The Instigator
Pro (for)
42 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
70 Points

My 100th Debate: Assuming that the Earth is overpopulated, Mars should be colonized until 2200

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 17 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 7/4/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,272 times Debate No: 93185
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (121)
Votes (17)





This will be my 100th debate, and the resolution will be "Assuming that the Earth is overpopulated, Mars should be colonized until 2200." I am Pro in this debate, and my opponent Peepette will be Con. I hope for a exciting debate, and let's get started!!!


1. No forfeiting
2. No trolling
3. No kritiks
4. No semantics
5. No source spams (over 30 sources)
6. Have good conduct
7. All arguments have to be posted in the debate
8. Sources can be posted in an external link
9. No new arguments in the last round (defense and rebuttals of defense do not count as arguments, but rebuttals of normal arguments are counted as arugments, therefore not allowed)
10. Not following these rules will give you an automatic loss

Debate Structure

1. Acceptance
2. Arugments
3. Rebuttals
4. Defense
5. Rebuttals of Defense, Summary


Mars: Mars is the fourth planet from the Sun and the second-smallest planet in the Solar System, after Mercury. Named after the Roman god of war, it is often referred to as the "Red Planet"[13][14] because the iron oxide prevalent on its surface gives it a reddish appearance.[15] Mars is a terrestrial planet with a thin atmosphere, having surface features reminiscent both of the impact craters of the Moon and the valleys, deserts, and polar ice caps of Earth.

Note: As I believe that I have to show all the temperatures, I will do so here.


Mean radius
3,389.5±0.2 km[a] [3]
Equatorial radius

3,396.2±0.1 km[a] [3]
0.533 Earths
Polar radius

3,376.2±0.1 km[a] [3]
0.531 Earths
Flattening 0.00589±0.00015
Surface area

144,798,500 km2
0.284 Earths

1.6318×1011 km3[4]
0.151 Earths

6.4171×1023 kg[5]
0.107 Earths
Mean density
3.9335±0.0004 g/cm³[4]
Surface gravity

3.711 m/s²[4]
0.376 g
Moment of inertia factor
Escape velocity
5.027 km/s
Sidereal rotation period

1.025957 d
24h 37m 22s[4]
Equatorial rotation velocity
868.22 km/h (241.17 m/s)
Axial tilt
25.19° to its orbital plane[7]
North pole right ascension

21h 10m 44s
North pole declination
Albedo 0.170 (geometric)[8]
0.25 (Bond)[7]
Surface temp. min mean max
Kelvin 130 K 210 K[7] 308 K
Celsius −143 °C[10] −63 °C 35 °C[11]
Apparent magnitude
+1.6 to −3.0[9]
Angular diameter

I believe this is enough for the definition of Mars, now let's go onto other definitons

Colonized: to create a colony in or on (a place) : to take control of (an area) and send people to live there, or to move into and live in (a place) as a new type of plant or animal [2].

Therefore, breaking down the resolution, it is that Mars, or the fourth planet from the sun should not be made so that people live there.

I hope for a nice debate.





Thank you fire wings for allowing me to be part of your 100th debate. I accept and look forward to an invigorating exchange.
Debate Round No. 1



I thank my opponent Peepette for accepting this debate. I hope we have a good exchange. My argument will be very short, but I hope they are okay, they will not be around 10,000 characters long, I apoligize if my arguments are a bit short, as I am in the lack of time, and can't think of much arguments.


O1: As the debate resolution is "Assuming that the Earth is overpopulated, Mars should be colonized, I ask the burden to be shared, and both sides provide offense. Pro/ I need to show that Mars should be colonized by 2020 because the Earth is overpopulated, and Con's burden is that even if the Earth is overpopulated, Mars should not be colonized. I am not saying that all people should live in Mars. It is just that we will colonize it for some people to live. I will show that we can get resources from Mars, and it is certainly possible that we can move to Mars.

O2: I won't really be using the term "colonized", I will mostly use "live." Think of that as almost the same thing.

Argument 1: Time/ Things humans can do

Humans can do almost anything. They can definetly fly to space and go to Mars. Musa Manarov, a Russian, spent more than 540 days in space [1] [2]. He flew for 365 days in the Soyuz TM-4. 2 years later, he flew for 175 days on Soyuz TM-11. This is a very big time, and the humans accomplished it.

Going to Mars, it will only take around 7 months [3]. Therefore, as some humans can do one year time space, and more than 540 days in space altogether, humans can certainly accomplish going for 7 months to Mars, making it certainly possible. 7 months are around 210 days, making it certainly possible for going to Mars. It is impossible to actually state that we can't go to Mars.

We've accomplished to but many rovers and buggies to Mars. Why can't we? Humans have a brain, when robots don't. We can certainly do this too.

Argument 2: Possible

Experts say that going to Mars will be possible in 2030 [4]. This debate is going until 2200. This is easily possible. As it is possible, why shouldn't we do it? It gives us much more space, and we can accomplish this all. Why shouldn't we do it?

This is a picture of what the colony will be [5].

Humans have tons of technology too. When us humans first arrived to the US, we didn't. We didn't have actual medecine, doctors, smartphones, etc. We all made these now. It can certainly work.

The colonies actually look kinda cool. If we build more houses, it could be a neigbornood, then a city, then a country, then a continent, then to the whole world!!!

We can dig out some of the red soil, but Earth soil, and grow plants. Con might say that this will not happen, but it certainly can. Plants need water, air, nutrients, and sunlight, warmth to grow [8]. We can specfially warm the plants in greenhouses, and the sun is right there at Mars, but it is just farther away, there is still sunlight. We can give the plants water, nutrients of the soil. Then the plants will give us oxygen to breathe!!! Humans need food, water, shelther, and air to basically survive. We can bring food and water from Earth, shelther of the colony as I showed a picture, and air of the plants.

This is certainly all possible. Humans can accomplish this in over 180 years, as humans can basically do anything. Nothing is ever impossible. And this will work also.

Argument 3: Liberty

Con might think that people don't want to go to Mars. However, Tens of thousands of people are prepared to leave their families, jobs and lives behind for a one-way trip to Mars [5]. There are more than 165,000 applications for Mars One already [5]. As all people have the liberty or the freedom of choice [9], and self-ownership, because we own ourselves, people have the right of choice to go to Mars. We can't nessicarily say no to what they want to do.

Even the harm principle says this. John Stuart Mill's harm principle says that we can do things we want unless it harms others [9]. Are we provoking people to live in Mars? No. Tens of thousands of people want to go to Mars. This doesn't harm the people who do not go to Mars, therefore, we should let them live in Mars, and colonize Mars.

If Con defies this argument, then that automatically means that he thinks that people do not have the freedom of choice. Without the freedom of choice, Con accepts that slavery is allowed, no freedom of speech, and child labor. This will be bad for the world, and very immoral, so vote Pro because of liberty.

Argument 4: Not enough space

As it is a fact in the debate that the Earth is overpopulated, that means that we don't have enough space for us humans to live. Therefore, some people gotta go somewhere. And that is Mars. Mars is the closest features like Earth. They have ice, there average temperature is -55 celcius [6], which is the closest temperature to Earth. There is not much difference of temperature of Antartica.

As I showed that Mars is similar to Earth, and we can live in Earth, so that means we can live in Mars. Other planets are to hot, or too cold. Mars is the most similar to Earth. Because we can live in Mars, and the Earth is overpopulated, why shouldn't we go there?

Argument 5: Resources

Mars has many resources that Earth does not. First, Deuterium. One drop can equal to 20 tons of coal [7]. They are existing in Mars. They harm less to the environment, and is much more useful. This is a very useful thing.

There are many useful things that can be found in Mars. I showed you one which could change Earth, and can be used in Mars. It is less harmful to the environment. If we go to Mars, there might be more resources that will be helpful for our lives. Therefore we should go and colonize Mars, and discover many other resources. Obviously Deuterium will not be the only one.

