiation is also another effect of space travel and probably

the most damaging. Radiation is the process of particles from space entering the DNA of

human cells and not allowing them to perform their typical functions. Normally, the

earth’s magnetic field protects us from high energy sun particles and cosmetic rays from

unknown galactic sources. Out in space, an astronaut is unsheltered from radiation.

NASA stated that the particles from solar flares could kill an unprotected astronaut. Even

airplanes reroute paths to avoid the radiation from a solar flare (Britt). Radiation can

cause severe sort-term illness while cosmic rays can cause more long-term illnesses like

cancer and cataracts. NASA currently allows no more radiation than what could raise the

risk of cancer by 3 percent, and a 2 ½ year trip to Mars would expose astronauts to the

limit of radiation (Britt).

The psychological factors of a lengthy space expedition are also problematic.

According to Taber MacCallum, the president of Paragon Space Development

Corporation, astronauts face an extreme amount of stress and must stay in confined living

quarters with complete dependence on technologies. They live a very structured life with

a demanding schedule and a perceived lack of control (MacCallum). The astronauts go

through extensive training, but still, as MacCallum put it, feel the “paradox of ‘too much

and too little’ distance from people.” The overwhelming challenges of bone loss,

radiation, and psychological problems are only magnified when the trips in space become

longer.

Since space exploration is extremely risky, it brings about many challenging

decisions. As posed by Mike Schneider in his article On Trip to Mars, NASA Must

Rethink Death “how do you get rid of the body of a dead astronaut on a three-year

mission to Mars and back?” In the history of NASA, there have been three major

tragedies resulting in the death of seventeen people. The tragedies (Apollo 1, Challenger,

and Columbia) all occurred because of technical glitches. According to Schneider, NASA

doesn’t have a procedure dealing with disposing of the dead in space or cutting medical

aid if an astronaut cannot survive. Not addressing these problems may result in bad

decisions and wasting more lives. If an astronaut is on the ISS or the Mir Space Station

and becomes sick, he or she can return to Earth and check into a hospital within hours,

but if traveling to Mars or another far-off place there is no way the astronaut would be

able to land on earth in time for treatment. The astronauts also couldn’t depend on

Mission Control to make split-second decisions because it would take a minimum of 30

minutes for a question to travel to earth and an answer to arrive at the spacecraft. With all

these important decisions NASA needs to make about human life aboard a spacecraft, it

seems that NASA isn’t ready for human space exploration. (Schneider)

Lowering NASA’s federal budget would definitely help with the devastation of

Hurricane Katrina. The category-five storm destroyed the gulf coast of the United States

on August 29th, 2005 and now, twenty months after the hurricane hit, people are still in

the rebuilding process. Over 15 million people were affected by the Hurricane including

1,836 who died and 705 who are still reported as missing (Kurpis). Despite these

devastating facts, President Bush proposed an extra $500 million in 2007 for NASA and

only proposed an extra $18 million for Hurricane Katrina victims. This fact can hardly be

ignored when one realizes that Hurricane Katrina caused an estimated 400,000 jobs to be

lost and NASA only employs 18,343 people (Kurpis and United). Instead of using money

from the NASA space program, President Bush cut the federal budget of the Department

of Education by $3.1 billion primarily to counter the cost of Hurricane Katrina (Aspey).

Would US citizens rather see their tax dollar support schools or seeing really cool

pictures of outer space? Taxpayers would rather see the improvements of schools

according to a 2006 survey. According to the survey, 51 percent of 18 to 25 year-olds

view NASA as “irrelevant” and 72 percent of people from the same age group think that

the “budget for NASA could be better spent elsewhere” (Berger). The gulf coast is

currently in a financial crisis frantically looking for ways to rebuild and restore normalcy,

while NASA supporters are selfishly complaining that the program doesn’t have enough

money to chase a dream.

Lowering NASA’s budget would benefit housing and health care programs. In

2005, exploration system of NASA was granted about the same amount of money as

homeless assistance in the United States. There are about 500,000 people in the United

States without somewhere to go at night (Glenn). The number of people without a home

is about 27 times the amount of people NASA employs making the fact that homeless

assistance is granted about the same amount of money as NASA’s exploration systems

seem outrageous. Some of NASA’s yearly budget could also be used to help the millions

of people without health insurance by providing the United States Department of Health

Care and Human Services with more money. Those living without health insurance are

digging into a deeper and deeper hole year after year as the price of insurance rises. The

president has just cut $45 billion from Medicaid, which is America’s best health and

long-term care program. This cut would only add to the number of uninsured people

(Background). Although NASA’s budget couldn’t cover the entire $45 billion, it could

significantly help the health care crisis.

