On Balance Humans Should Colonize Mars by 2040

Argument: Con’s rebuttal to Pro’s succeeds on at least two points: cost, poisonous soil due to. Best Pro could do on remaining arguments was a draw. Points to Con

Sources. Pro’s sources did not adequately overcome Con’s minimum 2 succeeding arguments. Cost should far exceed Pro’s estimate since Con’s first landing cost, alone, is nearly ¼ Pro’s total, and that is just cost of missions, let alone the habitat requirements, and Pro’s estimate of needed total compliment of settlers would exceed just 4 landings. Poisonous soil is mentioned in one of Pro’s sources, which acknowledges diminished growing capacity, but does not address that cultivated foods, as well, would be poisoned by the soil, rendering inedible “food.” Plus, the resolution of adding organics to native soil would be poisoned, as well. Points to Con

S&G: tie

Conduct: Tie.

Pro simply couldn't put enough argument/proof about mankind 'needing to colonize Mars by 2040, and as Con pointed out and Pro failed to answer thoroughly
The tech for such an enterprise is not up to snuff.
The finance for such an enterprise 'very costly.
What Pro needs is an argument for colonization by 2040 being 'vital. But unless the Earth was to explode or be hit by a giant asteroid in 2040, he simply doesn't have the 'necessity of it down.

Arguments:

Essentially the debate is over whether we can reach mars by 2040, and several are immediately pointed out by Con on this subject. It would clearly not be economically viable, it would require tech that is only theoretical, it would require massive resources to get a base established, no way for long-term growth of food, etc..

Pro's win here is weighed on if they can prove that the harms outweigh the massive struggles the time restraint would cause and that other nations would be willing to help. Neither of these are suffciently argued by Pro, for example: Pro essentially dropping the point that the earth will end in a 100 years, and therefore the BoP of Pro has not been established.

Conclusion: Not only does Pro not fulfill their BoP, but what they do have has been properly rebutted by Con. Not to mention that Con has also established their own case and fulfilled their BoP. Con.

Sources: Both participants use reliable sources that are evenly distributed throughout their arguments. Tie.

BS&G: Both participants's grammar is satisfactory considering the character limits. Tie

Conduct: Both participant's conduct is matched by the other. Tie

Having the "by 2040" in the resolution really makes this impossible for Pro, and Con clearly recognizes that. Too much of the tech that Pro uses to justify this happening in 20 years is untested or theoretical, and while the potential gains are massive, they all require an established colony with no catastrophic problems. That could have been outweighed by the need to leave Earth in order to preserve life after some catastrophic event here, but Pro can't win by just establishing that such a problem is likely; he had to show that it is also imminent. I don't see evidence of that in his arguments. So, why not wait until past the year 2040? Do we lose something by not accomplishing this beforehand? I don't see any reason not to wait and get this technology where it needs to be to make the mission safe. That's enough to warrant a Con win.

Pro stated that the benefits outweighs the expenses overall on a mars colony, but ignores that it is economically unrealistic in 20 years. Con put sources saying that a Mars colony would require too much money just for The initial flight, all that Pro only provided that a mars colony in the future, limit removed, would be beneficial, but even he put no dents on that it is economically dangerous to establish a mars colony in the NEAR future.

Args to con.