The Instigator
willyxiao
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Xboxlive
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

The USFG should initiate a program to colonize Mars modeled on the Mars Direct Plan.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/13/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,211 times Debate No: 17899
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

willyxiao

Pro

Round 1 is clarification -

The "Mars Direct Plan" refers to Zubrin's Mars Direct Plan.

Zubrin 6/28/2011 – president of pioneer Astronautics and the founder of the Mars Society, former senior engineer at Lockheed Martin Astronautics, master's degree in aeronautics and astronautics and a Ph.D. in nuclear engineering ("The Case For Mars: The plan to settle the red planet and why we must", Revised June 28, 2011, pg.2-3 )

"USFG" is United States federal government.

Any other questions, ask away.
Xboxlive

Con

Is this going to be a cx-style debate
Thank you for this debate
Debate Round No. 1
willyxiao

Pro

I'm not sure what you mean by cx. Whether or not, I'm just here for a good debate. If you like specific rules/a particular style, then we can discuss that too n later speeches.

Now on to Mars Col -

1. There's political hindrances to future space colonization. Going at it now opens a "new frontier," and allows us to avoid inevitable planetary destruction in the form of warming, disease, or nuclear war.

2. Our aerospace industry is collapsing now. Undertaking Mars Direct will inspire STEM students and create demand for Aerospace jobs. Not only does this boost continued economic growth, aerospace sector independently boosts deterrent capability and is critical to our hegemony and leadership which has kept the world relatively free of conflict for the past 50 years.
Xboxlive

Con

On his points

1. First, colonization isn't feasible now. You would need terraform technology, which would through normal means, solve back for our extinction. Secondly, radiation in space means that there is no reproduction. This means long-term colonization is impossible.(1) Third, He claims no impact or benefit from "a new frontier".

2. First, he provides no warrant to a link between aerospace industry ascension and mars direct plan. Secondly, Space policies won't inspire students to go into STEM fields (2). Secondly, my opponent fails to link aerospace to hegemony and leadership, therefore he cannot prove any of his claims.

On the overview of the case

Point a: Zubrin's math is wrong. He drastically undermined the basic needs a crew would need to sustain a mission to mars. (3)

Point b: Colonizing Mars sustainably will take hundreds of years and is on balance not economically feasible or beneficial.

Point c: We can't go to Mars. Our methodology on colonizing it is backwards (10)

Onto my case

Point a- Earth sciences
NASA budget is shifting from space to Earth science now(4). ANY space exploration plan forces spending trade-offs that crush effective Earth sciences(5). NASA Earth sciences are key to global environmental monitoring. This solves multiple threats such as global health issues, climate change, weather emergencies, water management, and vegetation issues (6). This being the case, my opponent is reinforcing the old statement- "of it ain't broke, break it"

Point b- space debris
Each new space launch drastically increases the risk of space debris. Specifically, It would be necessary to launch 50 tons per year to Mars(7). This may not seem like much, but we are at a critical mass ���‚�" new launches create a pollution cloud that not only prevents any benefit they might receive from space, but also hurts current space depending programs.(8)(9) Some vital programs include: global communication, gps, air, sea, and highway transportation

Sources:

1-http://www.space.com...

2-Delgado, 11 - Space Policy Institute, George Washington University (Laura, �ƒ�����€š���…"When inspiration fails to inspire: A change of strategy for the US space program,�ƒ�����€š�������� Space Policy 27 (2011) 94e98, Science Direct)

3-http://www.thespacereview.com...

4-http://www.space-travel.com...

5-http://www.washingtonpost.com...

6-Abdalati 11 (Waleed, Chief Scientist " NASA, …"Investing in Federal Research and Development to Spur U.S. Job Growth and Innovation, Congressional Documents and Publications, 3-17, Lexis)

7-http://www.thespacereview.com...

8-http://www.pon.org...

9-http://www.princeton.edu...

10-http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:A2k_9RcT5RsJ:scholar.google.com/+mars+colonization+not+possible&hl=en&as_sdt=0,44, 6-24-11, DS
Debate Round No. 2
willyxiao

Pro

willyxiao forfeited this round.
Xboxlive

Con

extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
willyxiao

Pro

willyxiao forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Xboxlive 6 years ago
Xboxlive
Do you want a Policy-eske debate?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 3 years ago
Zarroette
willyxiaoXboxliveTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by Brenavia 6 years ago
Brenavia
willyxiaoXboxliveTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Easy win, forfeit and through argument.
Vote Placed by CD-Host 6 years ago
CD-Host
willyxiaoXboxliveTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: double forfeit and better arguments to boot. SnG for sentence fragments.