The time spent dealing with the NASA budget would be better spent focusing on

the war in Iraq. A little over five and a half years ago, 9/11 occurred. The date is still

fresh in many American minds, evoking memories of watching the twin towers and the

Pentagon collapse on the news. Today, many citizens are frustrated with the seemingly

useless war. The president has been the scapegoat for all the decisions gone wrong and is

frantically trying to make the situation better. But, the farther the U.S. delves into the

war, the worse off the situation becomes. It seems logical that to find a solution to the

current problem, the government needs to address the war with the utmost attention

without worrying about trivial things like an insignificant 3.2 percent increase for the

NASA budget. The space exploration program isn’t like it was thirty years ago. The

United States is not fighting the Soviets for the fame and respect of being the first country

to accomplish something in space.

The government should also focus more on the environment. America is the

number one global warming polluter of the world and our country would need to decrease

that pollution by 80 percent to prevent the major effects of global warming. There have

been no federal bills passed in the United States to limit America’s pollution (Global).

Some of the downfalls of the fight to save the environment are that the United States

Department of Energy has also failed to improve the energy efficiency of heating and

cooling; the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (i.e. EPA) still allows dry cleaners to

use a harmful chemical PCE that can cause cancer and damage the liver, kidneys, and

central nervous system; the EPA does not consider carbon dioxide and other greenhouse

gasses as pollutants; the EPA doesn’t monitor the production of mercury as a byproduct

of chlorine plants; and in 2003 the EPA failed to meet the standards of the Food Quality

and Protection Act which has special steps to protect children (Earthjustice). As

exemplified by these shortcomings, the United States government has much to do to

protect the environment and keeping the earth habitable is more important than finding

cool things in space.

Therefore, the budget of NASA is too high and needs to be lowered. The space

exploration program is depriving other needy aspects of human life here on earth like

housing and health care programs and the devastation cause by Hurricane Katrina. The

government should be worrying about the War on Iraq and the environmental problems

instead of increasing the budget of NASA by 3.2 percent. NASA also needs to solve the

medical problems of spaceflight and address the ethical factors of humans traveling in

space before a huge catastrophe occurs. So, in the broad view of the country, NASA is

trivial and should not have a massive $16.8 billion budget.

Refutation

Despite the overwhelming evidence supporting a budget cut for NASA, there are

still those who oppose this decision. They claim that space exploration has led to the

development and improvement of many important technologies that have helped here on

Earth (Eicher). The simple response to this claim is that it just isn’t true. In conjunction

with NASA, the Space Foundation has compiled a list of all of the technology that was

first developed through space exploration. Contrary to what our opponents claim, this list

did not include things like the Global Positioning System – developed by the U.S.

Department of Defense – or the MRI scanner – developed by scientist Raymond

Damadian. Instead, the list contained things like a weatherproof fishing tackle, a brand

of engine lubricant, and a pen with a shelf-life of 100 years. NASA has stated that they

can’t be sure what kinds of innovations will come out of further space exploration

(NASA). But if the past is any indicant of the future, we don’t have much to look

forward to. Surely inventions like these do not warrant the many decades and billions of

dollars our country has spent on space exploration.

President George W. Bush is one of those who oppose our proposition. In fact, he

is currently behind a plan to further explore our solar system with an International Space

Station, lunar probes, and eventually manned flights to Mars. To validate his goals, he

compares them to those of Meriwether Lewis and William Clark when they explored the

Louisiana Purchase in 1804: “They made that journey in the spirit of discovery…

America has ventured forth into space for the same reasons.” (Bush). According to Bush,

it is human nature to want to explore the unknown. For some people, however, this is not

the case at all. According to a 2006 survey, 35% of Americans oppose Bush’s Vision for

Space Exploration (Dittmar). Government-funded services are meant to be beneficial to

everyone, whether consciously or not. The benefits of healthcare and national defense,

for example, can be seen everywhere. If over a third of the population opposes space

travel, there’s no reason they should be forced to pay so many tax dollars to indulge those

who do.

