Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!
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
fire_wings (PRO)
For the record, I was going to talk about how overpopulation is a resource issue, not a space issue, and also that farming on Mars is not viable.
But, it would have depended on how the affirmative defined "overpopulation", because if he was going to go for the "there's not enough space for people to live" issue, then I would have argued that colonizing Mars was not the most practical solution, and would bring up further issues (although I accept that the "space" argument isn't as strong as the "resource" argument, but I was going to give it a fair go anyway).
I just feel bad for winning without a debate, so I wanted to share my actual arguments . . .Posted 2016-09-23 06:13:08
I'm assuming he means: by 2200, not until 2200. Posted 2016-09-20 06:33:09
What do you mean "until 2200"? Don't you mean "before" 2200? Posted 2016-09-20 05:13:18