Argument 6: Already working on it/ Dependency

This won't really be like an arugment, but the heading says argument. It will just be mostly a fact.

There is also a company and many people working on to going to Mars. There is a company called Mars One, and they are currently trying to do so. Why should we waste all their hard work in accomplishing it? It can actually work, as I showed. So why shouldn't we do it? Con must respond to this question.

If we ban this act, then all the people who works in Mars One will have no jobs. They cannot earn any money, and they will be dependent to the government, as the main thing that the government has to do is to protect and help their citizens. This is uterally unfair. Imagine if we ban Apple? What will happen? The same thing for Mars One. They have a bright future, and we shouldn't block their future in suceeding. I apoligize for the bad argument.

Argument 7: Beneficial

This will be another very concise argument. Colonizing Mars will be very beneficial. Not only that we will have more space, and more resources that can be found in Mars, we can expand our borders, and make the world big. We can make some countries bigger, form new countries and governments. Expanding our borders and having more space is important, as in the resolution it says that the Earth is overpopulated. Resources are good, and we can find more resources when we will go to Mars, I already stated some that we can find it Mars. We will definetly find more, and make human life easier.


Wow, I did until Argument 7. That was totally unexpecting. I apoligize for the low source count, if my opponent wants anything more sourced, then contact me and I will use more sources. Some of my arugments have no sources, but there is no reason, as some are quite obvious.

My arugments were that humans can do this, time, it is possible, liberty and harm principle, not enough space, resources, dependency, beneficial, and much more. I believe I showed many reasons why Mars should be colonized, and I can't wait to hear my opponent's arguments on why we should not colonize Mars. No matter if you think of Con's side, please actually read the arguments made from both sides, as we both tried hard for this debate. Please vote Pro, as I made many arguments why we should colonize Mars. Therefore, vote Pro!!! Now it is Con's turn to post his/her arguments.



Thanks Peepette for accepting the debate. Vote Pro! Over to Con...




Thank you fire wings for your argument. I will present my argument and will provide rebuttals in round two. I have no issue with a shared BoP.


I will not contest that travel to Mars is not feasible nor should exploration occur for scientific knowledge. But with an over populated world colonization of Mars is not the best solution. Using known technologies even space technologies can be used to make livable 57% of the Earth’s uninhabitable areas [1]. It is far more practical. Areas such as frozen areas of Canada, Siberia, and Antarctic, the Sahara desert, or beneath the Oceans are better choices. Even the thousands of asteroids in Earth’s local area is an alternative*. Fewer obstacles would have to be overcome, dangers of space, radiation, gravity generation, atmosphere, energy and food production, along with the extreme costs. A greater number of people from all walks of life could benefit.


Estimates for the initial set up for colonization range between $30-100 billion for rocket travel and between $150-267 million for housing. Transport for 1 years worth of food, (enough to sustain a population until food is grown) $13-42 million. Additional cost for machinery to extract water from the surface $4.8-15.4 million, $11.75-29 billion for agricultural technology. The total is between $48 and 121 billion dollars [2]. This would not include the shipping of mining equipment since this would be the primary industry on the Mars. The money can be better spent on Earth or colonizing asteroids without the excessive risks.


Then there’s the question on criteria to select who would go. Only the technologically educated who are able to maintain and repair environmental services, grow food or mine ores; together with total health, free of any genetic defect or predisposition to hereditary illnesses and vegan would be eligible for the trip and making Mars home*. A poor uneducated 20 year old from Bangladesh would not pass muster, nor would most anyone who does not come from one of the industrialized nations; is this ethical?

Contamination/Repeating History:

Like Lake Vostok in the Antarctic, human contamination of a pristine environment is of concern [3]. Humans can contaminate Mars and in turn make it uninhabitable. 10,000 different species that number in the trillions of microorganisms live on the human body. Some may be capable in surviving in the hostile environment of Mars and be adaptive forming something dangerous to human health*. Unknowing of microbial life that may exists on Mars and its DNA/RNA components or something more primitive, along with our microorganisms could combine to become something unexpected and pose a danger to human life and to the planet. As we continue to inhabit and explore Mars it would be difficult to discern what is naturally occurring or introduced* (contamination).

Micro-organisms existing on Mars could be hazardous or allergic to humans. There is no escaping the particulate (dust) that is on Mars. Moon astronauts complained Moon dust was pervasive no matter what precautions were taken, due to it collecting in the joints in space suits*.

Human Waste: What to do with it? Urine is recyclable. Fesses and their innate contaminate nature is not. The dead might have to be stored within the compound. Unlike jettisoning waste into space as done with the space station or other space craft, it would have to be dumped or vented on or within the surface of Mars. We would start anew repeating the same pollution problem we have on Earth [4].

Self-contained human environments:

Besides the already mentioned issues of microorganisms, and human waste; atmosphere regulation, oxygen production and emissions of poisonous gasses that our bodies emit along with VOCs from materials need to be handled, CO2 nitric oxide, acetone, hydrogen chloride and assorted others. A technological break though would be needed to vent these gases without altering the pressure in the Mars habitats. This problem has yet to be resolved*. Things do break down, spare parts might be available to a point, but replacement time for new components is at minimum 14 months away if the planets and orbit are at their most opportune. There is great potential for a system wide disaster not only early on, but years into settling there.

Biofilms from the organisms our bodies carry and fluff off along those that exist on mechanical items has also shown to be an issue in the current space station. They exist and grow in places like water pipes, air filtration systems, but not limited to. They are anti-biotic resistant and grow at a faster pace in low gravity environments. Some of these growing colonies of bacteria and fungi are harmful to humans and contribute to the accelerated degradation of materials that essential equipment is made. Complex machines have been developed to handle some of this as experimented in the Biosphere projects, but have yet to be proven effective in space [5].

The Body:

Low gravity over long term has detrimental health effects on the human body, bone loss and vision impairment, muscle atrophy, deterioration of the heart muscle and compromised immune system are known. Space station astronauts have an hour of cardiovascular and weight training a day and still cannot compensate for losses. After a 7 month space flight to Mars one will arrive with illness, unable to walk or perform any tasks. Months of rehabilitation will be required to assume pre-flight health [6]. Lastly, colonization also entails reproduction. This, over any short comings of technology is something we Earthlings know almost nothing about; pregnancy, having babies and human growth and development in space. Due to the long term of pregnancy and development of higher order mammals (monkeys and humans) no lengthy studies have been able to be conducted even on the space station to date. Studies on amphibians, reptiles and bird eggs have produced very uneven results [7].

For a colony to be viable long term with sufficient genetic diversity a minimum of 40 thousand people would be required. Even with Elon Musk’s Space X most optimistic estimates with eventually 20 persons on a craft with 7months to drop off and 7 months return, with 1 ship would take 2,333 years to bring this number of people to Mars; with 4 ships 583 years [8]. Unless people were capable of self funding their own transport much like and airline ticket could additional craft be built. Taking into account the space shuttle cost 209 billion and 10 years to build*, much greater numbers of crafts used to colonize Mars will be slow in coming.

Only the well educated, healthy, very wealthy would be able to colonize, furthering the question of ethics on criteria on who would be eligible. And why would the wealthy give up a lifestyle they are accustomed for a harsh environment where prospects for future wealth growth are extremely limited, if at all possible. In such a community that Mars would be with limited resources, some sort of rationing of food and goods needs to happen. Motivation to stay beyond an exciting vacation with a return flight home is highly unlikely.

Also, a point to be made is 40,000 people is an inconsequential number of individuals in the scope of world over population. This number would not even fill a single medium sized NFL stadium. It would not in the least solve an overpopulation problem.


All factors taken into consideration, ethics on criteria on who would be eligible in an over populated world, cost, pollution of a pristine planet, issues of self contained environments, technological challenges as well as physical limitations, the ability to colonize Mars with the minimum numbers needed to maintain a self-sustaining healthy population does not appear to be feasible in the time specified. The investment would be much better spent on Earth making inhospitable areas habitable or developing colonies on nearby asteroids.