Our opponents see the president’s support of an expanded space program to be a

major reason the budget should not be reduced. However, Bush’s presidential term is

ending soon – far before his vision for space exploration is completed. Furthermore, not

all of the 2008 candidates are in agreement with his expensive plans, and could easily put

a stop to them once in office. The chairman of the U.S. House science committee has

stated that “NASA is headed for a train wreck” if they don’t get the funds they need

(Gordon, qtd. in Bond). This means that if we don’t continue supplying NASA with

money for as long as they need it, all of their efforts could collapse. The money that our

country has already supplied to NASA could be for nothing. Once President Bush

finishes serving his term, there’s no telling how much support NASA will get. But if the

government reduces NASA’s budget now, our new potential president would be much

more inclined to continue supporting the organization.

Many people believe a budget cut for NASA would cause today’s youth to stop

caring about space and perhaps decide against a career based in astronomical sciences.

However, the truth is that young people these days are already uninterested in NASA.

Fifty-one percent of 18-25 year-olds regard NASA as “irrelevant,” and 72% believe “the

money spent on NASA would be better spent elsewhere” (Berger). In an attempt to

regain their interest, NASA has proposed everything from an MTV reality show to

celebrity endorsement. If the organization is resorting to such extreme measures, it’s

evident that young people are already simply uninterested in its endeavors. Even Bush’s

big plans for future space exploration aren’t going to change this.

NASA’s yearly budget comprises less than one percent of our government’s

national budget. This seems like a tiny amount until expressed in numerical terms: 16.8

billion dollars. Just because our country has literally trillions of dollars to spend doesn’t

give us the right to squander billions on an industry that, evidently, doesn’t benefit our

society or interest our people. There are many ways 16.8 billion dollars could be spent to

benefit humankind. Just 15 billion would provide the entire population of the world with

adequate water and sanitation. Thirteen billion is enough to meet the basic dietary needs

of starving people (Borgen). NASA’s budget, if spent otherwise, has the power to save

the world.

Conclusion

The portion of the federal budget allocated to NASA should be significantly

reduced. The current state of affairs is wasteful and dangerous. NASA hasn’t traveled to

the moon or in 35 years and makes false claims to new technology. NASA did not invent

the MRI or GPS; the company invented a weatherproof fishing tackle, a brand of engine

lubricant, and a pen with a shelf-life of 100 years. Astronauts face the grave dangers of

radiation, bone loss, and psychological problems in space.

Also, citizens of the United States don’t want NASA the way President Bush

does. Fifty-one percent of 18 to 25 year olds see NASA as “irrelevant.” Seventy-two

percent think that the money spent on NASA could be better spent elsewhere. The budget

for NASA could be used to help aid Hurricane Katrina victims and housing and

healthcare programs. The time spent on NASA could be better used to help the war effort

in Iraq or the effort to save the planet.

Cutting NASA’s budget will not make the student interest in space decline; many

students already don’t care. NASA’s budget has so much potential: it could provide the

entire world with water and sanitation or it could feed starving people. Next time a

dazzling picture of a galaxy in space is featured in the news next to a picture of Hurricane

Katrina victims living in a FEMA trailer or a picture of the rapidly dying Earth, think

about the priorities of the government and the $16.8 billion allocated to NASA for

exploring space in 2007.

Works CitedAspey, Susan., Colby, Chad., Smith, Valerie. “Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Requests Advances NCLB Implementation and Pinpoints Competitiveness.” ED.gov. 6 Feb. 2006 U.S. Department of Education. 11 May 2007 <http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2006/02/02062006.html>.

“Background on Health Care.” Action.org. Results. 13 May 2007 <http://www.action.org/website/article.asp?id=839>.

Berger, Eric. “Today’s kids: NASA is Irrelevant.” Online Posting. 29 Dec. 2006. Houston Chronicle. 11 May 2007 <http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2006/12/todays_kids_nas.html>.

Bond, David. “Funding Famine.” Aviation Week & Space Technology 19 March 2007. 12 May 2007 <http://web.ebscohost.com/>

Bonta, Steve. “Space Exploration Should Be Funded by the Private Sector.” The New American 9 Feb 2004. GaleNet Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Greensboro Day School Library, Greensboro, NC. 3 May 2007 <http://find.galegroup.com/>.

Borgen, Clint. “The Borgen Project.” <http://www.borgenproject.org/>

Britt, Robert Roy. “Surviving Space: Risks to Humans on the Moon and Mars.” Space.com. 20 Jan. 2004. National Space Society. 15 May 2007 <http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_dangers_040120.html>.

