Resolve: the U.S Federal Government should colonize Mars
Debate Rounds (3)
on how to convert what little air is in the martian atmosphere into breathable air, put that system into a building and then build enough of those buildings to fit at least 1000-2000 people each (or as many as every country in this world). Getting there would be easy too. Build a lot of rocket ships and ride those there. Make sure they're like a cruise ship so the living conditions are acceptable and not too crowded.
Contention 1: Earth is Overpopulated
Here's a fun fact of the day! If the entire world population had the same amount of living space as New York City then they would fit into Texas! (http://factslist.net...) See this means that we aren't overpopulated it just shows that us as humans are just really just spread out. In an article by Time we can see that the world's population is actually decreasing not increasing. (http://newsfeed.time.com...) Doesn't look like you believe me. Many nations that have high female financial independence look at Europe. Their childbirth rates are actually lower than the death rates! The US has actually reached it's lowest all time as the US birth rates are falling. US birth rates are down 8%, foreign births are down 14%, and Mexican birth rates are down by more than 23%! (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org...) So it looks like the Earth is not overpopulated.
Contention 2: US colonization of Mars is forbidden!
In 1967, the UN, including the US, signed the Outer Space Treaty. This treaty forbids another nation claiming a celestial body for sovernty. What is a celestial body you may ask. (http://www.unoosa.org...) It is actually a planet, star, planetoids, asteroid, and planet (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) The current resolution is that the US should colonize Mars. Which means Mars will be claimed by the US violating this treaty signed by the US, USSR (now includes all of the states of the former nation), and the UK, so the US cannot, by law, colonize Mars.
Contention 3: Mars would cause nothing but problems.
There is many things that Mars would cause to us here are some important things: loss of conscienceness due to little amounts of Oxygen, Extreme weather changes, because Mars is far from the sun and has little atmosphere, tissue expansion due to low pressure, but you think a space suit can help you? You're wrong because the space suit you are wearing would be ripped to shreds by micrometeorites moving at fast speeds. So even if you make it you can freeze or burn to death, implode, or die from suffocation. (http://science.howstuffworks.com...)
Contention 4: Getting there.
In my opponent's argument he brings up how will we get there. It seems like the current and most viable option would be the Orion shuttle which is powered by nuclear pulpulsion according to NASA. (http://www.nasa.gov...) The bad thing about using this ship is that it is also illegal, this is also according to the outer space treaty, which I had brought up in an earlier point. Which many nations have ratified and/or signed here is proof.
Contention 1: Global Warming.
We all remember the Ice Breaker that got stuck in the Arctic earlier this year. (http://worldnews.nbcnews.com...) On board the Ice Breaker had Global Warming Scientists who stated that the Arctic Ice Caps had melted completely and were going to cause massive world destruction. They were obviously wrong. (http://www.climatedepot.com...) As a matter of fact they have found that there had been no arctic warming there since 1979.
Contention 2: Nuclear War
Let's be honest here, nuclear war is not a very likely thing. Why is this, you may ask? The fact is simply that Global Trade is just to big to fail. (http://theweek.com...) Also Nuclear will not destroy the world. (http://www.uow.edu.au...)
Contention 3: The Resolution
I would like to remind Pro that the Resolution is that the US, not the UN, should colonize Mars. I will ignore that portion of that argument until he returns to the resolution.
Contention 4: My points
My points were not touched in the last round so I'll extend them across the board.
Nuclear War would destroy or atleast the entire human race, and it would be the UN's job. Us being one the most advanced countires in the world would have a hand in colonizing Mars. People would look to the U.S. for help.
Section 2: Just because there hasn't been an arctic warning in that area doesn't mean it's not melting. It would take years for it to completely melt, and when it does, it will cause a lot of damage. It would cause a flood that would wipe out a good chunk of the world.
Now bringing up a comment that was posted on this debate. Why blame the northern people of America? Why say we'd be screwed if the "yankees" colonzed Mars? We'd all do it together, so the dixies would have just as much of a hand in it as the yankees and everybody in between. So either you're jumping to conclusions or you're just racist towards your fellow man.
Contention 1: Nuclear War/UN
My opponent states that nuclear war would destroy the entire human race, but let me bring up a term that we developed in the 1950's. MAD, or Mutually Assured Destruction. According to Princeton MAD is when nations go to war and empty their nuclear weapons arsenal on each other. The reason I bring this up is that the media in the 50's showed that you would have to be MAD in order to actually do it showing that Nuclear war is unlikely and as I proved last round that nuclear war will not destroy the world. (https://www.princeton.edu...) Also I showed in round 1 that the US cannot colonize Mars, because of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967.
Contention 2: Global Warming
First off, I'd like to bring up that the Antarctic Ice Caps will not melt for another Melina. (http://www.npr.org...) Secondly, I showed in my last round that the Ice Caps have not been melting since 1979! So this point here is also invalid.
After the debate we can easily see that the US cannot and should not colonize Mars. My opponent has dropped numerous points especially the one where I showed the health problems from living on Mars. We can also see that Global Warming is not a real impact player for hundreds of more years and that nuclear war is unlikely.
Thank you and please vote Con.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Although I do not agree with Con on the climate change issue. It is obvious that this had nothing to do with the resolution and as such Con deserves argument points for showing why it would be illegal for the US to colonize Mars. I am also handing Con conduct points, as Pro in round 3 came across very rude, not sure if this was intentional but as its a read debate I have to make decisions based on that. Source points go to Con as they were provided, but again I would prefer peer reviewed science on the climate change issue.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.