The Instigator
truthteller
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
mrvenomous
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

should we send men 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/6/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,295 times Debate No: 27883
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

truthteller

Pro

Yes the short answer is yes. We should send men to Mars. There is life on Mars. If we befiend them then they wont declare war against us. Obama you're stupid if you won't let Nasa send a manned mission to mars. The rover on Mars has even found signs of life. Mars is capable of Supporting life. There is water in a frozen state around the north pole. There is even remains of plants that have been burned. We dont know by what though.
mrvenomous

Con

I have some arguments which prove that your argument, saying that men should go to mars, is impossible.

-First of all it's the basic law of biology that every living thing requires oxygen to live.
How is the atmosphere of Mars? Mostly carbon dioxide.

-Living things require acceptable temperatures in order to live
The average temperature of Mars is minus 50 degrees Celcius in the summer.

-It would, theoretically, take 9 months to send men to mars with the current technology. Very few men would want get separated from their families for so long.

-Keeping men on Mars would be expensive. First of all you need technology to prove them oxygen. That technology would be expensive. Then you need to supply them with food, and other supplies periodically and this would mean sending planes to mars continuously, costing extra money. The money that would have to be spent could better be used for improving our Earth.
Debate Round No. 1
truthteller

Pro

truthteller forfeited this round.
mrvenomous

Con

So you are unable to post any counter argument against any of my argument?
Debate Round No. 2
truthteller

Pro

truthteller forfeited this round.
mrvenomous

Con

Keep on forfeiting
Debate Round No. 3
truthteller

Pro

truthteller forfeited this round.
mrvenomous

Con

mrvenomous forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
truthteller

Pro

Ok I see what you are saying but I disagree. Well, yes, but more important, space is like proxy for a lot of what else goes on in society, including your argument. I mean, if you remember back in the 1960s and early 1970s where it was just expected that innovations would sort of transform the world.

People dreamed about tomorrow and who brings tomorrow into the present, if not the technologists, the scientists and the engineers? So that was coincident with the time and we had these great ambitions and a rather turbulent decade, of course.

The 1960s, the most turbulent since the civil war, for sure, with the Civil Rights Movement and the assassinations, hot war, cold war. The once shining beacon in that period was the moon missions. And everything was possible.

The World Fair was in that decade. That was all about tomorrow. So if you lose your space edge, my deep concern is that you lose everything else about society that enables you to compete economically.

Of course, we went to the moon because of a military motivation and that's why we stopped going anywhere beyond the moon because we saw that Russia was done. They were not going to go to the moon.

The dreamers back then were thinking that we went to the moon because we were explorers and if that were the case, of course, we would have continued on to Mars, but we didn't. It was obvious in retrospect why we didn't.

I would argue that today if we think of China as competition, economic competition, which they surely are, then to pull back on our space ambitions is a direct sort of lever arm on our capacity to compete economically.

When you look up basic information on Mars on NASA's website, in the field for the name of the discoverer, it says "known by the ancients." Unlike Neptune, and the no-longer-a-planet Pluto, Mars has always figured in to the way we understand our solar system.

If you know what to look for in the sky, the reason why is obvious enough: Mars is visible to the naked eye, and clearly red. It's also close: our ability to see it so easily attests to the relative nearness of the planet.

Pop culture is loaded with references to Mars: witness movies with titles like "Mission to Mars" (2000) and "Red Planet," (2000) documentaries like Nova's "Can we make it to Mars?", not to mention numerous science fiction stories like Ray Bradbury's 1950s "The Martian Chronicles," and non-fiction books like "The Case for Mars," and of course "Packing for Mars," which both explore what it would take to send not just a robotic analog for humanity, but actual living, breathing people.

Mary Roach, author of "Packing for Mars", finds her fascination with Mars is a lot more personal.

"I picture myself in the landscape, sitting on a rock in this or that panorama shot, and what that would feel like, be like. The more real the images become, the more it fascinates me."

At 1:31 a.m. eastern on Monday, August 6, our fascination with Mars continued when the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL, or Curiosity) landed on the Red Planet. It's not the first rover humans have sent to Mars: NASA has been sending robotic emissaries since Viking 1 landed in 1976.

NASA's rover Curiosity lands on Mars

Because Curiosity is the latest in a long line of Mars-bound spacecraft, this mission begs the question: Why do we seem to love it so much?

@CNNLightyears posed the question to many asking people why they love Mars. The responses on Twitter and Facebook varied in details, but the gist of them was effectively the same.

Cindie Hurley, a space enthusiast, sums it up via Facebook: "It's the 'new world' of space... If the moon was an offshore island, well Mars is that distant continent...it's only the FIRST step in a much bigger journey. If we can get there, then maybe, just maybe, we can get to the next destination."

Mars, even with its inhospitable atmosphere and barren landscape, is the closest analog to Earth that we're aware of.

James Wray, an assistant professor of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech who collaborated on Curiosity's SAM (Sample Analysis at Mars) suite of instruments, tells us, "It's the most "Earth-like" planet we've yet found, with mountains, canyons, dry river valleys, rocks, sand and dust of compositions and appearances not unlike those here at home. The surface is cold, but at times no colder than Earth's polar regions."

"There is water in the clouds and polar ice caps, and a day is only slightly longer than Earth's 24 hours. Every day is sunny (well, except during major dust storms), with pale rose-colored skies instead of the Moon's harsh black," he says.

Basically, life could survive on Mars but we couldn't survive on, say, Venus, the other nearest planet to Earth. Even though Venus has both an atmosphere and is about the same size as Earth, the air is toxic and the pressure at the surface is such that we'd be crushed, a fate met by some early Russian robotic explorers. Oh, and it's hot enough to melt lead on the surface.

Mars could be our next home. And it's important to us to find out as much as we can about it, not just to further our knowledge of the formation of our solar system and our own planet, but to prepare ourselves to become a multi-planet species, as SpaceX's Elon Musk has hoped for aloud, in interviews.

Mary Roach concludes, "...Mars is close enough to feel reachable, yet far enough away to seem utterly foreign and exotic and mysterious."
mrvenomous

Con

mrvenomous forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by truthteller 4 years ago
truthteller
help me how do i respond been trying to figure it out but cant
No votes have been placed for this debate.