Bush, George W.. "The United States Must Make Space Exploration A Priority." NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC. 14 Jan 2004. 5 May 2006 <http://web.ebscohost.com/>

Dittmar, Mary Lynne. “Market Study for Space Exploration.” Survey. Dittmar Associates November 2004. 15 May 2007 < http://www.dittmar-associates.com/The_Market_Study.htm>

Earthjustice. Earthjustice: Because the Earth Needs a Good Lawyer. 2007. 13 May 2007 <http://www.earthjustice.org/>.

Eicher, David J. “Space Exploration Provides Many Benefits for Earth.” USA Today 22 Jan 2004. GaleNet Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Greensboro Day School Library, Greensboro, NC. 3 May 2007 <http://find.galegroup.com/>.

Glenn, Mary., Phillips-Minnis, Avril., Robinson, Jennifer., Sanders, Angela. “Stop the Criminalization of Homelessness.” April 2002. University of Georgia. 13 May 2007 <http://meglenn.myweb.uga.edu/homelessness.html>.

“Global Warming by the Numbers.” Environmental Defense. 16 Jan. 2007. 13 May 2007 <http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?ContentID=5816>.

Hullander, Doug., Barry, Patrick L. “Space Bones.” Science.NASA.gov. 1 October 2001. 15 May 2007 <http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast01oct_1.htm>.

Kurpis, Bryan. “FAQs.” HurricaneKatrinaRelief.com. 10 May 2007 <http://www.hurricanekatrinarelief.com/faqs.html#How%20many%20jobs%20were%20lost%20because%20of%20Hurricane%20Katrina>.

MacCallum, Taber. “ASEN 5016 Lecture 22: Psychological Aspects of Spaceflight (and related ground-based analogs).” Colorado.edu. March 2003. University of Colorado. 15 May 2007 <http://www.colorado.edu/ASEN/asen5016/22-Psych.htm>.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. “Space Exploration Will Play An Important Role In America’s Future.” The Vision For Space Exploration Feb 2004. GaleNet Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Greensboro Day School Library, Greensboro, NC. 3 May 2007 <http://find.galegroup.com/>.

Schneider, Mike “On Trip to Mars, NASA Must Rethink Death.” Washingtonpost.com. 1 May 2007. 15 May 2007 <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/01/AR2007050100927.html>.

Smith, Scott. “Bone Markers, Calcium Metabolism, and Calcium Kinetics During Extended-Duration Space Flight on the Mir Space Station.” Pubmed. 20 Feb 2005. Nation Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health. 15 May 2007

<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=15647814>.

United States House of Representatives. U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science and Technology Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics. Building and Maintaining a Healthy and Strong NASA Workforce. 17 May 2007. 20 May 2007 < democrats.science.house.gov/Media/File/Commdocs/hearings/2007/space/17may/hearing_charter.pdf>.

SarahCarmi

Together

Introduction

The well-known idiom, “There is more than meets the eye,” is a perfect

description of NASA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. When most

people think of this agency, one known for shooting our nation to number one in space

exploration leadership, a slideshow of brilliantly-colored galaxies, exploding nebulae,

and men setting foot on the moon is probably the first thing to appear in their minds.

However, the thing that defines NASA as a necessity to our government is the

accomplishments that are less commonly known to the general population such as

commercialized technology, environmental benefits, and priceless research into the future

of our civilization. As opponents of this crucial agency fight to have the budget cut, we

as the negative strongly believe that there is no group more worthy of the $17.3 billion

budget allotted to NASA. In fact, the budget is not as outrageous as some people think,

considering that for every dollar spent within the NASA budget, ten cents from this dollar

filter back into the United States economy as a product from commercialized technology.

NASA is the pursuer of our nation’s future, looking into the options of saving our

environment by utilizing the resources in the solar system’s asteroid belt. Robert

Heinlein, the popular science fiction writer once said in a speech, "The Earth is just too

small and fragile a basket for the human race to keep all its eggs in." (Heinlein qtd. by

Engdahl.) As the country battles an $8.8 billion budget deficit, it is easy to try and find

extra money wherever possible; however, we as the negative side are confident that

NASA is not the place to look. Seeing that our world is rapidly deteriorating into a state

of war, destruction, and global warming, our best option is to look into space. At Rutgers

University, Isaac Asimov, another prolific writer, asked the audience: “There are so many

benefits to be derived from space exploration and exploitation; why not take what seems

to me the only chance of escaping what is otherwise the sure destruction of all that

humanity has struggled to achieve for 50,000 years?" We as the negative are asking the

same question, and without an opposing argument, accept as true that NASA is a

worthwhile agency deserving of its support.

Statement of the Case

In 1958, President Dwight D Eisenhower created the National Aeronautics and

Space Administration, or NASA. Their mission was to explore the unknown: outer space.

