CreateDebate


Debate Info

8
5
Yes, because.... No, because....
Debate Score:13
Arguments:11
Total Votes:13
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes, because.... (6)
 
 No, because.... (4)

Debate Creator

DevinSeay(1120) pic



Should We Go To Mars

So this has been an idea for along time now and it seems like we are not making much progress last time a checked. As you know, we do have along a problems at home that we need to take care of also. Probably more than it was back in the 60's and 70's. As of now, NASA doesn't launch any manned missions (on NASA craft). We are in considerable debt. Do you think we should continue planning to land on Mars or just abandoning the idea all together?

Yes, because....

Side Score: 8
VS.

No, because....

Side Score: 5
2 points

When things get more settled, I think we should continue with the plan and look for future advances in space.

Side: Yes, because....
2 points

Yes the needs of the people and resolving financial debt here and now is obviously the top most priority of the government as well as the people.

Side: Yes, because....

Yes bc the earth is soon gonna be a shit hole. Humanity could be destroyed. We need to plant our seed on Mars to assure we continue on.

Side: Yes, because....
1 point

Eventually yes, I believe that humans should go to Mars, while not being a priority Mars could be used for resources and a launching point for further space exploration. Any possible missions on mars will also help give us experience for future missions to other planets. Who knows? Maybe on Mars more natural resources could be found, things we are

running out of on earth.

Side: Yes, because....
1 point

This might sound harsh, but I care more about furthering our knowledge than improving our overall standard of living. I do put high priority on people living in the worst parts of the world, but making it to Mars, and beyond, is much more important to me than most mundane things. Not going to Mars would deny our humanity. I want it to happen as soon as possible, but maybe I'm just saying that because I don't want to miss out on discoveries that may come after my life time. Perhaps we should solve our problems here before we earn the right to go after such luxuries as this. In the end I suppose my answer is yes, we should go, but not when there are more serious issues at hand. I just hope we can resolve our issues during my lifetime, so that I can see a new era of exploration. And yes, I know my answer was cheesier than the moon :)

Side: Yes, because....
1 point

Mars is a planet which may be able to sustain life in the future. Stephan Hawkins once stated that for the human race to survive, they need to look out for other options of places to live. The Earth is constantly getting destroyed due to global warming and overpopulation. It is estimated that if the rate of damage remains constant, the Earth could end up like Venus and have a very hot and inhospitable climatic conditions. So it is important for us to look up for new planets which could sustain life. Mars is one of those planets. Satellite photos indicate that Mars used to have running water at a certain time. Because of the presence of liquid water, life must have once flourished on Mars. Also being close to Earth, Mars can be studied easily. In my opinion, Mars should be continuously studied upon to expand the boundaries of human knowledge which would be helpful for the future generations.

Side: Yes, because....
2 points

I think it would be super interesting to go to mars but I would put priority on our own planet and say ignore you're gonna spend money spend it on making submariners and other ships that can go deeper into the ocean since at this point there is a lot that we haven't explored

Side: No, because....
DevinSeay(1120) Clarified
1 point

I like that idea. We could learn more about us like that, unlike mars.

Side: Yes, because....
1 point

Well ... Flyyyy me to the Mars. Why not Jupiter?

There are so many more serious and earthly issues to be dealt with nowadays, compare to which space travel seems like a whim and fancy. After combating hunger, poverty, war and inhuman inequality, travel to Mars might be added to the agenda. Though I surmise those who have enough funds to go to Mars wouldn't care much about the 'other half', otherwise they would've already started redistributing resources. Moreover, we are already in space with all these satellites and weather balloons, but it doesn't seem to help the poor and dying. Science-wise such travel of course would be a big deal and a huge step forward, no doubt about that. Just who will be footing the bill? Whose taxes?

Side: No, because....
1 point

The dangers that are associated with going to Mars far, far outweigh the scientific gains that will be associated with the increase in scientific knowledge. Take for example the background radiation, with the trip to Mars that will take around 300 days with no atmosphere, of course, the only protection that is present will be from the space rocket and this will not provide adequate protection, from a lecture that I recently attended, they concluded that the chance of death to go to Mars would be 700% (calculated using a satellite that picks up radioactive particles and relays the information back) which is obviously not worth the chance of almost certain death from just getting there. There is also the issue of fuel and other more fundamental issues that prohibit us from actually getting there.

Side: No, because....
1 point

Eventually, I just don't see why it needs to happen anytime soon. And even if Russia or China were able to do it first I find it hard to believe that will automatically give them some sort of insurmountable advantage which the US couldn't overcome. It's not like during the initial space race when the technology also cross applied to missiles and satellites and such. We already know how to make those things. And the trip to Mars would be just the latest evolution of those already understood things. The most likely outcome of a successful trip would simply be the ability to sustain human life in an environment that is not the earth, and that's indeed useful, but it's not (yet) a matter of national security to know how to do that.

We're doing great work with probes and rovers and such. Why can't we continue to do this and learn by remote control instead of sending live people there?

Side: No, because....