Due to the low citation count requirement, I have left a * where they were omitted. They can be provided upon request of my opponent without violation of debate parameters resulting.






6. (follow to Reproduction In Space - Mains Associates)


Now to my opponent
Debate Round No. 2


I thank my opponent for making his arguments, and in this round, I will make my rebuttals of my opponent's arguments.


O1: Con agrees to the burden that I set up. Therefore,I need to show that Mars should be colonized by 2020 because the Earth is overpopulated, and Con's burden is that even if the Earth is overpopulated, Mars should not be colonized

O2: Con says that he will put a * because it is a source, but the source count is low. This is confusing because there is less than 23 * from con, and it is 30 sources. I ask Con to make his sources in the debate, or and external link.

Rebuttal 1: Overpopulation

Con states that we should just colonize. Areas such as frozen areas of Canada, Siberia, Antartica, Sahara Desert, or beneath the Ocean are better choices. Con say that there will be fewer things to overcome, like dangers of space, radiation, gravity generation, atmosphere, energy, and extreme costs. Con doesn't neccessarily say why these obstacles are worse. Con gives no other reason to affirm his statement. His statement is a bare assertion too. Con's source was about the Earth is not overpopulated, which is useless, as the resolution says that the Earth is overpopulated. We need to overcome other things to go to Canada, or other places too, nothing can be so easy. We need to bring lot's of food because there isn't much food and animals living in Canada, Antartica, or the Sahara Desert. We need to bring warm things, or cool things. We need houses and all building material. We have to face the cold/hotness. We need to bring lot's of clothes and water. These have their own costs. So does Mars. As I showed that everything has there own things to overcome, not only colonizing Mars, please vote Pro, and don't buy Con's argument.

Rebuttal 2: Cost

Con says that colonizing Mars will be very costly. He provides one source, and that source is useless to his claim. His claim is that the total cost will be around 48-121 billion dollars. His source is Lake Vostok, a lake in Antartica. I can't see how that is a source. Therefore, this is a bare assertion, and it probably won't cost as much. This source says that it is 6 billion, which is very different to my opponent's bad source [1]. Because I am the only one with a real source, voters have no choice, but to buy my claim. And, of course, everything has a cost. Buying your grandma a shirt has costs. Almost nothing is free. Yes, money goes into colonizing Mars. So does in almost every single thing. Con says that the money would be better spent on Earth, or colonizing asteroids. My opponent doesn't say why the money will be better spent by doing this. Therefore, you cannot buy my opponent's cost argument.

Rebuttal 3: Criteria

My opponent says that only rich people can go, not other people, because it is costly. This is my opponent's worst argument. One of my sources in the 2nd round said that people over 18 can go [1]. My opponent's argument is wrong, and his example of the 20 year old Bangladesh is wrong, as he can qualify because it is over 18 years old.

Rebuttal 4: Contamination/ Repeating History

Subpoint 1: Microorganisms

This is probably my opponent's best argument yet, but falls. My opponent says that some microorganisms out of trillions can survive in the environment of Mars, and form something dangerous to human health. Con says that some microorganisms may exist in Mars. Con says that it can pose danger to the planet and human life. First of all, nothing actually now lives in Mars [2]. We have no evidence of anything living, so we assume that nothing lives in Mars by looking at all the robots that are in Mars. This is also a bare assertion. Con gives no source that this can happen. Assuming it might happen, as humans, as I showed will probably provent this. We made many cures to diseases, why can't we just do some microorganism? Humans can easily make a cure to some microorganisms in 180 years, if we conclude these are some types f diseases. Therefore, this argument is false, and rebutted.

Subpoint 2: Human waste

This is a easy rebuttal. Con says that human waste from then dying will pollute the surface of Mars. What do we do with dead bodies in Earth? We put them in a grave. We will do the same in Mars, why shouldn't we? Con says that there will be a pollution problem. Con doesn't say why dead people makes a pollution problem, so we cannot buy this argument, as there is no reasoning to the argument.

Rebuttal 5: Self-contained human environment

Con says that there are some bacteria that grow in low gravity places which can be harmful to people. Con says that they can work on this with complex machines in Earth, but no evidence to say if it can work on space. If it will work on Earth, it will probably work on space. If it doesn't work, humans will probably solve the problem in 180 years making a robot. Therefore, this argument can be easily solved, therefore not containing weight from the resolution part "until 2200", and as it is rebutted by the resolution, the argument is rebutted.

Rebuttal 6: The Body

My opponent says that there can be health effects to the body, and after a 7 month trip from Mars, some people will arrive in illness. This is not true, as I showed that some person accomplished over 540 days of space, normal people will overcome 7 months easily. We can cure the illness with medecine. Being ill doesn't nessecarily needing to make us stop this. My opponent says that colonization entails reproduction, and there was not study that we can have babies at space. Well, why can't we? Is there really a difference? No source, because we didn't do it yet. My opponent can't neccesarily claim this. My opponent says that reptiles, bird eggs, etc. had uneven results. First of all, reptiles and amphibians are cold-blooded, and so such animal went on space, we are not sure of the study. They are all laid in eggs, different from humans. Also, my opponent source is a blog, which is not a good source. And when I commandf/ crtlf the words reptile, bird eggs, etc., nothing came out, which means the study didn't actually happen, and my opponent has no source that it happened. Pregnancy comes out once. I don't see how this makes a study. Next, my opponent's other reasonings all fail to do with "body", but I'll address this argument anyways. Con says that as a minimum there needs to be at least 40 thousand people for a colony. My opponent provides no source. He doesn't really need to provide a source anyways, as over 165,000 people will go, and 40,000 < 165,000. My opponent says that we need at least 2333 years for 1 ship. One ship is ridiculous. How can 165,000 people go on one puny ship? This obviously doesn't make any sense. Even with 10 ships, there will be 16500 per ship, so we need at least over 50 ships, and that will probably make it around 50-60 years out of 180 years. We will have 120-130 years left to build a colony, that is a lot. There will be lot's of spaceships in the world anyways, so we don't need to build as much. And, as I said, everything has a cost. My opponent provides no source that it will cost 209 billion. My opponent is wrong that only wealthy, healthy, and educated would be able to colonize. This is wrong, as I showed that anyone over 18 can qualify on going [1]. Therefore, all parts of this argument is wrong.


I showed that all of my opponent's arguments are wrong, and they are all refuted. Con has no barely no sources, and they are all bad. Therefore, vote Pro.

Sources in external link:

Thank you, and vote Pro. Over to Con.




A1 Things humans can do: Sure we can do it, that’s not denied. But shipping thousands of regular citizens to Mars has its issues. Scott Kelly US astronaut along with Musa Manarov just completed a yearlong International Space Station (ISS) mission to study the effects of space on the body [1] As you can see from the data it takes two weeks for the immune system to bounce back from space. 25% of muscle mass is lost in the 1st two weeks in space and takes a month to regenerate once back on Earth. Three months before pre flight body mass is recouped. After just 6 months in space the structural integrity of bones never returns to pre flight status and radiation exposure increases risk of cancer and neurological issues for a lifetime. According to “NASA's Efforts to Manage Health and Human Performance Risks for Space Exploration(2015) report [2 p.40-44] there are 30 health concerns pertaining to deep space travel. The most serious are: Continuous CO2 exposure (6-20% over normal in space craft), behavioral/psychiatric issues due to long term confinement in a small craft, which are considered highly consequential (ISS is a bit longer than a football field [3]), There’s no phoning home or resupply craft to break up the monotony. Bone fractures due to loss of bone mass and integrity, cardiovascular issues due to micro gravity and radiation, in-flight medical capabilities should an event occur, they are less than stellar; inadequate nutrition due to limits of food storage and renal stone formation. Kidney stone are not a picnic to begin with, imagine in tight quarters? Ability to treat illness with drugs due to the unknowns of their effects in space and limitations on what can be carried, vision impairment and space radiation exposure sickness. Space radiation exposure is much greater in deep space than on ISS. The Van Allen Belts limit its exposure, not so in deep space. Beside lifelong potential for cancer and neurological issues, prolong exposure to space radiation can contribute of degenerative tissue disorders and infertility. Advanced shielding alone cannot augment exposure to galactic cosmic rays [2].