It was NASA who put the first man on the moon, and it was NASA who first launched

the space shuttle in 1981 as the way to readily access space. Recently, two probes have

been sent to Mars to explore the red planet, and it has constructed the International Space

Station along with other countries. For over forty-five years, NASA has made major

advances in the science of space exploration.

The question at hand is whether the NASA federal budget is justified. The

requested budget for 2007 was approximately 16.8 billion dollars, which represents

only .7 percent of the federal budget. Over the past five decades, Americans have been

very involved in the study of outer space, a vast place yet to be completely discovered.

From the countless probes and cameras sent into space, not only have we learned what

our neighboring planets, solar systems, and galaxies look like, but important scientific

discoveries have been uncovered that have then been applied back to life on Earth. Some

environmentalists and experts have suggested that while society continues to destroy the

Earth’s resources, space contains abundant amounts of these same resources that could

help our current global state. On top of the environmental benefits, there have also been

over 1,500 spin-off technologies that have been put into daily use here on earth, such as

the pacemaker, the TV satellite dish, and firefighter equipment.

On the contrary, space exploration is notoriously dangerous and has launched

several unsuccessful and fatal missions; missions such as these are considered a waste of

money and a tragedy for the loss of human lives. This presents the real question: are the

benefits of space exploration worth the cost?

Confirmation

Space exploration is an important and crucial part of our country’s growth and

future. There are numerous reasons why cutting the federal budget dedicated to NASA,

the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, would be a colossal mistake for the

future of our country.

While initially built to help send shuttles or probes soaring towards the stars, the

advanced technology produced for NASA has been effectively brought into everyday life,

helping millions of people in more ways than one. From insulating gloves to computer

joysticks to infrared cameras, spinoffs, commercialized NASA technology, have

expanded beyond the world of space shuttles and found their way in helping mankind.

One of the most important spinoffs stemming from the Apollo missions is the insulating

Space blanket “thin, shiny reflective material used to insulate everything from the

Hubble Space Telescope to hikers, from the Mars rovers to marathon runners, from

computers to campers, from satellites to sun shields, and from rockets to residences.”

(United States: Reflecting) This covering is used to regulate the body temperature of

marathon runners, hospital patients, and emergency victims. Following the 2005

earthquake in Pakistan, over 150,000 blankets were donated to help the earthquake

survivors continue to live. Originally used for direct communication between earth

stations and orbiting satellites, another vital spinoff of space technology is the pacemaker,

an electric monitoring device used to check heart rhythm. As has been constantly proved

and reproved, the advancements of space exploration expand beyond that of space shuttle

launches and lab work into the realm of medical hospitals, video games, and Third World

countries.

A proposed budget cut is in a sense closing the nation’s eyes to the environmental

destruction caused by global warming and accepting the horrendous fate of our

deteriorating situation. “In a CBS News/New York Times poll, 52 percent said that

global warming should be a high priority for government leaders.” (Americans…global

warming) The leading cause of global warming is greenhouse gases, which are caused

by the burning of fossil fuel. However, according to Jeff Brooks, a writer, “If we could

successfully exploit the resources of the Asteroid Belt, we would never again have to

carve huge scars into our planet’s surface in our quest for resources.” (Brooks) Asteroids,

which mostly are composed of nickel, iron, and magnesium, exist mostly in the Asteroid

Belt between the orbits of Jupiter and Mars; however, there are some asteroids that stray

and end up much closer to Earth. “One NASA report estimates that the mineral wealth of

the asteroids in the asteroid belt might exceed $100 billion for each of the six billion

people on Earth.” (Bonsor) With the correct technology and transportation for the

asteroid materials, the Earth’s atmosphere could be vastly saved all thanks to the

continuing exploration of this resource. The hidden value of the asteroid belt is something

that goes unnoticed to most of the nation’s citizens, and with the help of a budget cut,

would most likely never be known.

