The Instigator
AlijahNelson
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ishallannoyyo
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Should humans consider going to Mars

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 1 vote the winner is...
ishallannoyyo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/29/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,814 times Debate No: 25358
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

AlijahNelson

Pro

I'm going to be the Pro for this debate and whoever my opponent is explain otherwise and we'll start form there.
ishallannoyyo

Con

I thank my opponent for instigating this debate. I noticed a lack of definitions, so I will bring forth some of my own.

Consider - to think carefully about in order to make a decision

Mars - the planet Mars

I look forward to my opponent's opening arguments!

SOURCES

1.www.dictionary.com
Debate Round No. 1
AlijahNelson

Pro

Humans should consider going to Mars, because it is scientifically proven that, due to the global warming, pollution in the air and climate change that humans are in big trouble. Ice glaciers are melting, the ozone layers is being ripped apart, and climate is rapidly changing. I say go to Mars because water has been found on Mars, which is all living thing needs. And its proven that an actual human being can live on Mars. If a human being can live on Mars I'm very sure any other species can.
ishallannoyyo

Con


I thank my opponent for his comments. I would now like to take this time to refute the arguments presented by my opponent.



Because it is scientifically proven that, due to global warming, pollution in the air and climate change that humans are in big trouble. Ice glaciers are melting, the ozone layer is being ripped apart, and climate is rapidly changing.


So, instead of reducing green house gas emissions, lowering the pollution from cars, houses, and factories, we should instead tell everyone on the planet to pack their bags and they’ll be shipped to Mars. This is ridiculous, instead of going to another planet why don’t we try to fix the Earth? We still can, it isn’t as if the Earth will shatter in the next decade. Furthermore, my opponent has provided no source for the science that has proven that we as a race are doomed.


I say got to Mars because water has been found on Mars, which is all living things need.


This is ridiculous and I will elaborate on this in my first contention. Just because Mars has water doesn’t mean we can live on Mars.


And its proven that an actual human being can live on Mars.


Once again, my opponent has provided no source AND I will address the fact that we cannot live on Mars later on.


Now I will present my case for why we should not even entertain the idea of going to Mars.


C1: DISTANCE AND COST


The average distance between Mars and Earth is 225 million kilometres. [1] The distance between the Moon and Earth is 384 000 kilometres. [Google “distance to moon”, Google shows an answer]. It took Neil Armstrong 3 days, 3 hours, and 49 minutes to get to the moon, or roughly 75 hours. [2] So, using this math we can assume that it will take roughly 43 945 hours, or 1831 days, roughly 5 years to travel to Mars. The cost of NASA’s program and lunar landings cost the US about 100 billion dollars [3]. To go to Mars, the cost would be exponential, and that would just be to get a landing! The spacecraft to the Moon had room for three astronauts, we would need to expand the spacecraft, conduct tests, build landing craft, send astronauts to test the flight, gather information, AND THEN we can start sending the 7 billion people on this planet to Mars. What will the cost be? More money than every imaginable. How long will it take? It is roughly 10 years back and forth, if each spacecraft could carry 1000 people and 1000 spacecraft were flying nonstop it would take 700 000 years to get everyone off the planet. The bar is clearly set too high, the distance and cost alone stops us from going to Mars.



C2: MARS IS UNINHABITABLE


Earth was a stroke of good luck; it had the perfect atmosphere, water, and was just right for human life. Is Mars the exact same as the Earth?


- Mars has a 687 day year, this alone would mess up the calendar, crops, etc.


- Mars is barely half of the Earth’s size


- Mars ONCE had water on it, not in large flowing amounts anymore


- Mar’s moon, Phobos is estimated to crash into Mars. A meteor one mile wide striking the Earth has the power of 1 million megatons. To put this in perspective, a meteor the size of a house striking Earth is equivalent to dropping a nuclear bomb equivalent to the bomb falling on Hiroshima. [5] Phobos has a diameter of 13.8 miles, and Mars is smaller than the Earth. Phobos striking Mars will certainly wipe out all life on Mars and possibly destroy the planet. Humans do not want to be there when that happens


- Mars goes to extreme temperatures, at night the temperature can go to -191 degrees Fahrenheit. This is inhospitable for humans [7]


- The atmosphere on Mars is extremely thin and is too small to recycle carbonate back into carbon dioxide which is necessary for life.


These facts alone show us that Mars cannot support human life, it just isn’t right for our needs, it is impossible for us to live on Mars.


C3: MARS HAS NO INFRASTRUCTURE


If we were to go to Mars, first we would need workers to land on Mars and find a way to build a stable shelter for humans. We would need farm areas, buildings, roads, factories, all of these will need to be rebuilt on Mars. Clearly, this will cost trillions and take thousands of years, otherwise when humans get their we will essentially be going back to the stone age, no houses, no buildings, no running water as there is no surface water readily accessible, clearly it is easier to fix Earth’s problems than devolve back into cavemen.


Clearly, humans entertaining the idea of going to Mars is wrong and a waste of intellect. Mars in inhospitable, barren, and too far away for humans to possible even get there within a reasonable amount of time. Clearly, voters should VOTE CON.



  1. http://www.space.com...

  2. http://moonphases.info...

  3. http://www.asi.org...

  4. http://www.planetfacts.net...

  5. http://science.howstuffworks.com...

  6. http://en.wikipedia.org...(moon)

  7. http://quest.nasa.gov...

Debate Round No. 2
AlijahNelson

Pro

OK my opponent stated:

"So, instead of reducing green house gas emissions, lowering the pollution from cars, houses, and factories, we should instead tell everyone on the planet to pack their bags and they'll be shipped to Mars. This is ridiculous, instead of going to another planet why don't we try to fix the Earth?"

Think of it this way. "what if there was no green house effect" Scientist say's that with no green house effect thee would be NO WEATHER HERE ON EARTH. They'll effect the crops even more wouldn't' it?

Reducing green gas house emissions, lowering the pollution from cars, house, and factories? We've been trying to do that for decades now!. Global warming was reported pre 1938. And yet there's still green houses, gas cars etc. So why wait? By time the government or we as people, decide to take action it'll be all ready to late and to much of earth to attempt to recover.

It'll take time transport humans, cars etc. Also it'll take time to build houses, factories and so on..BUT HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY!!.

Last but not least Mars has Ice polar if you dint know. If those polar caps melt it could form an ocean. which could help the growing of crops. YEAH I SAID IT. check out the links below for proof.

Vote Pro because Con doesn't make any sense. You just cant restore the ozone layer when its most vulnerable. once it is gone it's gone and there's nothing that can bring it back. You cant restore the Ice melting. what are you gonna do?. you cant just decide one year to fix the problem and expect for it to be ok the next. It takes time and it'll already be too late. And can cause floods which will put Canada, North and south America under water. Once it melts, It melts!.

http://wiki.answers.com...

What if there was no green house effect >>> http://wattsupwiththat.com...

Mars polar caps >> http://www.spacetoday.org...
ishallannoyyo

Con

I thank my opponent for his comments.

Think of it this way. "What if there was no green house effect" Scientist say's that with no green house effect there would be NO WEATHER HERE ON EARTH.

I had never said that we would reduce greenhouse gases to zero, merely reduce our amount of emissions. That is far more cost effective than spending trillions on flying to Mars.

Reducing greeen gas house emissions, lowering the pollution from cars, house, and factories? We've been trying to do that for decades now!

True, but does that mean we should give up because it hasn't worked? Furthermore, what is more realistic? Impose a carbon tax, or fly to Mars and live there? We shouldn't give up and do something more complicated than our problem, it is easier to solve global warming.

BUT HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY!!!

Let my ask you this, how long does it take to build a building in your city? Roughly a year minimum. Now, how long will it take to ship matierals and build entire cities from the ground up on Mars? To build thousands of cities all over the planet?

Last but not least Mars has Ice polar if you didn't know.

I am fully aware of the fact that Mars has water on it, but water is not the only thing humans need to live. I have already shown how Mar's atmosphere is inhospitable for humans, we would freeze and burn to death in a single day.

You just can't restore the ozone layer when it's most vulnerable.

We have. The hole in the ozone layer decades ago has already regenerated after the ban on CFCs.

You can't restore the ice melting.

Yes we can. The Earth has experianced many instances of warming and freezing. Earth has had over 5 ice ages, plus this global warming has happened before in the Industrial age, only for the temperature to go down again.

It takes time and it'll already be too late.

Compared to the 5 years it takes to get to Mars.



My opponent has provided no refutation to any of my arguments, he hasn't challenged anything, so all my points still stand. Mars is simply too far away and it costs far too much to get there. Building a planet from the ground up is impossibly time consuming and wasteful. Furthermore, Mars is inhospitable for humans PLUS the planet is likely to be wiped out in the future from the Phobos colliding with it. My opponent has not refuted my points and I have destroyed all of my opponent's contentions. Clearly, the easy vote for Voters is a VOTE CON.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by ishallannoyyo 4 years ago
ishallannoyyo
Yes, in fact the global warming was worse than it was today.
Posted by AlijahNelson 4 years ago
AlijahNelson
Back when the ice ages happened was global warming as bad as it is today? so therefor it'l take more time for the restoration of the glaciers.
Posted by Mathaelthedestroyer 4 years ago
Mathaelthedestroyer
Same question as everyone else. Are you asking if we SHOULD (if we had the means to) or if we COULD?
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
At the current time?
Posted by JohnW 4 years ago
JohnW
I'm interested in accepting this debate, but let me clarify first:

Are you looking for someone to contend that we shouldn't even CONSIDER going to Mars? I agree that it's fine to consider it, but I'd argue that we shouldn't actually do it.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dylancatlow 4 years ago
dylancatlow
AlijahNelsonishallannoyyoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made arguments, which, when con refuted, made me laugh out loud to how absurd they were. I want to give con 7 points because he obviously deserved it, but I'm afraid it will just get countered.