So, we have our colonist after 7 months in cramped quarters leaving the ship, with a good probability of being bonkers and suffering from multiple impairments, some lasting a lifetime; a lifetime being about 68 day by MIT researchers’ estimates if the Mars One project goes ahead [4]. To recuperate from some of these illnesses gravity is necessary, artificial gravity for stationary structures as yet to be developed [5]. Mars’ gravity is 36% of Earth’s. All just because we can?

A2 Possible: Since the world is over populated as this debate assumes, Mars would give us much more space. But we have space here on Earth as stated in opening arguments. But, I will rephrase the figure previously given. 71% of Earth is water. Of the remaining 29% of surface area, 14% is dessert, 27% high mountains and arctic terrains. 56% of the Earth is not inhabited due to inhospitable environments [6]. Why risk the dangers and ills of space?

Granted, when Europeans arrived in America to establish colonies they did not have technology, but they did have resupply ships coming and going between America and Europe with the wind to propel ships and only the weather as a concern, not radiation, or life support system failure. Furthermore, basic building materials, food, water, air and gravity were at hand and did not require importing. Unlike colonizing Mars, everything would have to be shipped at great cost. Eliminating the cost of building rockets and fuels alone saves between $30-100 billion [7]. Mars One claims of 6 billion for a single trip, which a one way ticket; price does not reflect the 3 unmanned prerequisite missions [13, 14].

You suggest we bring even water from Earth for plants? Fresh water here is at a premium and you want to ship it off planet [8]? At 8.34 pounds per gallon, that’s a lot of weight and fuel use to push it through space.

A3 Liberty: Sure 10’s of thousands want the adventure of space and Mars. It’s their choice they can pay for it themselves, but not at the expense of NASA tax payer dollars where greater numbers can be helped with the funds to remediate overpopulation. Private corporations can do as they please, but there will be ramifications (discussed later). The multi billions used to send people to Mars can better be utilized here at home. A few thousand people will not solve the overpopulation problem here on Earth. Thousands are a mere drop in the bucket, an unwise decision to utilize so many resources for such few numbers. Inhabiting uninhabitable areas on Earth serves greater numbers of people for the greater good.

A 4 Not enough space: Again there’s 56% of the Earth to make habitable that will enable the spreading of people over greater distances. As you said yourself temps on Mars are similar to Antarctica; there’s air and gravity there, no worrries in that front. No need for multibillion dollar space craft or suffering the illnesses of space. These locations are a much shorter distance away. Shipping cost to another planet a far more costly and benefits much fewer people. Future plans such as these:

Undersea cities [9] as well as a skyscraper community in the Sahara

As well as an Antarctic city (above) All are self sustaining alternatives where all the materials required are in our own backyard.

A 5 Resources:
Deuterium is produced on Earth from water, our Oceans have a bit of it [10], and is used in Nuclear power plants to create heavy water. Nuclear plants are being phased out all over the world due to upkeep cost and no safe storage for nuclear waste; very harmful to the environment. [11]. Solar and wind power are the fuels of the future. As for other useful things, you did not specify so I’ll consider the point null.

A6 Already working on it/ Dependency: No one’s efforts are wasted. The technology developed for potential Mars habitats can be utilized to colonize uninhabitable areas of Earth. Mars is a cold pace, so is Antarctica, Siberia, and the North Polar Regions. Mars shelters need to produce air; high mountains and beneath the Oceans can utilize this tech. No one need lose their jobs. Besides, space will be continued to be explored for knowledge. So the rocket scientist can stay employed as well. No one said anything about banning people from going to Mars, just not for the purpose of colonization to relieve overpopulation. The small numbers will not alleviate a thing.

A7 Beneficial:
Under the Space Treaty of 1967 no celestial body can be appropriated by any nation. Claims can only be on the property brought onto a celestial body. If NASA puts down a space pod, the US can claim only the pod, but not the ground it sits on. However, a loop hole in the law might allow for private industries to own celestial property for economic purposes. Therefore, under the law, not be part of, nor have protections of the nation they are from [12]. A corporation would have rights to set up their own form of governance; which of course would be profit motivated. The civil liberties you now enjoy might not exist under a corporate regime. Then another business comes along, say.. from China and buys an existing manner will colonizing Mars expand countries or governments; only corporations with their individual systems of law. These very corporations can legally purchase the land under the NASA pod. I fail to see how the human condition would be made better. A 7 month trip in a cramped spaceship, you land sick and compromised for a lifetime and then are under the governance of a corporation? I think there was a 60’s movie called “Slaves in Space.”

Debate Round No. 3


I thank my opponent for making his/hers rebuttals, and in this round I will defend my case


O1: Con doesn't put his sources in any single place, not even in the comments when I asked Con to post his sources that he didn't post in round 2. I assumed that he would do it in Round 3. He didn't. He must do it in round 4, if he doesn't then they are dropped. Voters need to consider this while voting. I can't even rebut my opponent's sources now because there are no new arguments in round 5, and a rebuttal counts as an argument. Therefore, voters must consider this while voting.

O2: Con posts an argument in the comments, saying that she misworded A7. According to the rules of the debate, all arguments have to be posted in the debate text, but because my opponent posted it in the comments, and because of the rules, it is impossible for me to accept this, as my opponent is then not following the rules, and it is a loss. So for my opponent's own good, I won't be accepting that argument, only the one in the debate.


Defense 1: Things humans can do

Con concedes that humans can do this. But Con says all the health problems and all that sort of stuff. Who cares about their health? Those thousands of people want to go to Mars, and they are risking their life for it. We shouldn't ban it just because it is unhealthy to go in space. That is an entire different topic. They have liberty to do what they want. They made the choice. They made the choice to maybe get harmed, but have a new life in Mars. Why should be stop this just because it hurts someone's health. They are risking for it, and we have no right to stop what they want to do, or it harms, and they have no liberty.

Defense 2: Possible

Con says that we have space in Earth too. Well that is impossible according to the debate, because the debate resolution says that the Earth is overpopulated, we don't have any space left. Con says that we can go to another place and colonize Earth. Well, Con doesn't say why we should not colonize Mars, so it is useless to his burden. My opponent says that even though they did not have technology they had ships, and didn't need to ship food, water, air, and gravity. True, they didn't need to ship air and gravity, but they had to ship air and water, because we can't drink water from oceans, and we need food for the ship, and they needed food. You can't get much food in a boat. Yes, in Mars we have to ship everything. When going to America, we had to ship a lot to, I mean, the Europeans. Yes, ship it to another planet, what is the problem? We can melt glaciers, and make ocean water fresh [1], then we will have lot's of water. Why can't we? Con doesn't rebut why we shouldn't go, only saying about the costs. I said, everything has costs. Also, it was hard for the Europeans without technology, but they managed. It will be the same for Mars.

Defense 3: Liberty

Con rebuts by saying that it is their choice paying themselves, and not NASA. Mars One said that they will pay, and is offering payment, if you look somewhere in the official site [2]. Also, of source there will be an application fee, because then they will just go free, there would probably be some application fee to go there. There is also many things that an astronaut needs [3]. Con doesn't actually rebut my argument of liberty, and that people want to go, and even the Mars One people want to go, and we can't stop these companies when they pay money. They don't harm others, why should be stop them?

Defense 4: Not enough space

Con says that there is 56% of Earth that we can make habitable. Con says that we can just use other places in Earth, and shows some pictures, and things we can do. This isn't helpful because the resolution already says the Earth is overpopulated, so there is no point for Con to say that the Earth isn't overpopulated, because Con is basically arguing that the Earth is not populated, just not saying, "populated." Therefore, Con cannot argue this.

Defense 5: Resources

Sure, it is produced in the Oceans, a bit of it. But in Mars there is much more. My opponent argues nuclear plants, which is strange because I didn't even say nuclear plants in my argument, which is confusing. My opponent counts my point null, which is strange, because I clearly explained that there can be many other resources out in Mars, and my opponent fails to refute my point. Con just tackles one example of deuterium, and that wasn't tackled properly. Con doesn't refute my point of it much better than fuel. Con says that Solar, and wind power is fuel for the future. Well, many people won't ride these cars, because they are more expensive then normal cars. So that won't happen. The best choice is Deuterium. Con doesn't rebut this. And, Con doesn't refute my argument that there can be many other resources in the future.

Defense 6: Already working on it/ Dependency

Con says that no one's efforts are wasted because instead of going to Mars, we can go to other places on Earth, and explore space. Well, this isn't true. These people do this because they want to go to Mars, they won't do there job just to habitate lame Antartica. Their job is to do Mars, they are studying Mars, and working and training. Their efforts on trying to go to Mars will be wasted, therefore my opponent's argument is wrong.

Defense 7: Beneficial

Con just spams some sources about that there will probably be no coporations if we go in a space ship for 7 months, and blah. We don't need to make these coporations right until 2200. That is no part of the burden. The burden is to colonize Mars until 2200, or to make some people live there. Therefore we can make these companies whenever we want, possibly we can make faster rockets that can go for around 1 month possibly in the future. Con just tries to refute my companies arugment, and doesn't rebut that we can expand our borders. Therefore my opponent's argument is wrong.


My opponent's rebuttals are all wrong. My opponent drops many of my core arguments, just rebutting a few examples. My impact of the argument still stands. The impact is the most important in one's argument. Con doesn't rebut any of that. Therefore my arguments stand, and please vote Pro.

Sources in external link:

Thank you. Vote Pro.


O1 In parameters, PRO didn’t not specify 30 sources per round only stated 30 sources, I assumed for total debate. The Comment on 30 per rd was after my R3 was posted. No reply from PRO to an earlier PM on the matter nor requested the 4* sources of R2. All sources are in debate, no need for another location. Too much has been made on 4 sources. To sway voters over such as a means to win, diminishes the debate itself. If Con wishes to contest sources in R5 he can, if I too can also contest his.

02 If PRO wishes to disregard the clarity given in Comments for 1 ill edited sentence in R3 A7 he can. I will stand on the strength of my arguments.


1: Overpopulation
why these obstacles are worse.” Dangers of deep space that don’t occur on Earth; cosmic radiation,heavy ions and energetic protons. ISS is within Earth’s magnetic field & Van Allen Belts limiting radiation exposure; not so in deep space. Results: cancer, stokes, cognitive impairments, Alzheimer’s cardiovascular, and musculoskeletal. Some people are more susceptible than others with no way of determining who would be more/less affected. These dangers are worse. Do you run toward a hungry lion?, ills listed below

click="document.location='/Peepette/photos/album/5906/41819/'" src="../../../photos/albums/1/6/5906/314901-5906-53bez-a.jpg" alt="" />

What’s the difference between Mars & Earth? On Earth there’s no space radiation beating down on brittle bones, while trying to pass a kidney stone, half blind due to sight loss; while in a space suit digging for deuterium under a repressive corporate regime. O2 is low, get back to the pod (size of a trailer which you’ll be spending the rest of your life)

click="document.location='/Peepette/photos/album/5906/41789/'" src="../../../photos/albums/1/6/5906/314901-5906-47yef-a.jpg" alt="" />

“Con's source was about the Earth is not overpopulated” The source was to affirm % of uninhabited area on Earth, not to contest overpopulation.

“We need to overcome other things to go to Canada” Not gravity, air & water! Northern regions of Canada & Siberia have trees to the south-building materials, Sahara sand, component of cement. All materials are on Earth; no costly multiple 34.8M mile supply runs.

“We need to bring lot's of food ..there isn't much food and animals living in Canada, Antartica, or Saharan.” Arctic animals: caribou. lemmings, musk oxen, foxes, wolves, walruses, seals, and fish Growing food in the Arctic Circle is occurring now and desalination in dessert regions for drinking & crops

No fresh foods on Mars until crops are grown. Colonists are eating MREs for 7mo of travel + the 1st yr. And there’s a problem with Martian soil. ”Martian soil is laced with chemicals called perchlorates, which would have to be chemically removed for plants to grow there” Paul Sokoloff, botanist Perchlorates are poisonous to humans

2: Cost

Con says that colonizing Mars will be very costly”.Between $48-121B.Sorry for the bad link assoc. in R3 Also, estimates by industry sources during presentation for increase in NASA’s budget to Congress, stated that cost could be $200-400B

This source says that it is 6 billion”The Mars One cit. that doesn’t include multiple supply trips that are $250M ea. or R&D costs? and who’s budget and technical feasibility has been deemed laughable. They admit to not being an aerospace Co. & want to support their endeavor with reality TV dollars; to date no sponsor. Their science is left to sub-contractors, no statement on who they are, Advancing as an amateur astronaut candidate is based on donations, purchases of merchandise, as well as turning over 75% of interview fees, not by suitability criteria for space Nowhere on their site does it state selected astronauts will receive a salary. A lead supporter Gerard ’t Hooft, a Nobel laureate, states their time line is unrealistic & will cost billions more Any ref. to Mars One’s is null; they’re fools.

" Con says that the money would be better spent on Earth” Being over populated means that space is needed. Governments will be strained to provide essentials; food, water, safety and housing. Land & water to raise crops for animal feed will become secondary to human crops & housing With competition for resources crime will rise; public protection cost rise Job creation will be of great importance along with infrastructure building & service delivery chains, as well as development of renewable energies, fossil fuels depletion is inevitable All costs a lot of money. Using laughable Mars One figures, the cost to send 4 people to Mars is $2.5B per person. Such expenditures for the benefit of a few as a solution for overpopulation is immoral. Financial resources for job growth in building & technology toward inhabiting our current uninhabitable areas will be priority.

3: Criteria
Mars One’s credibility nulled. NASA’s criteria: highly educated, PhD preferred, visual acuity, BP under 140/90, pass extensive physical and psyc screenings & pass an extensive training course 18 yr olds don’t have advanced degrees. Space X’s uses former Space Shuttle Astronauts build, maintain & live off Mars requires specialized science knowledge Tax dollars will not be used to colonize a few mere civilians. Even knowledge based explorations are doubtful with fiscal overpopulation constraints. This will certainly be a private tourist venture. At present a space tourist ticket to ISS is $20M & $30M p.p., the moon $100 & 200M; a trip to Mars? A 20 yr. old uneducated Bangladeshi would not have the tech know how or $. Due to harsh environment & lack of comforts, the rich will not be colonist, only tourist. If one does not have the skill to be technically productive or contributory they won’t be allowed to go. Liberty has nothing to do with meeting requirements.

4: Contamination
Micro organisms

Humans carry trillions of micro organisms that number in the thousand in variety that could escape & pollute Mars Scientist believe there’s a high probability of microbial life on Mars due to the existence of water, underground hydrothermal systems, gases & minerals, along with the planet’s circadian rhythms, These Marian microbes could be pathogenic to humans & together with human microbes a horizontal gene transfer can occur. Any introduction of human microbes to Mars’ environment could be adaptive & produce a biohazard

My opponent asserts that all problems can be solved in 180 yrs. You propsoe we're colonizing through 2200? An issue can arise at anytime during this span reducing problem resolution time. We haven’t found cures for asthma, cancer, diabetes, Hepatitis, Ebola and dozens of others diseases. You expect in 180 yrs we can address alien extremophiles?The 1st antibiotic was developed just 75 yrs ago. Also, my opponent has not provided data that any precursor medical development of any kind has begun that will address problems of space ills, a mere assertion.

