The Instigator
Ore_Ele
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
imabench
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Terra-forming Venus vs Mars

Do you like this debate?NoYes+9
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...
Ore_Ele
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/17/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 13,564 times Debate No: 22088
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (41)
Votes (4)

 

Ore_Ele

Pro

This debate will focus around the potential to terra-form Venus (me) vs terra-forming Mars (Imabench). Measuring the winner will be based on two values that we will be pushing.

1) How close we can get our respective planet to Earth like conditions. The closer the better.

2) How close the technology needed is to technology that we already have. Obviously everything that is "scientifically possible" is fair game, but things that can be done with tech that we already have available should score higher than things that are scientifically possible but we currently lack the tech.

3) How safe and successful something can be. Trying something like moving Pluto through the solar system to become a moon means that it has to cross the orbits of many planets and only increases the risk of collision and loss of pluto (and even potential collision with Earth, if trying to send to Venus).

Obviously these two values can be at odds since getting closer to Earth may take more advanced technology, so it is up to the debaters to find the ideal balance and up to the voters to decide who has reached the better balance.

Things that will not be considered in voting

1) Cost to do this terra-forming. The cost for something like this is easily going to be in the billions and trillions of dollars, and when we consider what the cost of something that is so far out of our current reality, there is no way to be anything close to accurate. I also want to keep this focused on the science and tech, rather than the economics.

2) Time to completion. Pretty much everything will take decades and centuries, and calculations of how long something may take will shoot this well outside of our 8,000 character limit, so the time aspect will be ignored.

The debate will follow this simple format.

R1 - acceptance and clarification.
R2 - we each present our complete Terra-forming plans for our planet, do not counter anything on your opponent's.
R3 - we explain why our opponent's will not do well on the three value points.
R4 - we defend our own planets from our opponent's R3 arguments.
R5 - We offer money to voters and various other panderings. Or just summing up our side, either or.

My opponent is free to start first, or they can pass it on to me to start.

I look forward to what terra-forming ideas my opponent will use on Mars and hope that everyone enjoys the sci-fi enjoyment that is sure to come.
imabench

Con

I accept this debate and will argue that terrafroming/colonizing mars would be better than colonizing venus

Other than that

Debate Round No. 1
Ore_Ele

Pro

I would like to start by thanking Imabench for accepting this debate. And from here, I will dive into my terra-forming plans.

For Venus we shall look at 4 current shortcomings that the planet has to be Earth-like; Atmospheric pressure, Rotation (length of days), Chemical makeup, Temperature, Plate tectonics, Tides, and Magnetic field. Many of these are linked together and so a single solution can help multiple issues, so I shall organize my sections by solutions, rather than by issues. These solutions shall be Moon, Carbon, Nitrogen Fixers, SO2, and Hydrogen.

Moon

We shall start with the most extreme, yet beautiful solution. How to bring a significant moon to Venus? Our answer is to bring over Mercury, the little neighbor, and capture him as a moon. Here on Earth, we already have an extreme number of nuclear weapons, capable of releases vast amounts of energy in an instant. And we have the ability to produce these weapons at frightening rates, thousands per year if we want. Between just Russia and US during the cold war, 80,000 nuclear weapons were produced over about 25 years [1]. Over the course of 200 years, we could produce enough nuclear weapons to really get Mercury moving, to where it would be captured in just several thousand years (we could also continue to produce to help it go faster, but we need the time to do other things, so it is fine to take its time).

By locking Mercury in an orbit at 814,000 km (distance to allow Mercury to have the same tidal force as the Moon to Earth), conservation of angular momentum [2] will put Venus spinning at a rate of 44.5 hours. And putting it just another 100,000 km out will drop the rotation to 38.6 hours.

What will this do for Venus? Well, at 914k km, we'll still see 94.4% as strong tidal forces compared to Earth. The faster spin will allow the weather to calm, as it is driven by the uneven heating of the planet trying to balance out. This will allow the planet's night and day to be more even (once the atmosphere is dealt with). This will also crank the core into rotation, restoring the magnetic field that is needed to protect the atmosphere from the solar winds.

Carbon

This should come as no shock to people, but Venus has a ton of carbon, in the form of CO2, in the atmosphere. There are a ton of planets, fungi, and microbes that can take CO2 -> O2 while using the carbon for themselves. Once Hydrogen is added (will address how in a later section) there is enough O2 in the atmosphere (trapped as CO2) to leave 1 atm of pressure with 21% O2 and create over 375,000 billion billion tons of water [3] ( 28% of the water that is on Earth). This will provide all the needed carbon for organic life.

For the moment, we will call all this O2 and will point out the benefits of the water when the Hydrogen is added later.

Nitrogen Fixers

Even though Nitrogen only makes up 3.5% of the atmosphere, to get down to 78% (as our N2 is) of 1 atm, we will need to remove 76% of that N2. Just like with the carbon, there are numerous bacteria that can do that for us [4]. This will help create fertilizer and reduce the weight of the atmosphere.

SO2

Just like with the N2, there are countless chemical processes that we can use, some will even pull water out of it (every bit helps) [5]. This is really only needed to make it easier and safer for other work on the planet (protection from corrosion).

Hydrogen

After taking all that CO2 and getting vast amounts of O2 from it, we need to introduce H so that we can some life providing H2O. There are several places that we can get our needed hydrogen. First, by bringing in some basic alkali solutions, we can clean out the SO2 in the atmosphere and get some sulfite salts. The other simple solution is the solar wind [6]. This is a stream of charged particles being shot from the sun. Because Venus doesn't have a magnetic field (until Mercury arrives), the wind pounds directly against the atmosphere. This means that satellites can harvest this wind without having to go too far away from the planet. And we've had the technology to collect the solar wind since the 90's [7].

The next places would be harvesting hydrogen directly from Jupiter or CH4 directly from Uranus (incase we want a little more Carbon for life forms). We've had satellites that have been able to lower probes into the upper atmospheres since the 80's [8].

This will allow all that O2 that was created in the Carbon section to be turned into water (well, not ALL the O2, just the vast majority to bring down the atmospheric pressure).

What will all this do for the planet? Apart from the vast reduction of atmospheric pressure, we will see an incredible drop in temperature. The drop will be tied to the removal of the greenhouse gases and closeness to the sun. Once the atmosphere matches ours in pressure and composition, the temperature will be more related to the light coming from the sun. A quick calculation shows that at 56 degrees from the equator (north or south) on Venus would be the same temp as the equator on Earth. We can calculate that the temperature from the poles to the equator will average about 30 F – 150 F. The poles of Venus will be about the same temp as our 70 degrees North (and South), which is just within the Arctic Circle.

This will create 41 million square kilometers (a little more than 4 USAs) on Venus that falls within normal Earth temperatures, the rest will be warmer than Earth, but not so hot that life cannot exist.

The last thing that this will help with will be re kicking up Venus' plate tectonics by wettening the crust. While it is now understood that Venus does have active tectonics [9], we know that increasing the moisture in the crust will make it more Earth-like.

So going back over everything, we've dealt with both the pressure and the composition of the atmosphere, and made it like Earth (78% N2 and 21% O2 with the SO2 taken care of). We've upped the tectonic levels, introduced a moon with tidal forces, cranked up the speed of rotation, jump started the magnetic field, and dropped the temp so that much of the land is Earth-like and all of it is under water's boiling point. All of this with decades old technology and equipment that we already have.

I will pre-guess some questions and concerns with the last of my space.

If the temperature can melt soft metals, how will you do any of this? Simple, the atmosphere is so heavy, it is easy to float heavy equipment high in the atmosphere. With solar panels (the light is 92% more intense than on earth) powering them, they can work on the atmosphere automatically and high above the heat. Once they start going down a bit, bio-domes can be used.

How far down does pressure and temp need to go for BDs? technically none, there are a lot of materials that can withstand that kind of temperature and many organisms that can withstand the pressure. As long as no pressure difference needs to be maintained, there is no risk of collapsing.

How to power the BDs? While the atmosphere is too think for much light to penetrate, Geothermal and Nuclear will be the best options. A little nuclear fuel goes a long way. This energy will be used to keep the insides cooler so that the life can do its thing more efficiently.

And out of space.

[1] http://www.nuclearfiles.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://bcs.whfreeman.com...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[7] http://articles.cnn.com...
[8] http://www.cgrer.uiowa.edu...
[9] http://www3.imperial.ac.uk...
imabench

Con

Moon:
The Moon on Earth serves many purposes, it is easily seen to affect the tides, but it is almost undisputed that the biggest role the Moon has on Earth is maintaining the Earths tilt.
http://yellowmagpie.com...

Now what is the tilt of Venus and Mars in respect to Earth?
Earth = 23.5 degrees
Mars = 25 degrees
Venus = 177 degrees

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.nasa.gov...
http://www.universetoday.com...

Venus has a hell of a tilt, but what exactly does 177 degrees equal? If a planet has a tilt of 180 degrees, then it is upside down, so Venus actually has an axis of tilt of about 3 degrees, is UPSIDE DOWN, and spins the wrong way. Mars on the other hand is already similar to Earth tilt wise meaning that the seasons between Earth and Mars would be very similar compared to that of Venus and Earth.

However the tilt tells another story, tilt of planets is vital because tilt determines the seasons of a planet, meaning that planets with no tilt or an extreme tilt (like Venus) would not have seasons, just day and night where the area around the equator would be bombarded with heat while the poles would receive much less heat. So if you take into account the tilt of Venus, along with the very close proximity of Venus to the sun, average temperatures of Venus ranges around 410 degrees Celsius, and that is not going to change.
Earth's average temperature is about 14 degrees Celsius,
Mars's average temperature is about -90 degrees
http://quest.nasa.gov...
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...
http://www.universetoday.com...

Now if Mars and Venus would have to be similar to Earth, than these planets would need moons proportional to themselves like that of Earth to the moon. Venus is almost the size of Earth, meaning that if a massive moon would have to be found and brought very close to Venus for such a thing to work. Mercury is the only thing close by for Venus, but Mars on the other hand is about half the size of the Earth, meaning that a moon for Mars would be much smaller than Mercury, and with an asteroid belt nearby it could be feasible that overtime asteroids could be moved towards Mars, caught, then clustered to form a moon. Something that would be much easier overtime then nuking Mercury towards Venus and hoping that Mercury isnt destroyed in the process.
http://sciencenetlinks.com...

So to summarize my arguments up to this point, Mars is much similar to Earth temperature wise, seasonal wise, tilt wise, and could be altered moon wise much easier than Venus.

Carbon argument
Mars has more than enough CO2 to support plant life similar to Earth, and the amount of CO2 in Mars's atmosphere is similar to that of Earths
Mars = 25%
Earth = .039%
Venus = 96.5%
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

So if we are to terraform both planets to have similar atmospheres to Earth, Mars is a much easier task than Venus is percentage wise.

What about Nitrogen? Same links as above
Venus = 3.5%
Mars = 2.7%
Earth = 78%

So both Venus and Mars are very different from Earth Nitrogen wise, BUT consider this.... Mars is a lot smaller than Venus, so boosting the Nitrogen levels on Mars would be much quicker than boosting it on Venus because Mars's atmosphere is smaller but already more stable than that of Venus's

SO2 aka Sulfer dioxide
Venus = 150 ppm (parts per million)
Earth = <.01 ppm
Mars = unknown
There arent many sources showing what % of Mars's atmosphere is S02, but since its not listed it is very very small.

Basically, the amount of SO2 in Earth's atmosphere is similar to that of Mars's, and the atmosphere of Venus is saturated with SO2 in comparison to Earth and Mars.

============================================================================
============================================================================

There are several other factors needed to be considered when wondering what must be done and what is needed to support human life on other planets similar to that of Earths. So far we have focused on changing the atmosphere fo the planets, examining temperature likeness to that of Earth, and examining seasonal changes, and a moon. Mars triumphs Venus in all of these categories since Mars is much smaller and can be manipulated more easily then Venus and is already similar to Earth already.

Now for the other factors that must be considered,
Water
Exploitable resources
Habitable at all?

Water
Mars has been found to at one point have had running water on its surface, and the planet right now has a large amount of water locked within the polar ice cap of the planet located at the North Pole.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Venus on the other hand at 400 degrees Celsius has absolutely NO water either frozen on land or anywhere in its atmosphere, meaning that Early colonization of the planets by a population of humans could be supported water wise on Mars today, whereas such a colonization of Venus water wise is impossible and will remain so for a very long time.

Exploitable Resources
Resources on Venus are almost entirely focused on the chemicals of the atmosphere of Venus, Carbon, Oxygen, Lead, that kind of stuff, nothing of very high value though. Mars on the other hand actually has a handful of metallic ores that could be used for trade or building civilization, such as Tin, Iron, Copper, Silver, and a few others. This means that when looking to colonizing Mars or Venus, Mars offers resources that can both be used to fund such transformations or carry out the transformations themselves....

Ill end here for now :)
Debate Round No. 2
Ore_Ele

Pro

Sticking with the format mentioned in the opening round. This round will be for me to point out shortcomings and oversights by my opponent's plan. I shall break this into two parts. First, problems with the solutions my opponent provided and second, problems with no solution provided.

To the comments about short comings of Venus that my opponent mentioned, I'll be waiting until R4 to address them. Do not consider them dropped.

1)Problems with solutions my opponent provided.

We shall first jump to the moon (I hope all the readers have practiced their jumping skills). First, we need to address the faulty assumption that the mass of the moon is required for the tilt. This is tied to the tilt, but completely. It is the gravitational effects of the moon which is needed, not just mass. So a lighter moon can be closer and a heavier moon can be further (as I did with mine).

Second, we need to stop and look at these masses. The moon has a mass of 7.35e22 [1] to achieve its gravitational pull on Earth. The entire asteroid belt is only 3.6e21 [2], about 4% the mass of the moon. At that mass difference, this new moon would have to be less than 19 thousand km from the center of Mars (our moon is 384,000 km from Earth). We should note that this is very close to the Roche limit [3] of 10,600 km (how close a satellite can be in orbit before being torn apart by tidal forces). This number takes into account the difference of densities (Mars being 3.94 and the Asteroid belt being 2.07). The questions of "how" to form this moon will be brought up later, but we must ask which is really easier and requires less technology. Moving an incredibly large body or moving some not-quite-as-incredibly large bodies, collide them into each other without accidently harming anything?

My opponent brings up the CO2. First, I'd like to point out that he has misread his source. It says that in winter, as much as 25% of the CO2 condenses at the caps, not that the atmosphere is 25% CO2. It is, in fact 95% CO2, just like Venus [4]. Moving on, he states that Mars will be easier but this is inaccurate. It is simply "quicker" since there is less to convert. He has not shown how it will require less technology, or more reasonable technology, only that there is less to do and Time is not one of our measuring sticks. This is the same regarding N2 in the atmosphere (though we will address an issue momentarily).

My opponent also mentioned the water at the poles. Let us look further into this. First, we should note that only 15% of the polar caps are water ice, most is CO2 ice [5], and the estimated total water on Mars (all in ice) is 821,000 cubic km [6], or 8.21e17 kg of water. This may sound like a bunch, but it is less than 1/1700 the amount of water on earth. On a planetary scale, this is nothing, so water is still going to need to be formed in some way.

2)Problems not addressed by my opponent.

We need to first ask, "How will you form this moon?" For Venus, Mercury is a single target to work on over time. It is large and very easy to find, on some nights, it is even visible to the naked eye from the surface of earth. However, my opponent is talking about rounding up ALL the asteroids to form a single (albeit very small) planetoid to use as Mars' moon. Will this be formed while still in the belt using Ceres as a core? Will you try to move Ceres (or another asteroid) into the lunar position and grow the moon from there? How great is the danger of trying to shoot millions of house sized asteroids across the solar system into a single spot. And how does my opponent plan on moving all of these? Namely the smaller ones? For the smaller ones, nukes would be too powerful. Even though this planet is less than 1/100 the size of Mercury, it will take over 10x the number of nukes to move it all. It won't it also take a vast amount of technology to plant all of these? The tech to land on an asteroid that is too small for meaningful gravity is far greater than that to move a single small planet. Sure, moving Mercury will take a boat load of time, but that is not something to worry about, the tech to do it is here now, and has been here for decades.

Let us jump back N2, as I said I would. On Venus, we will actually be removing N2, though bacteria to make fertilizer for plants, however on Mars, N2 needs to be brought in. My opponent has not said where this N2 is going to come from. Not many planets have nitrogen on them, and taking from Earth can be very dangerous to life here on Earth. This N2 has to come from somewhere, you can't just snap your fingers and it is there.

Now, we also have several issues not brought up at all at any level. Mars has an atmospheric pressure of 600 pascals [7] this same pressure at 90 km (about 55 miles) above ground [8]. Such little pressure that no meaningful life could breath. My opponent does nothing to remedy this atmosphere issue. Now, before he does, he needs to address the magnetic field issue, since without the protective magnetic field, and the solar wind will blow away (over time) any atmosphere that we try to form. Of course, this is another un-addressed problem, the core of Mars. This moon is too small to have any kind of significant effect on the spinning of the planet due to the conservation of angular momentum. The moon works for Venus because the planet is spinning so slowly that the moon cranks up the spin of the planet AND the core, but Mars is already spinning. So what will you do for the core so that you can hold an atmosphere?

Another issue that was never addressed was the temperature. Mars is far too cold for liquid water to exist anywhere on the planet (and of course, the low pressure doesn't help either). My opponent offers no solutions to remedy this serious issue. Mars is colder than the Arctic in the midst of the coldest winter. As my opponent has said, Mars averages -90 C, while the coldest temp on Earth ever recorded is -89.2 C [9].

So as we can see, there are a number of issues that are left either unresolved, or not properly/completely resolved. Now my opponent should address my shortcomings in his R3 and answer these short comings in his R4.

Now, my opponent brings up exploitable resources, though this is technically not part of the debate since this falls under economics. but since I have extra space, I will entertain these arguments, not for debate points but just to set the record straight.

My opponent says that Venus is focused on the chemical of the atmosphere, but this is not true at all. Because of Venus' atmosphere, we cannot even see the ground to know what treasures it holds. However based on the formation of solar system, heavy elements (just like in a centrifuge on earth) form on planets closer to the center, while the lighter ones form in the outer system [10]. So it is more than likely that Venus (and Mercury, now the moon of Venus) will have large amounts of metals and other heavy elements. In an era of space travel these elements will be extremely valuable as there are three primary types of elements needed, metals for manufacturing, extremely heavy elements for fission (Uranium, Plutonium, etc), and extremely light elements for fusion (Hydrogen and Helium). Two of these will likely be able to be mined from the planets, and H and He come from the solar wind.

[1] http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...
[2] http://www.sciencedaily.com...
[3] http://media4.obspm.fr...
[4] http://www.universetoday.com...
[5] http://www.esa.int...
[6] http://onorbit.com...
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[8] http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com...
[9] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[10] http://astronomyonline.org...
imabench

Con

"To the comments about short comings of Venus that my opponent mentioned, I'll be waiting until R4 to address them. Do not consider them dropped."
Just wanted to emphasize that to the voters

1) Lunar issues
" The entire asteroid belt is only 3.6e21 [2], about 4% the mass of the moon. At that mass difference, this new moon would have to be less than 19 thousand km from the center of Mars "
I admit that the asteroid belt is rather empty compared to the Moon, however there are other planetary bodies that enter our solar system such as comets and other large chunks of rocks that over time could be used to construct a moon for Mars.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.sciencedaily.com...

Mars already has two moons of decent size though, Phobos and Deimos, and these moons are actually captured asteroids that Mars pulled into planetary orbit all by itself! Moving asteroids under Martian influence becomes a much easier task than moving Mercury when you consider 1) these asteroids are tiny in comparison to Mercury to move, and 2) The distance and work needed to do this is much lower than one would expect since Mars has already pulled asteroids into its own orbit
http://en.wikipedia.org...

"this new moon would have to be less than 19 thousand km from the center of Mars... This is very close to the Roche limit [3] of 10,600 km"
But its still twice the limit, which is safe enough

CO2
I apologize for misreading my own source, allow me to update my own table correctly
Mars = 95%
Earth = .039%
Venus = 96.5%
So mars still has less CO2 then Venus, both percentage wise and size wise since Mars is much smaller than Venus to begin with. The Con questions how it would be easier to manipulate the CO2 levels on Mars just because Mars is smaller. Since Mars has 10,000x LESS CO2 than Venus, It would be easier to manipulate because quite simply, there is a far smaller amount of it
http://zebu.uoregon.edu...
(Its about halfway down, it is the second bullet under "Quick Summary" under the page for Mars)

So CO2 levels would be easy to manipulate simply because there is a much smaller amount to begin with then Venus. and the same could be said about the Nitrogen levels.

Water
Mars's Ice caps are only 15% water, and although that certainly wont be able to sustain a civilization like the Pro says that amount of water would be more than enough to help supply the first people who do live on Mars. Venus meanwhile still has far less water than Mars does so any human activity on Venus would have to rely on Water to either come from Earth or be atomically put together..... Whereas on Mars all you have to do is drill in the right place....

Making the actual moon
There are a lot of problems to constructing a moon from a bunch of pieces, but there is one thing that I think could enlighten everyone about how possible this is.

-> http://lifeboat.com...

Go down to number 3, Megascale Engineering.
Basically, Mankind may be able to master the skills of building massive structures in specific dimensions using self replication ideals and materials to the point where such engineering could be built around asteroids to enhance the size of it steadily and efficiently to the point where Mars could literally GROW its own moon from a bunch of harvested rocks. Such a thing could be done safely and steadily and not involve nuking a planet over and over, a tactic that might not even work.

Nitrogen
If we are to add Nitrogen to Mars, then there are two things we can consider, the first is that it is locked in the soil instead of the atmosphere
"We hypothesize that Mars soil, as typical of extremely dry desert soils on Earth, is likely to contain at least some of the missing nitrogen as nitrate salts and some fixed ammonium bound to aluminosilicate minerals."
http://journals.cambridge.org...
The other thing about Nitrogen is that the only real need for Nitrogen is to use it to support ecosystems, therefore the size of the ecosystem we intend to create correlates with how much Nitrogen we would need. We would not need to undertake a massive manipulation of nitrogen to Mars only if we intend to populate Mars as heavily as we populate Earth.

So to summarize this point, Nitrogen might be locked in the ground, and the amount of nitrogen needed really depends on the size of the civilization that will inhabit the planet.

Other issues
" he needs to address the magnetic field issue, since without the protective magnetic field, and the solar wind will blow away (over time) any atmosphere that we try to form"

Mars does have a weak Atmosphere, however one has to take into account 2 things,

"The authors found that Mars's atmosphere does not drift away at a steady pace; instead, atmospheric escape occurs in bursts."
http://www.dailygalaxy.com...

The second thing that one needs to take into account is that Mars is losing its atmosphere at a very slow pace, Earth actually loses its atmosphere MORE that Mars!
http://dsc.discovery.com...
http://abundanthope.net...

"what will you do for the core so that you can hold an atmosphere"
Here's a curveball for ya, Mars might not need to be modified to hold an atmosphere since it is being considered that early colonization may be located UNDERGROUND!
http://www.redcolony.com...
http://chapters.marssociety.org...

Its plausible that humans could live underground while leave the surface for agriculture since agriculture is possible in the natural sunlight (something Venus certainly doesnt have). Living underground would also protect humans from possible exposure to radiation from the sun too.

We dont need to overhaul Mars to have a massive atmosphere similar to Earth, we can make due with what most of Mars already has and still be pretty well off.

"Another issue that was never addressed was the temperature. Mars is far too cold for liquid water to exist anywhere on the planet (and of course, the low pressure doesn't help either)"
Liquid Water use to flow across the Martian surface much like it did on Earth though, science up to this point has only merely begun to investigate why Mars is as dead as it is now. Right now what I'm getting at is that once more is understood about why Mars, which was in the recent past much more habitable then it is now, more dead, then humanity could potentially come up with a strategy to correct such an issue and transform Mars back into a second Earth...

http://www.sciencedaily.com...
http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com...
http://www.csmonitor.com...

Point is, Mars used to be much like Earth, then it began to die. If We could figure out what happened, it can be assumed that such a process could be reversed on a small enough scale to allow for humans to colonize Mars.

Resources
My bad, I didnt realize we werent supposed to discuss this, I will focus on the issues.

Questions to the Pro
How many nukes do you think would it take to move Mercury into orbit with Venus? Once you get Mercury in place how do you slow it down to stay in orbit? wouldnt people get mad knowing there are now just 7 planets? Venus is really really hot how would the temperature be brought down more than 700 degrees to acceptable temperatures? Venus has much less water than mars, how would Venus solve its water problem? Also Venus has such an ungodly high pressure on the surface, which is also partially molten in some areas, where exactly would people live?

Ill end here for now, Again i apologize for taking so long
Debate Round No. 3
Ore_Ele

Pro

I would like to start this round by re-iterating our measuring sticks for this debate.

"1) How close we can get our respective planet to Earth like conditions." [1]

Now, it was laid out in the opening round that R4 would be for me to defend my opponent's questions and concerns about my Terra-forming methods.

"How many nukes do you think would it take to move Mercury into orbit with Venus? Once you get Mercury in place how do you slow it down to stay in orbit?"

The nukes provide energy (via an explosion) to create velocity, not distance. So there is not a set number of nukes that is needed. More nukes will simply get it there FASTER, but since time is specifically listed as not something to be considered, a few ten-thousand (we already have that many) would suffice. Once Mercury is there, Venus will naturally capture it through gravity (so long as the planet is properly lined up), we do not manually need to slow it down.

"wouldnt people get mad knowing there are now just 7 planets?"

Possibly, but they'll get over it, just like Pluto. Plus, that is really outside the scope of the debate (while it would be nice to talk about that, 8,000 characters is too small for everything that would be nice to discuss).

"Venus is really really hot how would the temperature be brought down more than 700 degrees to acceptable temperatures?"

This was answered in R2 already [2]. But a quick summary, cutting down the atmospheric pressure (mentioned in round 2 under "carbon"), cutting the CO2 levels (R2, under "carbon" "nitrogen fixers" and "hydrogen"), and speeding up the rotation (R2 under "moon") will make it so that the difference is related to the light energy (proximity to the sun) which was calculated near the end of R2.

"Venus has much less water than mars, how would Venus solve its water problem?"

This was also addressed in R2. There is a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere. From that, we can pull out the Carbon and leave O2 (this is what most plants and a lot of bacteria on earth do as a natural process). We can then add 2*H2 to the O2 to create 2*H2O (As said in R2, the H can be taken from 3 different sources, solar wind being the closest, and we've had the tech since the 90's to do that).

"Also Venus has such an ungodly high pressure on the surface, which is also partially molten in some areas, where exactly would people live?"

Pressure has already been addressed in R2, as has temp.

We shall move on to what I thought was my opponent's best concern about my plan, which he brought up in his R2. That was the tilt of Venus. This is a legitimate concern, and one that I did not address in my OP (ran out of room and honestly thought my opponent would not catch this one if missed). As my opponent mentioned, our moon is the key to our nice comfy tilt. I already talked about bring into a moon that would have the same gravitational force on Venus as our moon does for us (well, 94.4% as strong). This should resolve this issue for us (as well as tides and other fun things).

Now, my opponent had question about issues, but none regarding any of my solutions, so I can do nothing but assume that my opponent does not disagree with any of my proposed solutions.

Since I have used less than 1/2 of my characters at this point, I'm going to address some of what my opponent said. Again, I'd like to restate that to goal of this debate is to get AS CLOSE TO EARTH AS POSSIBLE.

1) Lunar issues

My opponent has said that we could get enough material over time from passing comets and chunks of rocks. However, the ENTIRE asteroid belt is only 4% of the moon. While we can find the occasional stray rock floating around, we are not going to find an entire moon worth of rocks, and the tech to try and do that is absurdly out of our range now.

Focusing on one large target is much easier than trying to track down, catch, and gather millions of small ones. The amount of fuel wasted trying to gather them all would be astronomical (lol, astronomy term).

Regarding the Roche limit, our moon is about 25x the distance of the Roche limit, while this would be less than 2x the limit and my opponent's only comments are it is "safe enough." We should note, that this is not just some "danger zone" this is the limit that the moon will completely BREAK APART and rain down on the planet.

CO2

Mars does have less CO2 because it has less atmosphere. However, my opponent has not said how correcting this % will be "easy" only that it will be faster (because there is less), and remember from the agreed values, that time is not to be considered.

Water

My opponent offers no solutions to make Mars more like Earth as in being covered in water or able to provide a global habitat, simply says that it is enough to "supply the first people who do live on Mars." This is a long way from anything close to Earth.

My opponent brings in some "may be able..." technology that likely a long time away. Remember that our #2 value is using the most current tech that we have and trying to avoid science fiction. Here we have my moon, which is based on Tech from the 50's - 80's while my opponent's is based on extreme futuristic tech that doesn't yet exist.

Nitrogen

The first of these two is based on info that is not known, only hypothesized. We are currently looking at sending a rover to Mars to look into this [3]. But we need to also look that the numbers for nitrogen that I looked at early is only considering Atmospheric Nitrogen, not all the Nitrogen in the soil on Earth (since we don't know the starting value for Mars or Venus). Now, my opponent also says, "We would not need to undertake a massive manipulation of nitrogen to Mars only if we intend to populate Mars as heavily as we populate Earth." Remember, we are trying to get as close to Earth as possible, not just a few stray colonies underground.

Magnetic field

My opponent does not actually present any argument for a magnetic field, nor any ideas on how to build or protect the atmosphere. Of course Earth is losing more than Mars, Mars pretty much doesn't have one. But no idea is presented on how to actually create one. We'd still be left with a planet with virtually no atmosphere (as said, the same as 55 mile up, or 9X the altitude of an airliner).

The Core

My opponent says that early colonization may be underground. So? To be like Earth someday, you'll need to eventually address this issue with a solution, or accept that this is nothing close to "Earth-like."

Temperature

My opponent says that liquid water use to flow (yes, back when it had an active core and thicker atmosphere, cough cough [4]). My opponent offers no solutions and simply says "Mars used to be much like Earth, then it began to die. If We could figure out what happened, it can be assumed that such a process could be reversed on a small enough scale to allow for humans to colonize Mars." That is the point of the debate, not to say that we can assume that we'll eventually figure it out, but to provide an actual plan, a course of action, to make it reality.

I have run low on characters yet again (curse you Juggle, and Webcorp before them) so I shall end this here and look forward to my opponent's R4.

[1] Round 1, paragraph 2.
[2] pretty much all of round 2.
[3] http://news.wustl.edu...
[4] http://english.pravda.ru...
imabench

Con

Nuking Mercury/Venus's new moon
The Pro said that only a couple thousand nukes would be needed to put Mercury on a trajectory to become Venus's moon. But there isnt any evidence that nuking Mercury a thousand times will actually make any change in its orbit, we could simply be creating a ton of nuclear sized craters all over Mercury as it continues to orbit around the sun. That being said if we cant even move Mercury to be Venus's moon then Venus in the end would be without a moon while Mars at least has some sort of satellite moon getting the job done.

Temperature on Venus
The Pro says that drastically removing levels of CO2 and speeding up the rotation of Venus will bring down temperatures, I do not dispute either of these but the Pro has only provided one strategy as to how this would be done ,and that is completely attributed to the orbit of Mercury around Venus. I previously questioned whether or not Mercury could even be positioned next to Venus, but now I will examine whether or not Mercury could even impact Venus's rotation.

The Pro's plan is to put Mercury into orbit around Venus at a rate so that the rotation of Mercury around Venus would be faster than the rotation of Venus itself.... Meaning that Mercury would orbit around Venus at a rate where Merucry revolves around the whole planet in under one day on Venus. Such a speed would be extremely hard, and even impossible to achieve because even if somehow Mercury is nuked enough to make it go that fast without being blown to bits by the nukes themselves, then Mercury would still have to be caught by Venus's gravitational pull or Mercury would simply fly by....

Another reason why such a thing would not work is the fact that moons cannot orbit around planets at a rate faster than which the planet itself spins, because then that moon would be traveling at a speed to great for the Planet's gravitational pull to keep in place. This is a fact because the same principles work with satellites,
http://www.gma.org...

This means that any object traveling too fast, like Mercury rotating around Venus once every 30 hours, would be travelling at a speed so fast that Venus's gravitational pull would be unable to control it, and Mercury would simply fly away.... That being said it would thus be impossible to use Mercury to stabilize the orbit of Venus or speed it up in order to cool it.

Water on Venus
The Pro says that Water can be brought to Venus by using CO2 and using Hydrogen from places nearby to manufacture water on the atomic scale. Later the Pro questions how water will be brought to Mars, and since Venus and Mars both have very large amounts of CO2 in the atmospheres, there is no reason to believe that the same process used to bring water to Venus could also be used on Mars. The only problem though is that Venus is so bloody hot that any water that is created would immediately be boiled off into a gaseous state while water on Mars can still be kept in a solid form.

Surface of Venus
I offered the Pro to explain how people could live on the surface of Venus since temperature and pressure are so high, The Pro though only explains that this doesnt matter since pressure will decrease because of the vast amounts of water being made, however he does not address the issue of Venus's core being partially molten in some areas.

Tilt of Venus
The Pro again offers Mercury's orbit around Venus as the solution, but I have now provided evidence of how Mercury might not even move, and even if it did the rate it would go around Venus at such a high speed would be impossible for it to change the planet's tilt since under such conditions Venus would not be able to keep Mercury in orbit.

Moon of Mars
I offered evidence showing how massive engineering combined with bodies from the asteroid belt could provide an acceptable Moon for Mars. As for the danger zone argument the Pro emphasizes how the moon would be torn apart if it entered the danger zone but i still emphasize that this new moon would be kept at a minimum of 2x the distance away from the danger zone

CO2
I overlooked how we cannot use time as a parameter for terraforming planets, thereby I concede that manipulating CO2 levels on Mars and Venus would be the same since time cannot be used as a parameter in this debate.

Water
We could make water on Mars the same way we would make it on Venus, by using CO2 from the atmosphere with Hydrogen from sources to make the water on an atomic level. The water already on Mars reference was to show how there currently exists a buffer of available water supplies to support early colonization while efforts to make water are carried out, whereas on Venus water (in a vapor form) would be the only way to support any life at all at the beginning.

Nitrogen
"the numbers for nitrogen that I looked at early is only considering Atmospheric Nitrogen, not all the Nitrogen in the soil on Earth (since we don't know the starting value for Mars or Venus)"
In retrospect I admit that this tactic is only hypothetical and unproven, however the sources I gave does state that there will be nitrogen within these salts, what is unknown is how much.... If we are to get a large amount of Nitrogen similar to that of Earth, then there is only one plausible source to get such a large amount of Nitrogen....

Take it from Venus.....

I am assuming that such projects are not being done at the same time since this debate is only about which would be easier to Terra-form into Earth, therefore I offer evidence that in order to get more Nitrogen we can take it from the abundant amounts of Nitrogen in Venus which the Pro even said would have to be disposed of in the first place.

Magnetic Field
The problem with my argument on this is that not much is known in the first place about manipulating atmospheres since so little evidence already exists of just how Planets gain and lose atmospheres. This means any solutions I do propose would be based on hypothetical arguments which the Pro and I both agreed on would not be used. Therefore my hands are tied on this argument and since I cannot offer theories on what could be done I can only concede this argument....

The Core
People would live underground and could do so with normal attire, on the surface though they could live only if they wore something to protect themselves against radiation from the sun. This means that on the surface people could live normal but would have to wear astronaut suits to protect from the harmful rays. I know this sounds silly but people on Earth wear stuff to protect themselves from sunlight and radiation too, meaning that living on the surface of Mars would be similar to living on the surface on Earth, just with a twist.

Also the surface could be used for agriculture since crops and plant life could grow under the conditions of sunlight on Mars, something you cant have on Venus. That would make Mars a better candidate to be mroe Earthlike since crops can actually be grown on the surface

Temperature
If the Pro wants a plan to boost temperatures on Mars, then I will offer a plan to pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to lock in more heat from the sun. Guess what gas does just that.... CO2.... Guess where we could also get an abundant amount of CO2 from....... Thats right, Venus. If CO2 doesnt float well with you though we could use a variety of different gases to do the trick to such as water vapor, methane, and NO2.... Something Mars has plenty of
http://www.nasa.gov...

Well now im down to 400 characters... I will use them to re-emphasize how it is impossible for Mercury to put into a high speed orbit around Venus to fix its axle tilt, its rotation, and heat problem because it is simply impossible for an object to travel that fast and still be kept in orbit. Instead it would merely fly away, if it could even be moved in the first place....

Back to you for now Pro :)
Debate Round No. 4
Ore_Ele

Pro

As we move to the final round, I will address a few issues that were recently brought up by my opponent. I will try to not add any new arguments but only address what needs to be addressed. After that, I will sum up both of our plans and see how they hold up to our measuring sticks.

So to start with the some of the things brought up by my opponent last round.

1) Nuking may not move Mercury.

Unless my opponent thinks the most basic laws of physics might be wrong enough for us to question them, then this holds no water. Nuclear bombs release energy, some of that energy is transferred to objects around them. The only way that energy can be transferred without moving an object is if not enough force is provided to overcome static friction, but there is no static friction in space, so there will be movement caused. The only question is how much, not if. The energy in nuclear bombs is easily calculable from the mega-tonnes of TNT that they measure them in.

I find it odd that my opponent questions this, since this is the basic principle of how to move asteroids to protect earth. If my opponent doesn't believe that this will work, then he has no method listed of how to move any object in space to make his own moon.

2) Mercury as a Moon

My opponent claims that Mercury will be revolving at around 1 rev every 30 hours. I have no idea where he got this number and it is not anywhere in my arguments, and not backed up by anything he's said. The only thing I can see where it may have come from is at the end of my "moon" section of R2, where I said, "...drop the rotation to 38.6 hours." However, this is talking about the rotation of Venus, not the revolution of Mercury. Mercury, being out 914k km, will be actually be orbiting slower than our Moon, not some super fast orbit.

After these two clarifications, my opponent has no other complaints about any of my issues. Other than these, he has no other complaints regarding temperature. From there, he has no complaints on water. He has no other complaints regarding the tilt after the moon is put in place. He has none about the pressure, and once he has none on pressure or temperature, there is no argument on the surface of Venus. My opponent's entire case against Venus boils down to his last line, " it is simply impossible for an object to travel that fast and still be kept in orbit. Instead it would merely fly away, if it could even be moved in the first place." And since I have shown that this came from him misreading my argument, he has no case against Venus.

3) Stealing from Venus

My opponent talks about taking the gases he needs for Mars from Venus. Totally not cool dude (JKing). Since my opponent just brought up how to increase the atmosphere last round, I feel the need to refute it here with my one and only link [1], "Gravity on Mars is not strong enough to stop most gas molecules in its atmosphere from escaping into space." This means that Mars can never have the atmospheric pressure that we have, at least not with lighter gas particles (O2, H2O, etc, CO2 is about 40% heavier than O2, so you can have a good deal of that, but you don't want too much of that).

Now, let us sum up both planets under our plans.

1) Moons

My moon is a single composed body being brought over slowly and safely (nothing in the way of it's course). My opponent's moon has to be constructed from countless asteroids and other undefined sources. My opponent has suggested that nuclear force may not do anything, but has not proposed any other ideas for it.

2) Atmosphere

As explained, Mars will not be able to have an atmosphere close to that of Earth. However, Venus can, and the methods for obtaining them have not been challenged. This means that Mars cannot stand against Venus when it comes to the atmospheric potential.

3) Temperature

Venus will be able to support liquid water at all latitudes, while Mars will still be frozen at all latitudes. Life requires LIQUID water, not just water.

There are quite of few others, from plate tectonics, to magnetic fields, to tides, and others that were simply not covered for Mars. Just a simple look between my opponent's plan on Mars, "People would live underground..." "Mars might not need to be modified to hold an atmosphere since it is being considered that early colonization may be located UNDERGROUND!" "...a process could be reversed on a small enough scale to allow for humans to colonize Mars." "We dont need to overhaul Mars to have a massive atmosphere similar to Earth, we can make due with what most of Mars already has and still be pretty well off."

While my plans make Venus basically a warmer Earth, same pressure, same atmospheric composition, almost same gravity, same tidal forces, similar H2O levels (at least compared to Mars). It's simple. Venus can become much more like Earth than Mars could, and with much more basic technology (as presented, most is decades old).

I thank my opponent for this dabate, and await his final round.


[1] http://astrobioloblog.wordpress.com...
imabench

Con

1) Nuking Merucry
The reason I brought this up isnt because I dont agree ith the laws of physics, its the fact that nuking an object of a large enough mass might have a minimum impact on the speed of the body.

"Apparently, blowing up a large object in space comes with its own problems... not the least of which is, it probably won't work."
http://io9.com...
"The asteroids that would be really worrisome -- those larger than 1,312 feet (400 meters) -- wouldn't be easily wiped out by such a bomb"
http://science.howstuffworks.com...

Atomic bombs are useful for handling blowing up small asteroids, but even they struggle against large asteroids. Now how could nukes that cant easily stop a large asteroid somehow be used to move an entire PLANET? The answer is that they cant....

2) Moon Mercury
"38.6 hours." However, this is talking about the rotation of Venus, not the revolution of Mercury. Mercury, being out 914k km, will be actually be orbiting slower than our Moon, not some super fast orbit."
How could Mercury then speed up the rotation of Venus if it is the same distance from Venus as the Moon is from Earth but be rotating SLOWER? The Only way that the rotational speed could be increased is if Mercury was used to speed up Venus's orbit if it were orbiting around the planet faster than the planet revolves..... Something that would be impossible because at that speed Mercury would simply fly away.

" My opponent's entire case against Venus boils down to his last line, " it is simply impossible for an object to travel that fast and still be kept in orbit"
Actually only half of it was about that, the other half was asking is it even possible to move Mercury with nukes, rather than give sources and prove your argument though you gave a condescending remark about how its common sense when in reality, it isnt.

3) Atmosphere on Mars
""Gravity on Mars is not strong enough to stop most gas molecules in its atmosphere from escaping into space" "
I already showed though that the rate of which such gas particles escape from Mars are slower than that of even Earth.... Here are the links again
http://dsc.discovery.com...
http://abundanthope.net...

Mars vs Venus Moons
I argued that because Mars is located close to the atmosphere that over time asteroids could be combined with other things to form a moon over time (Since we agreed time would not be an issue). Venus on the other hand I questioned how nukes would even be able to move a PLANET, which isnt possible. Since Mercury is out of the picture all the arguments about all the heat, pressure, and tilt issues becomes an unsolved problem....

Mars vs Venus Atmosphere
Pro focuses completely on the fact that Mars cant hold onto its own atmosphere even though it has done that in the past and can retain its atmosphere at a rate better than even Earth....

