EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum

Assuming that the Earth is overpopulated, Mars should be colonized until 2200

0 points
0 points
fire_wingsfire_wings (PRO)


O1: As the debate resolution is "Assuming that the Earth is overpopulated, Mars should be colonized, I ask the burden to be shared, and both sides provide offense. Pro/ I need to show that Mars should be colonized by 2020 because the Earth is overpopulated, and Con's burden is that even if the Earth is overpopulated, Mars should not be colonized. I am not saying that all people should live in Mars. It is just that we will colonize it for some people to live. I will show that we can get resources from Mars, and it is certainly possible that we can move to Mars.

O2: I won't really be using the term "colonized", I will mostly use "live." Think of that as almost the same thing.

Argument 1: Time/ Things humans can do

Humans can do almost anything. They can definitely fly to space and go to Mars. Musa Manarov, a Russian, spent more than 540 days in space [1] [2]. He flew for 365 days in the Soyuz TM-4. 2 years later, he flew for 175 days on Soyuz TM-11. This is a very big time, and the humans accomplished it.

Going to Mars, it will only take around 7 months [3]. Therefore, as some humans can do one year time space, and more than 540 days in space altogether, humans can certainly accomplish going for 7 months to Mars, making it certainly possible. 7 months are around 210 days, making it certainly possible for going to Mars. It is impossible to actually state that we can't go to Mars.

We've accomplished to but many rovers and buggies to Mars. Why can't we? Humans have a brain, when robots don't. We can certainly do this too.

Argument 2: Possible

Experts say that going to Mars will be possible in 2030 [4]. This debate is going until 2200. This is easily possible. As it is possible, why shouldn't we do it? It gives us much more space, and we can accomplish this all. Why shouldn't we do it?

This is a picture of what the colony will be [5].

Humans have tons of technology too. When us humans first arrived to the US, we didn't. We didn't have actual medicine, doctors, smartphones, etc. We all made these now. It can certainly work.

The colonies actually look kinda cool. If we build more houses, it could be a neighbourhood, then a city, then a country, then a continent, then to the whole world!!!

We can dig out some of the red soil, but Earth soil, and grow plants. Con might say that this will not happen, but it certainly can. Plants need water, air, nutrients, and sunlight, warmth to grow [8]. We can specifically warm the plants in greenhouses, and the sun is right there at Mars, but it is just farther away, there is still sunlight. We can give the plants water, nutrients of the soil. Then the plants will give us oxygen to breathe!!! Humans need food, water, shelter, and air to basically survive. We can bring food and water from Earth, shelter of the colony as I showed a picture, and air of the plants.

This is certainly all possible. Humans can accomplish this in over 180 years, as humans can basically do anything. Nothing is ever impossible. And this will work also.

Argument 3: Liberty

Con might think that people don't want to go to Mars. However, Tens of thousands of people are prepared to leave their families, jobs and lives behind for a one-way trip to Mars [5]. There are more than 165,000 applications for Mars One already [5]. As all people have the liberty or the freedom of choice [9], and self-ownership, because we own ourselves, people have the right of choice to go to Mars. We can't necessarily say no to what they want to do.

Even the harm principle says this. John Stuart Mill's harm principle says that we can do things we want unless it harms others [9]. Are we provoking people to live in Mars? No. Tens of thousands of people want to go to Mars. This doesn't harm the people who do not go to Mars, therefore, we should let them live in Mars, and colonize Mars.

If Con defies this argument, then that automatically means that he thinks that people do not have the freedom of choice. Without the freedom of choice, Con accepts that slavery is allowed, no freedom of speech, and child labor. This will be bad for the world, and very immoral, so vote Pro because of liberty.

Argument 4: Not enough space

As it is a fact in the debate that the Earth is overpopulated, that means that we don't have enough space for us humans to live. Therefore, some people gotta go somewhere. And that is Mars. Mars is the closest features like Earth. They have ice, there average temperature is -55 celcius [6], which is the closest temperature to Earth. There is not much difference of temperature of Antartica.

As I showed that Mars is similar to Earth, and we can live in Earth, so that means we can live in Mars. Other planets are to hot, or too cold. Mars is the most similar to Earth. Because we can live in Mars, and the Earth is overpopulated, why shouldn't we go there?

Argument 5: Resources

Mars has many resources that Earth does not. First, Deuterium. One drop can equal to 20 tons of coal [7]. They are existing in Mars. They harm less to the environment, and is much more useful. This is a very useful thing.

There are many useful things that can be found in Mars. I showed you one which could change Earth, and can be used in Mars. It is less harmful to the environment. If we go to Mars, there might be more resources that will be helpful for our lives. Therefore we should go and colonize Mars, and discover many other resources. Obviously Deuterium will not be the only one.

Argument 6: Already working on it/ Dependency

This won't really be like an arugment, but the heading says argument. It will just be mostly a fact.

There is also a company and many people working on to going to Mars. There is a company called Mars One, and they are currently trying to do so. Why should we waste all their hard work in accomplishing it? It can actually work, as I showed. So why shouldn't we do it? Con must respond to this question.

If we ban this act, then all the people who works in Mars One will have no jobs. They cannot earn any money, and they will be dependent to the government, as the main thing that the government has to do is to protect and help their citizens. This is uterally unfair. Imagine if we ban Apple? What will happen? The same thing for Mars One. They have a bright future, and we shouldn't block their future in succeeding. I apologize for the bad argument.

Argument 7: Beneficial

This will be another very concise argument. Colonizing Mars will be very beneficial. Not only that we will have more space, and more resources that can be found in Mars, we can expand our borders, and make the world big. We can make some countries bigger, form new countries and governments. Expanding our borders and having more space is important, as in the resolution it says that the Earth is overpopulated. Resources are good, and we can find more resources when we will go to Mars, I already stated some that we can find it Mars. We will definitely find more, and make human life easier.


Wow, I did until Argument 7. That was totally unexpecting. I apologize for the low source count, if my opponent wants anything more sourced, then contact me and I will use more sources. Some of my arguments have no sources, but there is no reason, as some are quite obvious.

My arguments were that humans can do this, time, it is possible, liberty and harm principle, not enough space, resources, dependency, beneficial, and much more. I believe I showed many reasons why Mars should be colonized, and I can't wait to hear my opponent's arguments on why we should not colonize Mars. No matter if you think of Con's side, please actually read the arguments made from both sides, as we both tried hard for this debate. Please vote Pro, as I made many arguments why we should colonize Mars. Therefore, vote Pro!!! Now it is Con's turn to post his/her arguments.


[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musa_Manarov#cite_note-1

[2] http://www.lobbying.ru/content/persons/id_3249_linkid_173.html

[3] http://www.mars-one.com/faq/mission-to-mars/how-long-does-it-take-to-travel-to-mars

[4] http://www.space.com/24268-manned-mars-mission-nasa-feasibility.html

[5] http://www.space.com/22616-mars-one-martian-colony-volunteers.html

[6] http://nineplanets.org/mars.html

[7] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090511181356.htm

[8] http://classroom.hiddenvilla.org/curriculum/for-english-language-learners/1st-grade/what-plants-need-to-grow

[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle

Thanks for the debate acceptance. Vote for PRO. 


Return To Top | Posted:
2016-08-16 09:42:24
| Speak Round

View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

There are no judgements yet on this debate.

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 3 rounds
  • 10000 characters per round
  • No reply speeches
  • No cross-examination
  • Permissive Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds means forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Rated debate
  • Time to post: 3 days
  • Time to vote: 2 weeks
  • Time to prepare: None