Human waste

Humans have microbes living on their body while alive & dead. Fecal matter is just as microbial; pollution.

5: Self-contained environment
Con says that there are some bacteria that grow in low gravity places which can be harmful to people. Con says that they can work on this with complex machines in Earth, but no evidence to say if it can work on space”T here are issues with equipment on Mars, the biggest is the electro static & corrosive dust; it’s pervasive especially during dust storms. Its electro static nature can short circuits; robots could freeze in place Machines need to be tested for the specific environment in which they’ll operate. One environment is NOT the same as another. Would U use a toaster underwater? Counter rebutted.

6: The Body

My opponent says that there can be health effects to the body after a 7 month trip from Mars, some people will arrive in illness.”I have addressed this, also in R3 A1 Things humans can do”. Long term astronauts have suffered these effects, that’s how science became aware of them! To throw a yet undeveloped pill at them is a lame solution (#16 on chart above).

My opponent says that colonization entails reproduction, and there was not study that we can have babies at space. Well, why can't we?”

A source was provided #6, R2 Here it is again .Aerospace Medicine Institute and, Department of Obstetric & Gynecology”is not a blog.

Due to long gestation of higher order mammals no reproductive studies in space have been done with such. Would you have Bonobos or Chimpanzees kept at ISS for more than 2yrs for copulation, pregnancy, birth through the 1st yr to study development? The cited analysis above mentions studies on mice that mated in space & produced no offspring even though ovulation and fertilization was confirmed. Experiments with female Macaca mulatta’s (primate) and female rhesus monkeys exposed to proton irradiation had a 48% mortality rate and increased incidence of endometriosis. It don’t look good for human reproduction.

I apologize for the source issue on 40,000 people for healthy colony (it is a biology thing) Please re-read the math presented on #s of people and craft, you clearly misunderstood. “There will be lot's of spaceships in the world anyways, so we don't need to build as much” Mere assertion, with no basis in fact. Again taking into account the Space shuttle program cost $200B new ships will be slow in build.

Debate Round No. 4


I will make my rebuttals of the defense, which is not new arguments, as it said in round 1. I will be making a conclusion to the debate, and why you should vote for me. I thank my opponent for the fantastic debate, and let's get it right on to voting period. Thanks


O1: Con says that I only said 30 sources. Not putting the sources in the debate is actually bad for Con, as I can call them all bare assertions. And logically, I wouldn't say 30 sources over a debate, that's ridiculous. And also, you can just put it in the comments, or an outside link. I posted the comment before you wrote your argument, but you must have not noticed because you were writing your argument, and you should have put the sources when I was writing/posting my 4th round. Then I could have actually rebutted them. I ask voters to think of all of Con's "sources" that he put * as an bare assertion, as he actually provides no sources. That means I can do a million "*" and they will all count as sources. That's ridiculous. And anyways, this is the last round, and even though Con posts it now, it is useless, so I ask voters to think about this, and count of Con's *'s as bare assertions, because there is no reason to count them as sources, if my opponent doesn't even give sources.

O2: Con says that I can diregard his comment of A7. I did, and that is because of the rules. If I accepted that, then you would have losed, so it is good for you.

O3: Con pictures were not in the debate, but he puts it in the comments. Therefore, do not penalize him for the pictures being like that, it sometimes happens.

Rebuttals of Defense

1. Overpopulation

Con says that there can be cancer, and many bad things if you go to Mars. Con doesn't say why we need to care for this, because the astronauts want to, and are risking their bodies. You can run to a hungry lion, but I don't see how this is an example. What is Earth then? A tiger?

Con gives a big list to say all the cancer, diseases, and some more spam. I don't get why Con says that we should not colonize Mars just because it can harm your body. It is your body. You have your liberty. You want to go to Mars, and you are risking the health risks. Why can't you go? My opponent gives no reason for this, and why we should not colonize Mars just because of diseases. Con doesn't say the "so what?' part, and without that, his argument crumples.

Yeah, Yeah, there are differences with Mars and Earth. So what? Just because there are differences, shouldn't we go there? Should we always do the thing we normally did? Just because there are differences, does it mean it is bad? No!!! Differences and Experiences can be good, not only bad.

I apoligize for the source attack. Con still doesn't rebut that it was a blog post though, so his source is anyway refuted, as it might be fake evidence.

Yeah, we don't overcome gravity, and air. We do overcome water, as we need water to drink, water might not be clean, and we need clean water. Just because we need to overcome more things doesn't mean we should colonize Mars.

Con gives examples of animals living in Antartica, but that is a few, looking at Con's list. Most of them are sea animals, or fast animals, so if we can't hunt them, we can't eat. Con doesn't touch the points of Canada and the Desert. My point was that we need to bring food to go there also.

Con says that there will be no fresh food in Mars until crops are grown. Yeah of course. Con says that the Martian soil has a problem, and is poisonous. Con doesn't touch my plan in round 2 that we can dig a little part of Mars, and put in soil. "Dig, Dig, Put in, Dig, Dig, Put in" That is easy, and we can do that.

2. Cost

Con gives a new statistic about the source in round 4. Then that means I have to rebut the Cost argument again, and I can't make new arguments in the final round, so it will be impossible. So I have two choices. I can go ahead and ignore it, as it is not following the rules, because then I have to make new arguments, or just rebut it, and not follow the rules, and get a loss. I have to choose 1, and that means I will ignore it, and it is perfectly reasonable to do so.

But Con does try to rebut my statistic of Mars One. Con says that Mars One's statistic is wrong, they are fools, but he makes a bare assertion that they are fools. And anyways, Mars One said they will pay for them anyways, so we do not need any particular reason to stop them.

I am shocked at my opponent's definition of overpopulation. That never came out. I checked 3 online dictionaries, and 1 book dictionary, and that defintion didn't come out. They were all related to this, "Excessive population of an area to the point of overcrowding, depletion of natural resources, or environmental deterioration [1]." My opponent provides no source for theirs.

As the resolution says Earth is overpopulated, we can't inhabit other places in Earth, as the Earth is overpopulated. So we can't do that. Con shows that Mars has some disadvantages, such as costs, but gives no reason why we should spend it on overpopulated Earth. Therefore, as my opponent provides no reason why we should use this money to Earth instead of Mars, my opponent's argument is refuted.

3. Criteria

Okay, this was honestly confusing, but here we go...

Con suprisingly says that Mars One's credibility is null, and shows NASA's. This is strange, as a) my opponent provides no reason why Mars One's credibility is null, and b) my opponent shows NASA, which is strange, as they don't even plan to go to Mars right now, it is Mars One. Therefore talking about NASA is useless. My opponent fails to defend his argument about my source that you need to be over 18, and a bit more [2]. This argument is rebutted. Vote Pro.

4. Contamination/ Microorganisms

Con says that micro. can escape and pollute Mars. Anyways, even if it gets polluted, it won't get much polluted. Earth is polluted. But because we colonize both, there will be less pollution anyways. Just because it pollutes Mars doesn't mean we shouldn't colonize Mars. Also, it is a high probability, we are not certain if it will actually be, why not try it? There is a probabilty that I can get crashed by an airplane while walking in the street. There is a probabilty that someone can bomb the whole world. There are probabilties for everything, and that doesn't mean we should stop.

It might be solved in 180 years. Who knows? Humans are unpredictable, and they could do almost anything. Some of those diseases is because we don't know what it is from. We know that this is some kind of micro. in Mars, which is going bonkers. And it is not part of my burden to actually make this all into 2200, only that we need to colonize Mars until 2200. So actually, we can solve this problem in the outseeing future. Yes, they are mere assertions, but there is a probability, same as polluting Mars.

Con says that Human waste has microbial, which is the same as Fecal matter, and pollutes the Earth. My opponent gives a bare assertion. And my opponent does not even touch my rebuttal, so this whole argument is refuted.