The 2008 $17.3 billion dollar proposed budget for NASA is the minimum amount

of money that will allow NASA to progress as the space leader of the world. Opponents

of the space program in favor of a budget cut are obviously missing the big picture on

how much money it takes to insure our future in space. The Coalition for Space

Exploration, a space advocacy group comprised of companies, nonprofits, and unions,

found that the NASA budget divided by the number of taxpayers in the United States

resulted in each payer contributing only $55 dollars a year, or $.15 a day. According to

NASA data, for every dollar spent in the NASA budget, $3.57 are spent on tobacco and

$2.99 are spent on jewelry and watches. In fact, while skeptics argue that NASA is a

waste of time and priority, true believers and experts, such as the members of the

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA,) have found the better

argument and are asking instead for a raise of the NASA budget. In a letter written to

Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, this group asked for a $1.4 billion increase to the 2008

budget and stated, “Without this increase, our nation faces the very real risk of losing our

uniquely critical industrial base and human space access capability.” (AIAA.) Denying

this increase, which would continue to support the Orion spacecraft and Ares 1 booster,

both being built to replace the space shuttle after 2010, would most definitely leave a gap

in our country’s space leadership and injure our discovery piloting status. At this point,

the real debate is not whether the NASA budget should be cut, as it is clear that such a cut

would disable our country’s standing; instead, the debate and clear answer should be

whether and how to get the undervalued NASA appreciated with a rise in budget.

Refutation

The space exploration budget has been questioned for years, ever since the

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, or NASA, was established in 1958 by

President Eisenhower. Space travel is extraordinarily expensive, and the opposing parties

believe that the government’s money would be better used on healthcare and other

earthly problems, rather than a dangerous scientific study. If you put this in perspective

however, you will find, “Here are $976.3 billion dollars – almost a trillion - spent every

year in the US on pets, toys, gambling, alcohol and tobacco. It is 63 times the amount

spent on space exploration – with the difference that NASA has not destroyed lives as

alcohol, tobacco and gambling did. It is not the exploration spirit that Americans need to

give up….It is the consumerist spirit.” (Pop) Cutting the NASA budget could be

disastrous for not only the United States but the world; it would be "bad for space

science, worse for earth science.” (Boehlert qtd. in Overbye)

One of the biggest arguments against NASA’s large budget is that the money

should be used to fund restoration efforts in areas affected by Hurricane Katrina. Those

against space exploration agree with this argument, saying that national disasters take

precedence over studies about the future. While it is understood that the natural disaster

of Hurricane Katrina desperately needs government funding, NASA enthusiasts believe

that the NASA budget should not be sacrificed. The government allocates a budget to

specifically take care of natural disasters, and it should be the government’s

responsibility to effectively distribute and use this budget. This was not the case when

Katrina hit; immediate disaster care was poorly executed due to lack of planning on the

government’s part, and the result was a disaster zone that unbelievably still exists today.

“The experts, including a former Bush administration disaster response manager, told

Knight Ridder that the government wasn't prepared, scrimped on storm spending and

shifted its attention from dealing with natural disasters to fighting the global war on

terrorism.” (Borenstein) NASA’s exploration of space is a study that has changed the

world as we know it, and its budget should not be reduced due to the government’s

inability to maintain a successful disaster program; “Budget cuts haven't made disaster

preparedness any easier.” (Borenstein) What leads critics to believe that the money cut

from the NASA budget will go directly into Katrina’s budget? Who are they to say that it

won’t go into the war budget, with the new increase Bush has requested?

Interesting pictures are the only thing that has come from NASA’s expensive

studies, skeptics say. However, this is factually untrue. “The exploration of outer space

has already revolutionized life on our planet in many ways. Observations from outer

space have enhanced our understanding of our common environment, for example, by

providing images of the ozone layer and world climate conditions. Space technology has

led to advances in fields ranging from the monitoring of natural disasters to the

development of navigational systems. These examples of the benefits of space technology

-- some immediately apparent, some much less so -- provide a powerful justification for

the peaceful exploration of outer space.” (Annan) Space exploration has brought about

many scientific and medical discoveries. These include a miniaturized ventricular-assist

pump that has been successfully used in heart surgeries, blanket insulation kits based on

the NASA Space Shuttle Thermal Protection system materials, the TV satellite dish,

medical imaging, firefighter equipment, smoke detectors, thermal gloves and boots,

failsafe flashlights, and numerous toys. In addition, the study of outer space has brought

up new ways in which to save our dying planet. Scientists have discovered that by

traveling to the asteroid belt, taking one small portion of it, and bringing it back to earth,

we could be supplied with enough energy materials to last us for millions of years,

eliminating the use of fossil fuels and saving our planet from self destruction.

The opposing party believes that space exploration is extremely dangerous, and

on some level, that is true. “The exploration of space is fraught with peril. Since we first

started putting humans into space, there have been accidents, and people have died.”

