Instigator / Pro

1417

rating

158

debates

32.59%

won

Topic

#2498

On Balance, Humanity Should Seek to Colonize the Moon by 2040

Status

Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

Better arguments

Better sources

Better legibility

Better conduct

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Intelligence_06

Tags

Science

Parameters

Publication date: 10.14.2020 01:41PM
Last updated date: 11.14.2020 10:40PM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 5
Time for argument: Two days
Max argument characters: 500
Voting period: One month
Point system: Multiple criterions
Voting system: Open

Contender / Con

Intelligence_06

1731

rating

167

debates

73.05%

won

Description

let's keep trying this insane challenge.

by 2040: Means we should accomplish this goal by this year. Before is preferred. Con can assess impossibility of such a timeframe or waste of resources.

colonize: (of a country or its citizens) send a group of settlers to (a place) and establish political control over it.

The Moon: an astronomical body orbiting Earth and is the planet's only natural satellite. It is the fifth-largest satellite in the Solar System, and by far[13] the largest among planetary satellites relative to the size of the planet that it orbits.[f] The Moon is, after Jupiter's satellite Io, the second-densest satellite in the Solar System among those whose densities are known. [Wikipedia]

No kritics (Ex. "aliens should colonize the moon instead of humanity...")

Round 1

seldiora

10.14.2020 09:53PM

Pro

Good potential site for future missions, to Mars and to further: Its gravity is 1/6 of Earth, potentially saving cost in the future. It takes only three days for spacecraft to reach Moon, while months to years might be wasted if bad design for colonization is rushed. As such, the Moon is an excellent starting point for testing ideas, seeing the effects on astronauts, and analyzing if potential costs outweigh the benefits. The future mining with tons of REM resource, H2O, He, is definitive.

Intelligence_06

10.14.2020 10:11PM

Con

Definition of "colonize" and "colony".

Pro wants not colonization, merely the stepping ladder for other missions, the same way a workplace is not to be for living.

The moon is too hard to colonize. It cannot sustain life. Of course, no one can live there locally.

It turns out colonizing the moon is completely meaningless as we have the plan of colonizing Mars by the year 2040. We would have more difficulties sustaining life on the moon than just going to mars and grow stuff there.

Round 2

seldiora

10.14.2020 11:00PM

Pro

I am only saying that humanity should *seek* to colonize, not actually succeed in colonizing. Because seeking towards the moon allows for similar foundation to begin looking for Mars, any arguments for Mars also applies to the moon. The ideas are similar in vein. Even if we are only exploring Moon, this could still be said to be progress in seeking to colonize. As such my argument still stands. We can SEEK to colonize on Moon, change mind half way, and say Mars is better, according to situation.

Intelligence_06

10.15.2020 01:21AM

Con

We, so far, have proof that Mars is better and the moon is nothing more than a refueling station. The moon is much harder to sustain populations and there are no such plans so far to colonize the moon compared to Mars.

If we are just *attempting* to colonize the moon, then it is the same logic as that we should "attempt" to rob the bank, no matter if it is justified or not. It's not. We already have the plan of living on Mars by 2040, and that would make the attempt to the moon meaningless.

Round 3

seldiora

10.15.2020 01:38AM

Pro

Con has failed to justify colonizing mars other than our existing plans. He has only said it cannot sustain life, but does not counter the possibility to mine it for resources and launch further missions. The stay on there only needs to be temporary, similar to a vacation. Therefore there is no problem with my premise and support.

Intelligence_06

10.15.2020 10:45AM

Con

A colony requires people to operate it. The moon’s gravity is only 16% Earth’s gravity, which is a joke. It is basically impossible for people to live there, and because of the evolution in the earth’s gravity, babies will suffer from fatal diseases, making life unsustainable. This is on top of that the Moon lacks atmosphere, as well as no water and higher chance of asteroids. Comparatively, Mars’ environment is much similar to earth’s. We should not live on the evidently unsustainable moon.

Round 4

seldiora

10.15.2020 12:30PM

Pro

Colonize does not require giving birth. No source given that Mars is similar enough to earth to work. Wired counters that Mars is equally impossible to live. So higher time and finance cost leads to moon saving money over time.

Intelligence_06

10.15.2020 10:11PM

Con

Pro bears the BoP. However, his only rebuttal this round is that Mars isn’t compatible either. He did not justify why to colonize the moon.

Colonization requires People living locally. Not being able to produce healthy children meaning it is cannot be continued, and it would be a waste to colonize a place where humanity isn’t able to sustain. Also, Pro did not refute against that neither is the Moon sustainable.

Colonizing the moon is basically us wasting money to live in a worse place. Just, Why?

Round 5

seldiora

10.15.2020 10:14PM

Pro

colonize can also mean going there for resources. Nasa.gov says a possibility: " The colonists would mine the Moon and the minor planets and build beamed power satellites that would supplement or even replace power plants on the Earth. " So there are more purposes than making it a living area. That's why the moon can still be alright as a base to begin with. It would greatly reduce costs of future missions, if eventually we choose Mars as well, for the ultimate goal.

Intelligence_06

10.15.2020 10:40PM

Con

#10

Pro’s definition of “colonize” includes sending people there, which is not realistic, and Pro has never proved what kind of tech would we even have at 2040 to ensure sustainability on the moon.

Sending machines are fine, as long as we would have it by 2040, which Pro did not prove. The act of sending people there is no different from human sacrifice, as there are no tech yet for us to sustain on the moon.

We could use the moon like we are already doing now, but according to Pro’s definition, nah.

Intelligence_06

11.10.2020 08:18AM

#10

-->

@Barney

@Vader

@whiteflame

@MisterChris

@BearMan

Vote bump.

Intelligence_06

11.09.2020 10:48PM

Vote.

seldiora

10.14.2020 11:01PM

-->

@Intelligence_06

we could redo this except "We should colonize mars" instead if you want. The edeb8 title of "SEEK to colonize" is a really weird wording

seldiora

10.14.2020 09:33PM

-->

@Intelligence_06

wow you are brave man

Intelligence_06

10.14.2020 09:13PM

-->

@seldiora

100 is not enough.

seldiora

10.14.2020 05:34PM

-->

@RationalMadman

don't worry. I'll probably extend this to higher characters if nobody accepts in a few days.

RationalMadman

10.14.2020 05:32PM

-->

@seldiora

thanks for warning me, i probably wouldn't have noticed

seldiora

10.14.2020 05:31PM

-->

@RationalMadman

done. Though I'm not entirely convinced you can back up that it's a waste of resources using only 20 words.

RationalMadman

10.14.2020 05:24PM

-->

@seldiora

you need to set constraints to the time-span of the plan, so that Con can argue it's a waste of resources in that span of time.

seldiora

10.14.2020 01:42PM

-->

@Intelligence_06

thoughts on this one?

Safalcon7

11.10.2020 10:53AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Pro had to carry the BoP; he does well in R2 by identifying technicalities within the debate topic asserting that humans should "seek" to colonize moon. However, he doesn't share why they should in a decisive manner. Con does well by pressing that on for the next 3 rounds and by also reassuring the idea that "colonize" doesn't really mean to enjoy a vacation and resource mining. Arguments to Con.