The Instigator
Akhilpandey
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Epica
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Nasa able to accomplish Mars mission

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 2 votes the winner is...
Epica
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/31/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 460 times Debate No: 79214
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)

 

Akhilpandey

Pro

They can do it or not
Epica

Con

Unlike a regular trip, a trip to Mars necessitates bringing your own food, water, oxygen, and temperature. Projections show that the first casualty will happen in 68 days, with the others dying from dehydration, starvation, or environmental conditions [http://www.dailymail.co.uk...].

This means the NASA mission to Mars is highly unlikely to be successful.
Debate Round No. 1
Akhilpandey

Pro

But the thing is that they have proved the existence of life there more over its atmosphere is similar to earth except ammonia which is excess there we probably can make use of it.... So it's possible to hv life there after certain precautions.
Epica

Con

The possibility of life living there doesn't entail that the mission will be successful. It says nothing about procuring food, oxygen, ect. Mars' atmosphere is way thinner than Earth's [http://www.space.com...], that and its distance from the sun makes it way colder than Earth too. The ammonia isn't the only difference. I never claimed it was impossible for life to exist there, I'm claiming it's unlikely for this to happen due to the problems listed in the MIT study, of which Pro has yet to refute.
Debate Round No. 2
Akhilpandey

Pro

Ya there is no food agreed initially earth was also was like this but as due to development it grows suitable for living similar things can be done on Mars too even there is thin atmosphere cold but can be suitable for living in a particular conditions more over oxygen is there but not plenty we can even produce that in a possibly cheaper way, origin of the planet was same like earth and it's climate as compared to earth is better for living as shown in recent studies visit links https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
Epica

Con

It is true that food developed on Earth, but this took millions of years. Waiting around for plant life to grow isn't feasible, unless Pro is suggesting we plant Earth plants on Mars. Although, this wouldn't work either, as plant life is adapted to grow to Earth's temperature [http://www.ext.colostate.edu...]. Even if this works, Pro needs some way for enough food to grow for many people within 68 days. Pro states there are ways to produce oxygen in a cheaper way. He doesn't go into any detail, nor has he ever mentioned what's wrong with the MIT study.

Even though life may have developed on Mars, Earthlings aren't adapted to Mars, making his point irrelevant to any Earthling mission to Mars.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Akhilpandey 1 year ago
Akhilpandey
Ya even if we r looking for Grammer n spellings it's OK but lets concentrate on main topic and more ever nasa has proved the same n even working on the Rockets to send people on Mars.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: roguetech// Mod action: Removed<

1 points to Con (S&G). Pro stated that life has been proved to exist on Mars. That is false, and no source was provided. Con claimed that "projections" show the first causality would be in 68 days. This is flawed on numerous levels. First,it only applies to Mars One, which is not a NASA proposal. Second, they actually conclude it is possible with a cost of $4.5 billion. Pro basically asserted it's possible, but Con failed to refute it using a relevant or reliable source. Therefore, I assign a tie, as both being completely useless and unconvincing. I also assign a tie for sources for the same reason. Pro uses run-on sentences. Con wasn't able to prove that trolls don't serve as a valuable function to society. In the first round, he mentioned that, at least, trolls serve as a lesson. If trolls are bad, this still equates to a valuable tool for parents to teach their children how NOT to act. Moreover, Con made bare assertions, blatantly stating that trolls were bullies. Pro didn't have even close to a strong case for his side, but, with the help of Con, was able to fulfill the resolution to a better degree than did Con.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter really needs to examine S&G more completely than just stating that one side had run-on sentences. This doesn't have any clear or solid impact on the voter's ability to understand Pro's arguments, and therefore is insufficient explanation.
************************************************************************
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
@Akhilpandey

In the 7-point voting system, one has to explain every point awarded. I awarded Arguments (3 points) and spelling/grammar (1 point) to Con, therefore I had to explain both my analysis of arguments and my analysis of spelling/grammar, which I did, alongside arguments. If you didn't want spelling/grammar to be evaluated, you could have set it to the "choose winner" voting system, but you didn't -- which warrants penalizing you for spelling/grammar.
Posted by Akhilpandey 1 year ago
Akhilpandey
Dude its not about the Grammer and spellings it's about the thing n topic of discussion even it was my view of it.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
== RFD ==

(1) S&G. Pro's spelling and grammar were *very poor,* and really hurt readability. First, "They can do it or not" is not punctuated, and I'm not able to ascertain if it's a question or a statement -- either way, it is grammatically incorrect. "But the thing is that they have proved the existence of life there more over its atmosphere is similar to earth except ammonia which is excess there we probably can make use of it" -- "that" is unnecessary, "the thing is" is a very informal phrase, there's no conjunction between "there" and "moreover," which is required, and "moreover is misspelled. Furthermore, there has to be a preposition between "is" and "excess," and "we probably can make use of it" has to (a) be a separate sentence, and (b) "can" and "probably" are incorrectly interchanged. "Have" is misspelled once. Pro's R3 is also completely grammatically incoherent, since I'm not able to understand anything -- there's no grammatically cogent argument at all in R3. As it's very hard to read Pro's argument, with horrendous grammar, I award S&G to Con.

(2) Arguments. All Pro manages to demonstrate is that it's *possible* for there to be extraterrestrial life. I'm seriously missing a few links here: (a) there's no established change that the existence of extraterrestrial life would make, (b) the possibility of extraterrestrial life does not establish the probability. Pro's impacts also fail, as Con was able to successfully demonstrate that plant life can't exist in Mars. I'm not getting any links or strong impacts from Pro, and Pro has the full burden of proof to prove the resolution true. As Pro isn't able to fulfill their burden of proof, I have to vote Con on arguments.
Posted by Akhilpandey 1 year ago
Akhilpandey
Colonies on moon is quite rare cz no sign of life there and after all its climatic condition r a bit auckward n not well suitable for living.
Posted by mostlogical 1 year ago
mostlogical
NASA hasn't sent a spacecraft to the moon yet, or else there would be a colony there so it's unlikely they have the technology to get to Mars
Posted by Akhilpandey 1 year ago
Akhilpandey
Out right going to Mars and that life on Mars news
Posted by Epica 1 year ago
Epica
What mission are you referring to? The isolation one or outright going to mars?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by roguetech 1 year ago
roguetech
AkhilpandeyEpicaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro uses run-on sentences making it more difficult to read. Therefore, I assign S&G to Pro for having better S&G. Hopefully no one will bother to report this vote, or it manages to slip through as acceptable for have explained why I voted the way I did.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
AkhilpandeyEpicaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments