The Instigator
BenJWasson
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
heywil2
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Humans should colonize Mars by 2050.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
BenJWasson
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/21/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 700 times Debate No: 86998
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

BenJWasson

Pro

Definitions:

"colonization"

Oxford defines colonization as establishing oneself in an area. The point at which human colonization occurs is when crops are grown and humans can self-sustain.

Rules:
1. No forfeits
2. Sources may be provided in the comments
3. No new arguments in the final round
4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling
6. First round is for acceptance only
7. Violation of any rules is an automatic loss
heywil2

Con

No way! That's 34 years! According to my sources our technology shows that it take 3 years to go to Mars on our average spaceship. It will need material to build stuff. We all working together will still take a lot of money and be only be able to send 20 spaceships in 5-10 years. Each spaceship will only be able to carry 1/814,000 of all the major equipment needed. We can't send that much spaceships, and humans may not even want to go to mars.
Debate Round No. 1
BenJWasson

Pro

Thank you to Con for accepting, I look forward to our debate.

Before I say my points, which are the benefits of going to Mars by 2050, I will say how exactly we will travel to Mars in this time frame.

If we were to try and go to Mars now, the trip would take much too long, but currently, technology is being created to make the trip last just 90 days. This technology, harnessing the power of nuclear fusion, is actually being developed right now by the NASA Innovative Advanced Concepts program, or NIAC. Nuclear fusion is the same process that fuels the sun, and it is extremely powerful. This technology would make 90 day trips to the Red Planet possible, team members working on the project say. They also say that this technology will be finished soon.

So now I will list my points.
P1: Going to Mars ensures survival of life on Earth.
The only home humans have ever known is Earth. But history shows that surviving as a species on this tiny blue dot in the vacuum of space is tough and by no means guaranteed. The dinosaurs are a classic example: They roamed the planet for 165 million years, but the only trace of them today are their fossilized remains. A colossal asteroid wiped them out.
We seem to be edging towards the verge of something like this also. With a United Nations estimate of 10 billion people by 2050, we need to have more space to continue to live and thrive as we are currently. Putting humans on Mars can better ensure our existence for thousands if not millions of years from now.

"If this species is to survive indefinitely, we need to become a multi-planet species." Charles Bolden, director of Nasa, says. "Getting to Mars will be a "stepping stone" " first we need to get there, then we (or our descendants) can start talking other solar systems and galaxies" he continues. We need to start thinking about the future generations of mankind, the ones who will lead this species in the years to come. Previously, we have messed up with things like global warming, nuclear waste, and much, much more that has harmed our Earth, possibly permanently, but for once, we need to get this done, and think about the future of humanity.

Stephen Hawking sums this contention up, who says, "Life on Earth is at the ever-increasing risk of being wiped out by a disaster, such as sudden global warming, nuclear war, a genetically engineered virus or other dangers we have not yet thought of."

P2: Going to Mars has overwhelming economic value.
Mars has much to offer in the way of natural resources that make it very valuable. For example, there is a large quantity of rare metals on Mars such as platinum, silver and gold, according to Red Colony. Mars is also abundant in deuterium (i.e., heavy-hydrogen). This natural gas which is comparatively very rare on Earth can be used in fusion reactors to produce an inordinate amount of energy. It has even been estimated that a milliliter of liquid heavy-hydrogen fuel would generate as much energy as 20 tons of coal. Likewise, the main asteroid belt near Mars could be mined for its rich supply of minerals, and many of these natural resources could be transported back to Earth for a substantial profit.

Robert Zubrin, an American aerospace engineer and the former Chairman of the National Space Society, points out that "Mars is singular in that it possesses all the raw materials required to support not only life, but a new branch of human civilization."[9] Like Earth, Mars has a rich supply of carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen. All of these elements are readily accessible on the planet in the forms of carbon dioxide gas, nitrogen gas and ice.[10] The amount of ice and permafrost on Mars could even be melted to form vast oceans. In short, Mars has all the elements that allow a human colony to be self-sustaining.

But it gets even better. By artificially inducing global warming on Mars through outgassing, humans will also be able to terraform the planet so that biological life can thrive there without the aid of technology, says National Geographic. In other words, terraforming Mars would allow it to become very similar to Earth in terms of its atmosphere and environment. Once we develop the technology for such a project, the vast resources of Mars would likely make this endeavor economically feasible. Although terraforming Mars is not necessary to set up colonies, this possibility shows the incredible potential that the planet has for human life.

For these reasons, vote Pro.
heywil2

Con

I'll admit, you were pretty good. You put a large amount in a single round. I look for ward to this argument.

All your reasons weren't bad.

However, you missed something. Where do we get the MONEY??? Second, where is the TECHNOLOGY that allows us to even SURVIVE ON MARS?? To get all that money, it would take 42 years, assuming that most people donated, and most likely, only 1/22930 may donate instead of 3/4 of all people.
Debate Round No. 2
BenJWasson

Pro

I would first of all like to say my opponent has not refuted any of my points. Extend.

To refute my opponent's argument involving money, we can easily use some of our 600 Billion, or 600,000,000,000 USD spent on the military annually. To compare, NASA's current budget is an annual 17 billion, a microscopic amount in relative. If the opposition is worried about national defense, the country with the second highest military budget, China, has a measly 130 billion, so there is no need to worry about such a thing.

To refute my opponent's argument based on the technology, it will be easily available with the amount of money we can take from other things (an example being the previously mentioned US Military Budget).

So, Voters, would you rather vote for a side completely based on speculation and that has not refuted any arguments, or a side offering many points and willing to help in the advancement of humanity altogether...

Vote Pro.
heywil2

Con

heywil2 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
BenJWasson

Pro

My opponent has forfeited, and as stated in my rules, it is an automatic loss, so I win. Extend, and thank you.
heywil2

Con

heywil2 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
BenJWasson

Pro

Same as said previously. Thank you.
heywil2

Con

Doesn't count, I was doing other important things. You, had time to argue, but did not, because you had no more arguments, so I win mainly.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by BenJWasson 1 year ago
BenJWasson
It doesn't matter what the reason is for violating the rules you agreed to, even if you were doing more important things. I win by default, as even in your last speech you never refuted any of my points and I refuted all of yours. Good debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
BenJWassonheywil2Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by JustAnotherFloridaGuy 1 year ago
JustAnotherFloridaGuy
BenJWassonheywil2Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.
Vote Placed by U.n 1 year ago
U.n
BenJWassonheywil2Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.