The Instigator
bunnb17
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
lannan13
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

colonization in space

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 4 votes the winner is...
lannan13
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/22/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 847 times Debate No: 68741
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)

 

bunnb17

Pro

We should all be pro space colonization, because it is going to eventually help us out with our population growth and convicts.
lannan13

Con

Though I think it would be cool to colonize space there are a few problems that the US federal government would run into when colonizing space and since there's not really a timeframe established by my opponent I will assume that he means the Solar System around our Sun.
Contention 1: Earth is Overpopulated

Here's a fun fact of the day! If the entire world population had the same amount of living space as New York City then they would fit into Texas! (http://www.omgfacts.com...) See this means that we aren't overpopulated it just shows that us as humans are just really just spread out. In an article by Time we can see that the world's population is actually decreasing not increasing. (http://newsfeed.time.com...) Doesn't look like you believe me. Many nations that have high female financial independence look at Europe. Thier childbirth rates are actually lower than the death rates! The US has actually reached it's lowest all time as the US birth rates are falling. US birth rates are down 8%, foreign births are down 14%, and Mexican birth rates are down by more than 23%! (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org...) So it looks like the Earth is not overpopulated.


Contention 2: US colonization of Celestial Objects (Mars, Moon, etc...) is forbidden!

My opponent brings up the US is the leader of the UN, but here's something funny. In 1967, the UN, including the US, signed the Outer Space Treaty. This treaty forbids another nation claiming a celestrial body for sovernty. What is a celestrial body you may ask. (http://www.unoosa.org...) It is actually a planet, star, planetoid, astriod, and planet http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) The current resolution is that the US should colonize Mars. Which means Mars will be claimed by the US violating this treaty signed by the US, USSR (now includes all of the states of the former nation), and the UK, so the US cannot, by law, colonize Mars.

Contention 3: Mars and Moon would cause nothing but problems.

There is many things that Mars would cause to us here are some important things: loss of conscienceness due to little ammounts of Oxygen, Extreme weather changes, because Mars is far from the sun and has little atmosphere, tissue exspansion due to low preasure, but you think a space suit can help you? You're wrong because the space suit you are wearing would be ripped to shredds by micrometeriods moving at fast speads. So even if you make it you can freeze or burn to death, inpload, or die from suffication. (http://science.howstuffworks.com...)


Contention 4: Getting there.

In my opponent's arguement he fails to bring up how will we get there. It seems like the most viable option would be the Orion shuttle which is powered by nuclear pulpulsion according to NASA. (http://www.nasa.gov...) The bad thing about using this ship is that it is also illegal, this is also according to the outer space treaty. Which many nations have rattified and/or signed here is proof. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)
Debate Round No. 1
bunnb17

Pro

bunnb17 forfeited this round.
lannan13

Con

All points extended.
Debate Round No. 2
bunnb17

Pro

bunnb17 forfeited this round.
lannan13

Con

All points extended.

Thank you and please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by TheJC_debater 2 years ago
TheJC_debater
It's natural for humans to expand. Space exploration and colonization also helps us discover new ways of doing things and lead to the invention of fresh technologies. Some of these technologies can also be used to further enhance some of the more common things we use in everyday life.

A more popular opinion would be that it helps prevent the extinction of humankind in the event of a massive cataclysmic events.
Posted by Riley0322 2 years ago
Riley0322
I know this is just the comments, but I have to say something about the first habitable planet. Yes, we should send people there, but only a moderately sized survey team. One never knows, the planet might be inhabited by savage tribespeople.
Posted by Mister_Man 2 years ago
Mister_Man
Can you elaborate on space? Like planets in our solar system or lightyears away? Are you saying the first possibly habitable planet we find we should send people to?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Paleophyte 2 years ago
Paleophyte
bunnb17lannan13Tied
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: Pro forfeits failing to make a single argument.
Vote Placed by carriead20 2 years ago
carriead20
bunnb17lannan13Tied
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: Con's arguments are uncontested giving him arguments. Conduct also goes to Con because of Pro's ff. Lastly Con used sources while Pro did not
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
bunnb17lannan13Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Complicated_Mind 2 years ago
Complicated_Mind
bunnb17lannan13Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited, and Con's arguments went unrefuted. Additionally Pro made no legitimate arguments but merely made a baseless and opinionated assertion. The win obviously goes to Con.