5. Self-contained environment

Con says that robots can freeze in place because of all of Mars dust. We can make more robots which don't do this, and they could, there is no evidence that they actually can. You can use a toaster underwater, it is possible, it is just that no one would actually do it. And electricity conduct water, so that is basically false, as Mars soil isn't a conductor.

6. Body

Con says that there are health problems in if you ride a space ship for 7 months. For many times, who cares about the health problems? They want to go, they are risking their lives. So health doesn't matter, if they want to do it.

My opponent gives a new source. Reading a part, "A 26-year-old ex-factory worker named Valentina Tereshkova was the first woman in space. On 16 June 1963 she piloted the Vostok 6 mission which lasted 70 hrs 50 min.. Later that year in the month of November she married Cosmonaut Andrian Nikolayev, the pilot of the 94hr 22min Vostok 3 mission. A year later Cosmonaut Valentina Tereshkova gave birth to a healthy baby girl. This provides us with the first evidence of post-flight normal pregnancy; at least as far as short duration space flights are concerned."

That shows that someone had a healhty girl after on space. That is the one out of the two times the word baby was used. The second one is about Valentina also. I don't see how my opponent says that babies cannot be in space, when the example she gives says it is possible.

My point wasn't that ships will be slow to build. It was that there are still spaceships right now on Earth which are finished, we can just ride them. We don't need to build them right away.


I have shown that we should colonize Mars. Most of my opponent's points were that going to Mars will make you ill, the cost. Mars One will be paying, and so what about the illness? The astronauts are risking their lives to go, we should let them go. They want to go, and we shouldn't stop them because of their health problems, that is ridiculous. Therefore, we have the liberty, and Mars One and their astronauts have their liberty to go and Colonize Mars. Let's make a better future with more land an happier life. It does have things to overcome, but let's do it. Let's Colonize Mars, and vote Pro.

Sources in the external link:

Thank you, and vote Pro. Have a nice day. (I don't really think you need a RFD to judge this debate, but I recommend a short RFD, and just vote Pro. Thank you. I thank Peepette for doing my 100th debate with me, and thank him for the topic, and the debate. Thanks to Peepette, the voters who will vote this debate, and me, as it is my 100th debate that I started. I have around 100 characters left, I wanted to use all characters in this round because it is specfically my last round in my 100 debates. I like this oppurtunity. Thanks again to Peepette, and...

VOTE PRO!!!!!!!!



O1 Only 4 *unlabeled sources were in R2 due to a misunderstanding with debate parameters. These were reiterated later in the debate. With the exception of two picture sources (R4) in Comments (no other alternative once the round was posted and pictures failed to show) ALL other sources are in the body of the debate. The voters can decide on their validity, not take for granted Cons assertions about them. This is supposed to be a debate not a source war.

Rebuttal of Defense

1. Things Humans Can Do

Con believes just because we are able to accomplish something we should do it without regard to consequences. This is like knowingly jumping out of a plane without a parachute, not logical.

Con believes that health issues as a result of deep space travel are inconsequential. People should have the liberty to do as they please. Cons argument is seriously flawed. The time it takes to recuperate from space travel is relevant. Many people arriving on Mars will have space travel related illnesses, and future cancer risks. Some will require hospitalization and rehabilitation in a gravitied non-radiation environment. Since artificial gravity in a stationary setting has yet to be developed and advanced shielding against cosmic rays will be insufficient. There is no appropriate environment on Mars where people can heal. Con has dropped the health related technical drawbacks as well as behavioral/psychiatric issues. Without addressing these issues we will have people with physical as well as psychological maladies that will continue to deteriorate and eventually die. To state that people should have the liberty to self impose illness and death is akin to the right to suicide. Suicidal people receive care for this illness.

2: Possible

After over 45,000 characters to this point in the debate, Con with a wave of his hand during the 4th round decides that my arguments for colonizing inhospitable areas of Earth are invalid with the supposition with overpopulation there’ s no room. This presents an assumption that Earth’s current inhabitable areas have been already been developed. But, Con fails make this assertion anywhere in the debate. If he had, continuing the debate would have been pointless. This Hail Mary pass is a concession that he does not have any salient rebuttals to my assertions, a maneuver of desperation.

Also, Con states that I have given no reason on why we should not colonize Mars. He surely has not been paying attention. 1. Health implications of deep space travel. 2. Exorbitant cost, shipment of all materials needed as well as technology to keep humans alive. 3. Only those meeting a high standard of health and education so as to contribute in the highly technical hash environment would limit those eligible, the morality/ethics of this limiting criteria and justification of cost to send only a selected few is a point drop by Con. 4. Cost effectiveness of colonizing Mars when Government stresses to provide essential services in an overpopulated world will take priority; point dropped by Con. 5. Sending even several thousands of people would not alleviate the overpopulation problem; point dropped by Con. 6. Contamination of a pristine environment and possible negative interactions between human and Martian microbes. 7. Unhealthful and equipment degrading biofilms in self contained environments. 8. Human reproduction in space is questionable. 9. Space Treaty of 1967, corporations can set up their own form of governance; point dropped by Con. 10. The Earth has all the materials and technology needed of build and uninhabited inhospitable areas.

What’s the problem in shipping everything to Mars Con asks? The American colonist did it we can ship everything to Mars as well. We shouldn’t be colonizing the planet in the first place for the above 10 reasons it’s not only cost as you claim is my only contention, there are 9 other reasons.

3. Liberty

Once you place yourself in a privately owned spacecraft to Mars your liberties will disappear. The Space Treaty of 1967 states that there can be no national appropriation of celestial bodies by means of use or occupation. But a loop hold does allow individuals or corporations to make land claims in space for economic use provided they are not controlled or protected by a government. These corporations would be able to pass laws and create a government on their lands Being a company, profits are priority, not social issues, rights or liberties. Speech censorship and slave like laws could be enacted. Your liberty to choose for yourself is gone.

4. Not enough space

(See 2. Possible above) I have not contested the debate parameters of the Earth being overpopulated. But nowhere in you arguments do you make the assertion that inhospitable/ uninhabited areas such as the oceans, desserts and Polar Regions where currently developed and inhabited. That’s to assume the all the oceans and sea floors are full up with cities. People are living on top of Mt Everest and the Polar regions are having a major melt down due to the of body heat emitted of all the people living there. The Sahara Dessert, all 3.6M sq miles of it, almost the size of China, has people shoulder to shoulder baking in 120 degree temperatures Those are mighty big assumptions to make without actually stating them. Stating “we don't have enough space” does not imply any of the above.

5. Resources

Con missed the point regarding deuterium and its use in Nuclear power plants. Because Nuclear power plants are being phased out, there will be no use for deuterium from Mars. In an overpopulated world fossil fuels will be depleted, common sense .

Wind and Solar energy will be the alternative. Cost of buying an alternative energy car is not applicable argument in an overpopulated world scenario. Other than deuterium, Con states there are other useful things on Mars but, does not state what they are, so a mere assertion, “might have” doesn’t cut it.

6. Already working on it/ Dependency

Yes, people are working toward going to Mars, but not for the purpose in solving an overpopulation problem. Under the premise that the world is overpopulated, governments will be fiscally strained in providing essential services. Do you think spending billions per person to colonize Mars is responsible use of money? It appears Con had dropped this point as well. People will not stop doing their jobs and stomp off like a 5 year olds because they can’t get to Mars, they still need to keep a roof over their heads.

7: Beneficial

If Con doesn’t like the facts he considers them blah blah and calls a reliable technical journal spam. He also does not understand the premise of the Space Treaty of 1967 (see 3 Liberty above & 7 Beneficial R4) There will be no expanding countries or borders because countries can not lay claim to property on Mars. There will be corporate governing entities. His last argument that there will be no corporations on Mars makes no sense.


