Instigator / Pro
Points: 35

Public companies should dominate private companies in the space sector

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 5 votes the winner is ...
DynamicSquid
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Technology
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
2,500
Contender / Con
Points: 0
Description
Just a short debate this time. I'm not sure if this topic could be expanded to perhaps 5 or 7.5 thousand characters, so the purpose of this debate is to just get a sense of what the context will be. If this debate turns out to be interesting, then I'll definitely make a longer one.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So should public companies be the majority of the space sector? Even over private companies?
Note: Dominant doesn't mean like total and utter domination, it just means a majority.
Round 1
Published:
Hello and thanks for accepting this debate. I hope it to be a fun one. Let's get started!

Should - With a political, economic, and social benefit\

So should public companies still continue to significantly outperform private companies, or should private companies get the advantage?

Arguments


  • Why private companies should not dominate the space sector
What the the main goal of a private company. All private companies share this.

Money.

They want to make money, and lots of it. That is my point for this round.

When public spacecraft ends, and private craft take over, they will want to make a profit. That means charging us for everything. Imagine paying every time you use GPS, or every time you check the weather!

---
"Siri, what's the weather like?"

"Sorry Squid, but you haven't made your weather payment yet."

"But I gave you ten bucks yesterday!"

"Sorry Squid, but the payment is daily."

Squid: Drowns
---

Well, maybe not like that, but you get the idea.


  • Why public companies should dominate the space sector
Mark Rober (former NASA scientist and youtuber) once said something like this:

There's just no incentive of a private company to invest in global soil detection technologies, and make it free to anyone who need it
NASA has around 20 satellites in space right now, and all of them provide crucial data to how our planet's doing. Farm monitoring, weather predictions, and more. And they're all free! They can and have saved up to $60 billion per disaster, and again, for free!

SpaceX will never do that.


Conclusion

Well, that about just wraps it up for this round!

In the next round, I will be clashing and cementing my arguments.

I await my opponents response, and good luck!

Thank you.
Forfeited
Round 2
Published:
Extend last text.
Forfeited
Added:
--> @Ragnar, @Utthuvhilvindebate
Good point.
In this case, "should" means with a economic, social, and political benefit.
Instigator
#2
Added:
On this, I must caution you about the word SHOULD. It can imply a moral thing, like it would be better if they did... What I suspect you mean, is that publicly traded companies will most likely out perform private companies.
#1
#5
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
FF .
#4
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Fool's Forfeit
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Full Forfeit.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Full Forfeit.