The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

should we colonize mars

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/25/2016 Category: Technology
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,125 times Debate No: 93070
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)




Why not colonize Mars?
People are dying- we cannot afford to cross our fingers and hope that we will escape the mass extinction that has been predicted. The out comes predicted are
1. global flooding- by 2100, the statue of liberty will be up to it's armpits in water. And that's only the start- all the ice wouldn't have fully melted yet.
2. increased carbon dioxide levels will mean that global warming will be as deadly as ever, and that temperatures are going to be too high for us to live in.
3. oh yes- Why not evolve? well in 100 years, this is not going to happen. So maybe some new technology will save us- No machine can be efficient enough to repel all that heat and water, even if you managed to make one.

so, as unfair and as it seems,( to martians) we will have to take our chances in the martian atmosphere and start from a clean slate or stay- and suffer the consequences that we bought on ourselves.


You asked for it so here my essay:

The exploration of Space has always been one of the hardest, and now we are planning to colonize Mars. Developments in space are rapidly advancing but a new problem has sprung up - is it ethical to do so? This essay will show that despite current efforts, a trip to Mars will not be ethical and will not benefit us as much. Overall, the space explorations will come at a huge expense of the developers and the negatives will outweigh the good.

Mars is an extremely dangerous place. The astronauts would constantly be facing new challenges and get harmed in the process. The carbon monoxide in the atmosphere is toxic and dust devils - mini tornadoes - could sweep through the base. Scariest of all, the global dustorms can engulf the planet in a layer of dust and block out the sun for days, even weeks at a time.A real life example was the global dust storm that occurred on July 10th, 2001. Within less than a month the whole entire planet of mars was covered by thick layers of dust. Our astronauts would have no way of communicating back due to the interference caused by the dust and they could easily die, along with billions of dollars of equipment they brought with them.

Even if the dangers are taken care of, do you think it"s right to just invade mars without warning? We don"t like it when our territories get taken away from us, so why should we, with no right to do so, take it away from them?It"s just like if someone dropped a $100 note on the ground, is it right to take it and run away or to hand it in instead? As humans, it is not humanity to simply take over mars. If there are, the martians could be angered and start a war or something along those lines. Our astronauts could be killed in the process and we would be blamed for the conflict that was sparked between the two worlds.

Plus, if it didn't work overpopulation would still exist - it's a big gamble that isn't worth it.
Debate Round No. 1


we have the technology to go to mars by 2020 - way before the mass extinction is due to happen. We've got the suits, We've got the technology to get oxygen, we've got everything we need to get to mars. Oh there's that little problem about money- but we are talking about a world wide evacuation here so money should not be taken account . Everybody is helping each other by doing this so that we all have an even chance of getting to mars. Plus- in your arguments you said it would be unethical to any aliens that lived on Mars, but there is no evidence whatsoever that such creatures ever existed on mars. Plus- we have to presume that even if they existed, they would have to way more advanced in technology than us to avoid getting detected, so instead of us being sad to the aliens, it would be much more likely to be the other way round.

Therefore I must conclude that I think the only way humanity will live to write this legend another day is if we colonize mars.


Then there are the unknown dangers that the astronauts would be facing. There"s no knowing what problems they could run into until it has already happened - It"s like using a ship without a hull, hoping that it can float. If the astronauts do run into a problem, how desperate measures do we need to take to get them back safely? The Apollo 13 mission is a perfect example of the unexpected - from the heat shield cracking to the dangerously low power.It will not be worth it to take the huge risk and the astronauts could be very weak, if not worse.

Also about the point that you made about the money: who's going to pay for it? and plus if the spaceship failed and malfunctioned then you will die in that flying coffin we built. another point is the fact that we could easily run out of resources beforehand or during the mission.

good luck to whoever goes on that doomed/jinxed spaceship
Debate Round No. 2
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by antoniocho 2 years ago
I think we fixed the earth is better than colonize Mars. Because Mar's Average Temperature is - 63 C
And there is only 0.5% Air and 95.7% is CO2. So exactly hard to survive and it's to dangerous.And Bad temperature. And there atmosphere is Non-exist So Asteroids might be destory our colony.
Posted by Codedlogic 2 years ago
Is pro seriously arguing that in 100 years Mars will be more hospitable than earth? You know there's no air to breath there right? Almost no water compared to earth. The atmosphere is nearly non-existent. There's no magnetic field to protect from radiation. Etc.

It will be a million times easier to fix any problems we face here on earth than it will to colonize Mars. There are good reasons to go to Mars but as an "evacuation plan" is NOT one of them.
Posted by AvianT.JeA_38426_157 2 years ago
I have to agree with da lilboy guy whatever his username is because it is true that people have actually dieded (credits to Dorina) on the way up to space because they are not on a good physical state so they become weakened when they actually get there and they get there all sick and stuff and might not recover from. and plus, you had ages to prepare for this, the other guy didn't so its not fair. and did you just write an essay about this because it doesn't have a conclusion to it so I can't cheat at reading this... thing. and plus also send this to some other random people online or u can just do a "inside school/friends group" debate :D GL guys
Posted by the_asian_on_the_web 2 years ago
oh and plz vote via comments, as this thing is saying u have 2 be in 3 debates to vote.
Posted by the_asian_on_the_web 2 years ago
plz note that daniel has had 2 weeks to prepare 4 this and i didnt
Posted by we_are_the_AsIaNs 2 years ago
They are debating of course :P
Posted by TheCurryIsHot 2 years ago
LOL what are you guys up to?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Swimwithcats 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 Checkmark1 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Hard one- though I still feel terraforming is an option here
Vote Placed by Benshapiro 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Pro began his opening round by listing a series of catastrophic events that are expected to happen to planet Earth by the year 2100. He argues that we should begin Colonizing Mars to escape these perils. Con argues against this idea stating that it's unethical for humanity to take over another planet, it's dangerous, and it's costly. Pro argues back that money isn't an issue since it's a worldwide catastrophe, it's not unethical to take over Mars because there's no sign of alien life, & we have technology that'll allow us to live there. Con argues back with an example of Apollo 13 where the unexpected could happen and everyone dies and brings back up his point about costs. Con never argued against Pro's point about mass extinction resulting from worldwide catastrophe so Colonizing Mars is the more convincing argument.