THW: take a one-way trip to Mars
Debate Rounds (3)
Before moving on to my argument, I will define some terms in the motion. By 'we', it means 40 people sent in order to research about and live on Mars. By one-way trip, I mean a trip to Mars, not coming back. My caseline is that a one- way trip to Mars will save and benefit humanity in many ways.
My first argument is that many discoveries will be made. Even though we have event many space probes into researching for Mars, we still don't exactly know what is in this planet so like Earth. We don't know what amazing potentials that is in Mars and we don't know what is in there that can help solve the problems we have now.
Also, we can also see whether Mars is capable of living in there or not. As said in the first phase of my speech, Earth is slowly growing to a desolate place not much different than the other planets. By researching Mars, we can see whether we can live in there or not, and see whether humanity can be saved there.
This is why these arguments connect to the caseline, a one way trip to Mars will save and benefit humanity in many ways. I am proud to propose.
I accept your definition of the motion, however I am proceeding with this on the assumption that the 40 people sent into space are going as a trial with the plan to eventually relocate a significant portion of the human population from Earth to Mars.
I assume your ideas will be further elaborated on in later rounds, but I will also outline mine here.
The idea of travelling to Mars is unfeasible for three main reasons:
1. The financial cost of travelling and the political disruption that arises from creating a new society
2. The lack of necessary resources and the impossibility of transporting these resources
3. The fact that discovery and exploration of outer space is relatively unnecessary in comparison to scientific research here on Earth
My second argument is that a lot of technology will be developed by a trip to Mars. There are many preparations to be made when going to Mars. In doing that, we may be able to invent many things. Imagine you make a motor, and then you invent an electronic fan. This is called 'spinoff technology', since an invention is made from an another invention. In making and also inventing the equipment used for the trip, they will not only invent inventions for space researching, but will also be able to invent things that will help humanity in many other ways. It is a fact that a treatment for cancer was discovered by NASA when it was researching about making rockets.
Also, as I have stated before, nobody knows what kind of resources are hidden in Mars. We've already found water-that itself is a proof of the amazing potential that is hidden in Mars. When discovering these new things, science will take a huge leap. Each new kind of rock, each new kind of unknown chemical will greatly improve science. Many new inventions will be made by these newly discovered chemicals and objects, and which will improve both the lives of humankind, and science, as stated. These new things may also contribute in making treatments for diseases.
And this is why these assertions connect to e caseline: A one-way trip to Mars will improve humankind in many ways.
We are very proud to propose.
I will address your case in the third round; here I will be presenting the Opposition case.
First we must consider the waste of capital that arises as an implication of sending such a large group to Mars. The cost of space travel, of course, will increase exponentially as we continue to send more individuals to Mars in hopes of establishing a civilization. When we have significant and expensive issues to be resolved here on Earth, including the threatening and terminal illnesses you brought up in your argument. The capital granted to a mission to Mars would be far better invested in other endeavours, particularly in times of international economic downfall.
Along with financial deficit comes political turmoil, and the political and international disruption is an important factor in the prohibition of a trip to Mars. Much of the history of the Americas, as well as regions of Asia and Africa, is marked with political conflict between various European groups in disputes over territory. In our modern world, the vast number of sovereign and thriving states would guarantee massive conflict in ownership of land on Mars.
Secondly, let's look at the insufficient presence of necessary resources on Mars. Before we can even begin to colonize another planet and relocate human society, we need to ensure survival. This means easy access to resources such as water, food, and oxygen. We can go through these three basic needs individually. First, water - while you did mention we have discovered water on Mars, there is not nearly enough to sustain a large population of humans. The transport of enormous volumes of water from our planet to the next would be tedious, inefficient, and a waste of money yet again. You've also overlooked the task of water filtration, for which there are many delegates on Earth. Regardless of whether we extract water from Mars or bring it from Earth, the labour and capital required for filtration is excessive. Second, food - similarly to water, we have two options in regards to food: either transport it from Earth or grow it on Mars. The former poses the same problems as it does with water, and the latter requires even more resources. If we attempt to grow our own food on Mars, we would be limited to a heavily carnivorous diet (Mars is inhabitable for a lot of plant life) and thus face the task of having to house livestock. Third, let's look at oxygen - the composition of Mars' atmosphere includes only 0.13% oxygen, in contrast to Earth's 30% oxygen. While the volume of oxygen is reasonable for a group of 40 humans, the work required to harness the oxygen and physically breathe invites a dangerous situation wherein the humans sent are subject to suffocating. The need for these three resources, among others, make the sustenance of human life on Mars nearly impossible.
The final opposition contention is the fact that the discovery and exploration of outer space (i.e. other planets) is relatively unnecessary. In the realm of scientific research, we have more pressing problems here on Earth. If, as a society, we have an interest in learning about space, we have probes and other technology capable of exploring our solar system - in fact, sending out humans is more inefficient. Looking practically and objectively at the situation, we have no real need to explore any farther than our own planet and attempts to do so are driven by curiosity alone. Modern scientific advancements, including intense research and the development of new technologies, need to be put towards other, more applicable branches of science, including the field of medicine.
The colonization of Mars seems like a good idea in theory, but in reality is an action driven by humankind's sense of entitlement. An attempt to send a large population to Mars would result in financial detriment, a lack of resources, and scientific effort being applied in the wrong area, and for these reasons, the motion must fall.
Parthenos forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year 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||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
You are not eligible to vote on this debate