In an overpopulated world scenario colonizing Mars will not be even a band aid solution to the problem. Con contends just because we can it should be done and individuals should have the liberty to make that decision. But use of resources for such a small number of people makes this type of endeavor impractical and unethical on balance to the needs of the rest of the world’s population. By developing self sustaining alternatives in inhospitable areas of Earth it would enable the spreading out of the population and benefit greater numbers of people. The selection criteria on who would go to Mars leaves the greater part of the world’s population ineligible; is this ethical? Space related illnesses are in need of consideration and contamination of a pristine environment poses risk to the planet and people. These factors need to be mitigated. The assumption that we throw a pill at ailments or we will be able to counter-act extremophiles is a deadly form of over confidence. Modern medicine is less than 75 years old. Living in a closed atmosphere on Mars also poses its own issues. MIT researches estimate with the current state of technology colonist would last no longer than 68 days. Biofilms that developed in closed environments also pose a danger to health and degrades machinery; the makings of a system wide disaster. No equipment tested for space has yet been done to resolve this issue. To colonize also means to reproduce, which no studies with animals that closely resemble human physiology has yet to be done. To have a child after returning from space is significantly different than having a child while in space; as well as radiation being causal to infertility.

I like to thank fire wings for accepting me as a contender for his 100th debate; it is personal a mile stone of worth. It surely was the invigorating exchange that I hope it would be.

As much as it would be gracious to award the win to fire wing as a gift for his 100th debate; this would be unethical. I ask voters to award the winner based on the quality of arguments alone. Although this a select winner voting set up, at least a brief RFD is encouraged as proof that the debate has been read in full.

Debate Round No. 5
121 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Peepette 2 years ago
Thank you
Posted by fire_wings 2 years ago
Posted by fire_wings 2 years ago
12 more hours...
Posted by fire_wings 2 years ago
12 more hours...
Posted by fire_wings 2 years ago
Only 5 days left to vote...
Posted by fire_wings 2 years ago
I thank all the vote's so far!!!
Posted by fire_wings 2 years ago
@Peepette, Adam's vote is sufficient.
Posted by Peepette 2 years ago
Adam Godzilla, just questioning some of your analysis.

"There is no 're-overpopulation', because overpopulation will continue as long as humans reproduce. You did not argue for solutions to the overpopulation such as implementing birth laws. You did not address solutions to mitigating overpopulation"

The debate was whether or not to colonize MARS due to over population, not how to mitigate overpopulation on Earth. Colonizing Mars? yes or no.

"These uninhabitable zones can be easily overpopulated as well, and are thus not a good solution in the long run."

This point was never made by PRO, not part of the context of the debate. It"s your conclusion not PROs assertion or a rebuttal.

We have a shared BoP. You make judgments based on each side"s quality of arguments and rebuttals. You need to be objective, not infer your thoughts upon them.
Posted by Adam_Godzilla 2 years ago
@ Peepette,

I only confused the part where Pro's Mars one claims that shipment of resources total 6 billion, they only purport that cost for transporting humans. I'm not sure why you pointed that out, as I was saying that was one of Pro's faulty arguments.

I did not see your point about foods already being grown in uninhabitable regions when I was looking back, I concede my point.

There is no 're-overpopulation', because overpopulation will continue as long as humans reproduce. You did not argue for solutions to the overpopulation such as implementing birth laws. You did not address solutions to mitigating overpopulation.

Your BOP was to show us that we should NOT colonise Mars, assuming the Earth is overpopulated. Your arguments against Fire_wIngs such as health risks and costs were good criticisms, but did not convince me it was impossible or definitely too dangerous to go to Mars (thanks to Pro's arguments). And your alternative solution was not as convincing. These uninhabitable zones can be easily overpopulated as well, and are thus not a good solution in the long run. Simply colonising uninhabitable zones, I think, does not alleviate the issue. Which thus does not fulfil your BOP in that Mars should not be colonised, as you haven't given an alternative solution that is convincing to me.

This is actually really stumping me. Does a debater have to fulfil their BOP regardless of whether the opponent successfully refutes their case? Must i wait for Pro to tell me your BOP was not fulfilled, and to give valid arguments as to why. Or can I infer that on my own?

What is the BOP and how am I supposed to assess it? Your obligation to provide evidence, which I then must judge when choosing a winner. But am I to judge that evidence solely on how it has been refuted? Or do I look at it objectively?

If you really have a problem with the vote, even winning, contact me.

Otherwise, I thank you for the debate, it was a pleasure to read.
Posted by Peepette 2 years ago
I'm a bit confused by Adam Godzilla's RFD.

Pro did not address Con's points about the health problem, ignoring risks and which can affect children and infants travelling to Mars. However, we cannot build colonies in inhabitable zones because we cannot grow food in inhabitable zones. Con did not address future technologies to be able to grow food.

R4 Did not have to address technologies in growing food in unhinbabital zones because it is currently being done. "Growing food in the Arctic Circle is occurring now and desalination in dessert regions for drinking & crops "

Pro did not address the unbelievable cost to ship water, soil, and other things, which is far more expensive than Pro's Mars One claims.

I think there"s a bit of confusion here.

But the most important part is that Con did not fulfil his BOP. Even if we colonise inhabitable zones successfully, what's there to stop overpopulation of those areas again?

Re-overpopulation of uninhabitable zones was not an argument brought up by PRO therefore cannot be used as an assessment of argument or as a matter of BoP.

And if humans keep reproducing, is it not a good idea to colonise Mars asap (until 2200)?

Don"t understand this statement. Not a good idea to colonize Mars is CONs side.

Con did not fulfil his BOP to convince me that Mars is so dangerous that it should not be colonised. There are risks and costs, but if it means people's survival, it's likely to get accomplished anyway. Overall Pro makes a good but faulty case for the colonisation of Mars, which Con refutes very well. However, Pro fulfils his BOP by showing us that colonising Mars is beneficial in the long run, despite risks. Con does not convince me that staying on Earth is as beneficial, especially with the problems of continued overpopulation.

Again, continued overpopulation was not an argument.
17 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Lexus 2 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Vote Placed by bballcrook21 2 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Vote Placed by Adam_Godzilla 2 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Full RFD in comments. ...."Overall Pro makes a good but faulty case for the colonisation of Mars, which Con refutes very well. However, Pro fulfils his BOP by showing us that colonising Mars is beneficial in the long run, despite risks. Con does not convince me that staying on Earth is as beneficial, especially with the problems of continued overpopulation."
Vote Placed by Kescarte_DeJudica 2 years ago
Who won the debate:--
Vote Placed by Emmarie 2 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Con provided more than enough valid reasons why colonizing Mars should not be an alternative to Earth's overpopulation (of naturally inhabitable regions.) The resolution of the debate,"Assuming that the Earth is Overpopulated, Mars should be colonized until 2200," can be interpreted to mean that the "inhabitable" regions are overpopulated, as con presumed from her arguments for expanding into regions of Canada, Siberia, desert and mountain regions and even the oceans. That pro didn't clarify that he meant that the earth had already populated ALL regions of the earth, warranting the need to populate Mars, unto well into the debate, is my deciding factor for voting for con. Con did a great job of providing cost analysis and health determinants were also reasons that I voted for her to win.
Vote Placed by famousdebater 2 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: No point in leaving an rfd now.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Vote Placed by ThinkBig 2 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Vote Placed by tejretics 2 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: There are no clear benefits from colonizing Mars outside of gaining more resources, and allowing for liberty. The latter "benefit" is easily refuted by Con in that it doesn't mean the government should intervene or compromise its own economic benefit to do so. Con also refutes the argument from resources by showing that deuterium can be found on Earth, and that compromising justice (gained due to inequality in choosing who goes to Mars, e.g. only those with the economic capability of doing so) and economic benefit for doing so is not justified. Pro doesn't offer a compelling response to the fact that a government-led colonization of Mars, which Pro advocates for, costs a lot or causes harm to citizens. Pro's criticism of Con's source with regard to economic harms still concedes that at least $6 billion would be spent, leaving me with an actual impact, versus Pro's lack of one. Thus, I vote Con.
Vote Placed by missbailey8 2 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark