The Instigator
Epifer
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Elord
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Should humans really try inhabiting other planets in the universe?

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 4 votes the winner is...
Elord
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/4/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 545 times Debate No: 74759
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

Epifer

Pro

Humans have already done so much wrong to the earth and its environment, such as air pollution, littering (even though IT IS illegal), global warming, and a whole lot of other stuff. Let me ask you this. Should humans really try moving on to more planets? I mean, wouldn't it be possible for humans introducing things that shouldn't be there, like weeds and air pollutants?
Elord

Con

Thanks for making the debate Pro.

First off, I would like to point out that the planet has feelings or should be treated like a person. How dare we pollute! This argument is only valid since Earth is the only planet we can live on, but if we could live in other planets, there's no reason since there are an infinite number planets. We run out of one we can move to another.

Next I would like to point out of instant terraforming technology was available, we can't really pollute these planets. If we could turn a giant barren rock to something to support life, we would have progressed past our current "dirty" technology. We can't even terraform Mars. a planet right next to us and has basic requirements for life like an atmosphere. If we want to live on other planets light years away, our technology would be sufficiently advance not to have harmful byproducts.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

The part about weeds is irrelevant since we are literally engineering the planet to suit our needs. Whatmore, unless these planetes had life on it before, we won't have oil and coal on these other planets and pollute the air.
http://www.worldcoal.org...

Also an extra side note, I do not endorse pollution in any way, I'm just saying if we can live on other planets easily, pollution holds no real weight.
Debate Round No. 1
Epifer

Pro

Epifer forfeited this round.
Elord

Con

Extend all.
Debate Round No. 2
Epifer

Pro

Epifer forfeited this round.
Elord

Con

Joy...
Extend all.
Debate Round No. 3
Epifer

Pro

Epifer forfeited this round.
Elord

Con

Extend all and vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
EpiferElordTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff
Vote Placed by CookieMonster9 2 years ago
CookieMonster9
EpiferElordTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con won conduct because I liked how he or she organized his or hers arguments into paragraphs. Con gets source points because Con had 2 sources when Pro had 0.
Vote Placed by Lexus 2 years ago
Lexus
EpiferElordTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - pro forfeited all rounds | Args - neither side really had an argument. Con's argument was really confusing for me to read... it seems like he was pro but the words he used made him seem like con... I didn't understand. Pro did not make any arguments that hold any real weight, or have any links into the real world. Try to prove why these problems are a problem, and why this solution is the solution that we need the next time you decide to debate.
Vote Placed by bsh1 2 years ago
bsh1
EpiferElordTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF