The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

THW: take a one-way trip to Mars

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/18/2015 Category: Technology
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 942 times Debate No: 70253
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




No one denies the fact that the Earth is growing worse minute by minute. Global warming, climate change, and many other things make Earth slowly grow to a place humans cannot live in. And because of that, in order to survive, we need to take a one-way trip to Mars.
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.


A sense of entitlement is entrenched in human nature. We perceive ourselves as being superior in every way and greed causes us to constantly feel entitled to more than what belongs to us. By proposing that we send a team to Mars in the interest of expanding human civilization, you demonstrate the inherent greed of humanity.

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
Debate Round No. 1


Humans who do not feel 'greed' or a 'need to survive', whichever way you call it, can stay at Earth and see the last chances of escaping from this slowly dying Earth. They can also stay when the Earth is being destroyed. A one way trip to Mars is not only for expanding human civilization, but in order to survive.
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.


Humanity will be the cause of its own demise. Our need for survival is instinctive, however, all of humankind has brought its downfall upon itself and the idea of relocating our population to another planet is contradictory of the consequences we should face for our destructive behaviour towards both ourselves and our Earth.

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.
Debate Round No. 2


Parthenos forfeited this round.


Pro has forfeited the round and the debate
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Forfeiture