(Greene) However, if the hazards of space travel are compared to those of the war in

Iraq, the comparison is hardly close at all. The war in Iraq, considered by some to be an

unnecessary war, has been the cause of 3,384 American casualties and has left 25,245

Americans wounded, and “these numbers do not include the estimated 16% of the

soldiers who will develop serious depression, anxiety, and PTSD disorders after returning

from Iraq and the potential violence that accompany their return.” (Marsella) In contrast,

NASA has only lost eighteen people during in-flight accidents (4% of in-flight

astronauts), eleven astronauts during training accidents, and seventy ground employees.

That’s a total of ninety-nine people throughout the entire history of NASA, a far cry from

Iraq’s 3,384 in the past . Not only is the war in Iraq undoubtedly more fatal than the space

program, but it is also more expensive. “The United States cannot sustain a war that is

costing over 200 billion dollars a year in an economy that is faced with downsizing,

exportation of jobs to foreign countries, tax cuts, and excessive domestic costs for

medical care, housing, social services, and education. Already we have seen dramatic

increases in the price of gasoline that has hurt the airline and transportation industry. 

Ultimately, citizens will be forced to pay for the war in new taxes and budget cuts in the

very services they need.” (Marsella) United States citizens pay fifteen cents a day, or

fifty-five dollars a year, on space exploration. Is that too much to ask when it comes to

the future of our country, of our earth? As William E. Burrows stated in a Wall Street

Journal article in 2003, “The question to ask is whether the risk of traveling to space is

worth the benefit. The answer is an unequivocal yes, but not only for the reasons that are

usually touted by the space community: the need to explore, the scientific return, and the

possibility of commercial profit. The most compelling reason, a very long-term one, is

the necessity of using space to protect Earth and guarantee the survival of humanity.”

Conclusion

Should NASA’s budget be cut? For NASA enthusiasts, the answer is an

indisputable no. Over the past fifty years, NASA has brought space to life; men have

walked on other planets, and natural resources that could potentially save our planet have

been discovered. Thousands of toys, protective equipments, and medical technologies

have been created through NASA’s innovative work in space. These milestones in

science not only prove that NASA is discovering new and exciting things in the

unknown, but they are also changing life here on earth.

The affirmative side believes that space exploration is far too dangerous to be

using a portion of the government’s budget. However, NASA’s budget is $16.8 billion, a

mere 0.7 percent of our nation’s budget. Compare this to the war in Iraq, which takes

twenty-one percent of the government budget and is much more treacherous. NASA has

lost a total of one hundred people, and this number is limited to in-flight astronauts,

ground crew, and training astronauts. In addition, the eighteen astronauts that have died

in space flight make up only four percent of all in-flight astronauts. The war in Iraq, on

the other hand, has resulted in over 3,385 casualties and 25,378 soldiers have been

seriously wounded. “And to the war statistics of American soldiers must be added those

of Iraqi insurgent and civilians that now exceed 30,000 dead and 100,000 wounded. 

Reports also indicate that starvation, disease, famine, malnutrition, and trauma are

exacting a harsh toll on Iraqi children that may be irreversible creating yet another

generation of pain and suffering and future revenge seekers.” (Marsella) Although space

exploration has been the reason for several lost lives, it has indubitably brought about

more good than bad.

When most people think of space exploration, they picture nebulas, galaxies, and

mind-boggling pictures of massive space bodies that they can’t even begin to fathom.

What these people often don’t think of, however, are the most amazing. Braces, the

television satellite dish, miniaturized ventricular-assist pumps, medical imaging, and

pacemakers are just a few of the discoveries achieved through space exploration.

American taxpayers spend fifty-five dollars a year on space exploration, or fifteen cents a

day, a small price to pay for the benefits they receive. If a citizen’s house caught fire, the

firemen rushing to save his or her life would be wearing a protective suit made of a

material developed through space exploration, and the smoke detector that had alerted

them would have been credited to NASA. More astonishing than the pictures of outer

space are the amazing benefits that have come from its exploration.

Is space exploration dangerous? Undoubtedly yes. Is it risky and expensive? The

answer is also yes. Is it worth it? NASA enthusiasts all know that the answer is a

resounding yes. The possibilities of space exploration are endless, and if we lower

NASA’s budget, they will be significantly limited. How can we as a country expect to

maintain a position of leadership in the world if we do not effectively support our

leadership in technology? The resources found in space could potentially save our planet;

is the future of our earth not worth the cost of space exploration? As Larry Niven said,

“"The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program. And if we

become extinct because we don't have a space program, it'll serve us right!"”

Citations

“Americans say global warming is a problem” ScienceDaily. 24 April 2007. 17 May 2007. <http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20070427-15593900-bc-us-climatepoll.xml>.

Annan, Kofi. "Secretary-General Says Benefits of Space Exploration Should Not Be Limited to Privileged Few." 11 April 2001. 20 May 2007 <http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2001/sgsm7767.doc.htm>.

Bonsor, Kevin. “How Asteroid Mining Will Work.” HowStuffWorks. 18 May 2007. < http://science.howstuffworks.com/asteroid-mining.htm>.

Borenstein, Seth. "Federal Government Wasn't Ready for Katrina, Disaster Experts Say." CommonDreams.org News Center 1 September 2005 16 May 2007 <http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0901-01.htm>.

Brooks, Jeff. “Why Democrats Should Support Space Exploration.” The Space Review: Essays and Commentary about the Final Frontier. 21 Nov. 2005. 6 May 2007.http://www.thespacereview.com/article/499/1.

Cornwell, Rupert. “The Big Question: Is manned space exploration a waste of time and money?” The Independent. 6 July 2006. 6 May 2007.http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article1162800.ece.

Dismukes, Kim. "Space Shuttle Benefits." NASA. 17 August 2004. 20 May 2007 <http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/benefits/index.html>.

Engdahl, Sylvia. “What famous people (and some not famous) have said about why humankind must expand into space” SpaceQuotes.com. 30 Oct. 2006. 23 May 2007. http://www.spacequotes.com/.

Fisher, Diane. "Inventions From Space." NASA Space Place. 8 September 2005. 20 May 2007 <http://spaceplace.jpl.nasa.gov/en/kids/spinoffs2.shtml>.

Greene, Nick. "Space Disasters and Tragedies." About, Inc., A part of the New York Times Company (2007) 18 May 2007 <http://space.about.com/od/spaceexplorationhistory/a/spacedisasters.htm>.

Griffin, Michael. “Why Explore Space?” NASA. 18 Jan. 2007. 4 May 2007.http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/exploration/main/griffin_why_explore.htmMarsella, Anthony J.. "True Costs and Consequences of War." 12 December 2005 12 May 2007 <http://www.psysr.org/marsella-message2004.htm>.

Masters, Karen. “How much money is spent on space exploration?” Curious About Astronomy? Nov. 2005. 6 May 2007.http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=684.“NASA Spinoffs: Bringing Space down to Earth.” The Ultimate Space Place. 2 Feb. 2004. 19 May 2007. <http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html>.O’Hern, Shawn. “NASA: You Get Your (Tax) Money's Worth” 28 April 2002. 23 May 2007. http://www.rit.edu/~smo5024/papers/nasa/.

Overbye, Dennis. "Budget Cuts Back Much-Promoted NASA Missions." New York Times 2 March 2006 17 May 2007 <http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/02/science/space/02nasa.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5088&en=ed05c5fddfb2d27c&ex=1298955600&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss>.

Pop, Virgiliu. "Is Space Exploration Worth the Cost?." Space Daily 19 January 2004 15 May 2007 <http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-04b.html>.

Rutz, Dan. “From pacemakers to braces, the medical benefits of space exploration.” CNN.com 2 November 1998. 17 May 2007. <http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9811/02/space.medical/index.html>.

"Space Disaster." Wikipedia. 2007. 20 May 2007 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_disasters#Spaceflight_fatalities>.

United States. (AIAA.) American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. “Industry Leaders Call on Congress to Boost NASA Budget.” 14 May 2007. 18 May 2007. < http://www.comspacewatch.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=22637>.United States. Congressional Budget Office. “A Budgetary Analysis of NASA's New Vision for Space Exploration.” Sep. 2004. 4 May 2007.

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5772&sequence=6&from=0.

United States. International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers. AFL-CIO. “NASA Budget Betrays Vision for Space Exploration.” SpaceRef.com. 6 Feb. 2006. 8 May 2007.http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=18941

United States. Office of the Press Secretary. “President Bush Announces New Vision for Space Exploration Program.” The White House. 14 Jan. 2004. 4 May 2007. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040114-1.html.United States. Scientific and Technical Information. “Reflecting on Space Benefits: A Shining Example.” Spinoff. 22 Jan. 2007. 18 May 2007. <http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/Spinoff2006/ch_9.html>.

White, Deborah. "Iraq War Results and Statistics as of May 2, 2007." About, Inc., A part of the New York Times Company 6 May 2007 18 May 2007 <http://usliberals.about.com/od/homelandsecurit1/a/IraqNumbers.htm>.