The Instigator
Parvizal
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
deadkills12
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points

Should we try to get to Mars?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
Parvizal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/9/2016 Category: Places-Travel
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 674 times Debate No: 97885
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

Parvizal

Con

We should most definitely not work towards building technology to go to Mars.

First of all, we will lose a ton of money. Going to Mars is a costly process, when we could be spending money on other things more important, like stopping homelessness. Why should we spend money on going to Mars when we could do many great things with the money.

Also, the human death toll is already to much. We have already had way to many people die due to space exploration. Why should we take out the lives of innocent people for science. It's like saying that some random person is going to be a test subject for a study.

Now that we have thrown human lives and millions of dollars in the trash, we should think about something else. Why are we trying to go to Mars when it would be completely useless to us. I would understand if we were going there because there was oxygen, but going to Mars gives us absolutely nothing except bragging rights.
deadkills12

Pro

I understand how you think having people die from space exploration be the reason we don't go, but I do not see how you came to the conclusion that there is nothing useful on Mars. Yes it would cost a lot of money, but it would be worth it. We have only been able to scratch the surface of Mars. We could find a new element below the surface that could make cars run without ruining the earth. Also we do not want to go for just bragging rights. We as humans are naturally curious of the things we do not know. Therfore it is only natural we are drawn to the unknowing mars.
Debate Round No. 1
Parvizal

Con

You claim that we could find a new element that could run cars. The truth is, we already know many things about Mars that we have figured out in a much cheaper way. A new element would be highly unlikely. Yes, I also agree that humans are curious. But should we really let people die for curiosity? In my opinion, no. Also, the money spent on working on this space exploration project could be used for numerous things. We could give thousands of homeless people houses. Are we really going to not give money to the homeless just for one person's curiosity?
deadkills12

Pro

You say it is very unlikely to find a new element I disagree. Using the car was just an example, the element could be used for multiple things that could make life easier. Also yes we could use the money for homeless people to have housing. The truth is we do not have enough money to give every homeless person a home. This would only happen if every country helped and that will not happen. Your argument that we shouldn't let people die is in my opinion invalid. That's like saying we need to end anything that can kill humans which is almost anything. As with any thing you do, you should understand the risk that can occur, so people who do not wish to risk there life's do not have to participate.
Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TheOregonian 1 year ago
TheOregonian
Parvizaldeadkills12Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Although I am an irl friend of Pro, and agreed with him throughout the debate, his arguments were lacking. On the other hand, I found the arguments put forth from Con to contain many a grammatical or spelling mistake. There were no citations on either side, and all discourse remained civil.