Mars vs Venus Water
"Venus will be able to support liquid water at all latitudes, while Mars will still be frozen at all latitudes"
So suddenly Venus is allowed to change its atmosphere but Mars cant? Given enough time Mars would warm up if C02 and Methane were added to Mars, something it always has plenty and easy access to

Mars vs Venus Colonization
The Pro proceeded on using my words against me to make it look like that people could ONLY live on Mars underground. Those comments though were to show how early initial, pre-earth colonization of Mars would be. The underground remarks were to explain how people could live on mars and avoid exposure to radiation until a proper atmosphere was made. Meanwhile on Venus nobody would be able to stay anywhere since Venus is too hot to live on the surface, you cant live underground because Venus is basically a live volcano, and that lives people nowhere to live on Venus until everything is done, while on Mars people could live there almost today.

Other arguments comparing Earth like qualities between Venus and Mars
Venus cannot support surface agriculture..................................... Mars can.
Venus does not have deposits of water anywhere......................... Mars does
Venus is upside down spinning backwards.................................... Mars is almost identical to that of Earth
Venus is over 600 degrees higher than Earth Temperatures........... Mars is only about 100 below
Venus's only hope for a moon is to steal a planet and move it........ Mars sits right next to the Asteroid Belt and can capture asteroids on its own
Venus never had liquid water flowing on its surface...................... Mars did and it was very recently in the past

Mars could be more like Earth then Venus, because at one point Mars WAS more Earth like than Venus in the past.

I thank the Pro for a wonderful debate, i must say it has been a long a** time since ive had a debate as organized and thought out as this one. It does feel good to debate stuff like this and not stuffa like poop being in DNA or stupid stuff like that. I thank Ore_Ele for a great debate, and to the voters who had the eye strength to read through all these arguments, I applaud your effort and determination.

Thanks for reading, I had a blast :D
Debate Round No. 5
41 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ore_Ele 2 years ago
Ore_Ele
None. The two moons on Mars have virtually no mass (on a planetary scale). Also, the tectonic activity would not heat the core unless it was a ridiculous amount. The only place we see that in the solar system is one of the moons of Jupiter (Europa, I believe). And that is the tidal force of Juliter on the moon, not the other way.
Posted by Lifelongnoob 2 years ago
Lifelongnoob
could both moons of mars be merged into one larger moon? what would the effect of a single larger moon have in terms of tidal effect on mars? would it be strong enough to stir up so tectonic friction thus heating mars' core enough for some volcanic action to release more gases into mars's atmosphere to increase air temp. also if a few iron rich asteroids were slammed into mars's surface would it also assist in re-igniting the core and creating a weak but present magnetic sphere to help further reduce gas loss from solar winds?
Posted by Ore_Ele 4 years ago
Ore_Ele
Yes Roy, some of the stuff I threw out there was factually incorrect, betting that my opponent would not call it out and that no one would really know anything about the science to call BS.

With the numbers I provided, moving Mercury would actually take about 2.3 million years into orbit (though it would still technically be able to do it).

I believe what is most important for the moon is using the angular momentum to accelerate to rotation of Venus (and its core).
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
I think there is some misunderstanding as how Newton's Laws apply to planet moving. If an object is i empty space, any small force will eventually move it to where you want it. However, a planet in orbit is held in the orbit by gravity. A small push will increase or decrease the kinetic energy of the planet, moving it only to a slightly different orbit. The energy required to change orbits is predetermined and fixed.
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
A guy named Paul Birch claims to have a way to move planets. http://paulbirch.net... He uses something called a dynamic compression member to transfer angular momentum from the sun.

Many of the terraforming articles I found suggested using large thin-film mirrors in space to warm up Mars, and large thin-film shades to cool Venus.

A popular idea for getting carbon was from methane on Titan, and similarly for getting water from from Io.

It seems that a planetary magnetic field is important for keeping an atmosphere from being blown away by the solar wind. Neither Venus nor Mars ahs a magnetic field.
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
This was a really interesting debate for those of the nerd persuasion like myself. I ended up spending some time tracking down some of the claims.

Quite a bit of the debate had to do with having a large moon to do something or other. The claim was made the earth's moon preserves the tilt of the earth. I'd never heard that before so I looked it up on the internet. The site referenced by Con is bogus. The moon has nearly nothing to do with the tilt of the earth's axis. Note that Mars has about he same tilt as earth, and the moons are tiny.

It's true that the tilt of the axis is responsible for seasons, but no one except the bogus site seems to think that's critical to making a planet habitable. Seasonal changes are minor in earths topical latitudes and it doesn't cause a problem.

Moving Mercury to the Venus orbit would seem to take a lot of energy. I looked round on the web, and found calculation done by a scientist on moving planets to earth's orbital distance. "Assuming (a) Mars doesn't rip apart from the stress of moving and (b) its moons, Phobos and Deimos, come along for the ride, we're looking at close to 9.8 x 10³¹ joules of energy to drag it down by us. That's roughly the same kick as 234 trillion 100-megaton nuclear warheads. Moving Venus would take still more energy — multiply the above by 8.5." So moving Venus to earths orbit would take about 2 quadrillion 100-megaton bombs.

Mercury has about 1/12 the mass of Venus and three times the angular velocity. It would have to be moved from about 0.35 AU to 0.72. The 2 quadrillion was to move Venus from 0.72 to 1.0. Venus has 15% less mas than earth, and orbits at 2/3 the angular velocity. That makes the ratio of the kinetic energy of the three planets about 0.1 : 0.43 : 2.2. Moving Mercury to the Venus distance would take about 1/8 the energy of moving Venus to Earth, or about 250 trillion 100-megaton bombs. The time to prepare the environmental impact statement would be prohibitive.
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
I would love to address some links that were posted in the last round.
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
lol
Posted by drafterman 5 years ago
drafterman
Total sausage fest.
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
preferably Mars
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
Ore_EleimabenchTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Tough to judge, in my opinion, because both sides were way off base in several important arguments. See comments. I'm giving the edge to Pro because he stuck to the format better and answered the arguments more systematically.
Vote Placed by drafterman 5 years ago
drafterman
Ore_EleimabenchTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had more convincing arguments, but I think only worth 2 points after some discussion with Con
Vote Placed by seraine 5 years ago
seraine
Ore_EleimabenchTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's case was a) Mercury would fly away and b) Newton's laws of Motion are false. Nukes will move a planet, because "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction" Not only that, Venus could easily be gotten much closer to Earth than Mars - at best, Mars would be habitable, while Pro showed that we could make Venus very Earthlike.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
Ore_EleimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: comments