Do the Benefits Outweigh the Costs? This Essay Human Exploration:
Report this Argument Pro In this speech i shall refute each of my opponenet argument and strengthen my own points about my own argument and tell why you the voters should vote for PRO. My opponent is saying that 50 years to start colonizing on Mars is too long, but i think this doesn't matter.
Due to the fact that the topic is saying that we should go to Mars, i have constantly proved that we should due to the benifiets of going, the inevitable fact that we will eventually go, and the fact that we have the technology to properly protect our crew.
First of all, when going to Mars we have the ability the ability to go there and even colonize it due to our technology.
We can create livable conditions on Mars. This means that even if the soil of Mars turns out to be poor in condition, we can still grow food with the resources we have and therefor would allow us to got o Mars, to live on it, or even colonize it.
Green houses for Food and Oxygen According to Discovery Mars - A Human Mission to Mars Establishing green houses will allow astronauts to grow food and get oxygenthat they need to stay on Mars. The impacts is that we would be able to create a livable, sustanable atmosphere where we humans can live, and there for even colonize mars.
Which is why we should support the topic of going to Mars. The next argument i shall refute is the dangers of going to Mars. New force fields or shields have been developed by physicists, which will prevent radiation from reaching the space travelers.
This means that all of the space travelers will be protected and not get sick by the radiation, meaning that radiation will not be a problem for travelling through space.
This means there is a way to prevent dangerous radiation from affecting astronauts, and therfor keeping our astronauts safe. Artificial Gravity According to With testing done, since we have been able to succesfully create gravity, and along side daily exercise equipments in the space ship, the degeneration of bones will not happen.
This means that the degeneration of bones shall not happen, and that we can keep our astronauts in tip-top shape. Therefore we have the technology to succesfully keep our astronauts from the dangers of space.
Since my oppnents constructive speech is only comprised of 3 arguments in this contention i shall be stregthening my own point.
When we go to Mars we gain multiple benefits that eventually strengthen our technology here on Earth. Which is more important to you voters??? The fact that we will just stay on Earth and never move forward??
Or the fact that we can go beyond our outer limits and reach a new world like Mars. Mars shall be giving us Rich minerals that we can sell, space toursism, a new world to live in that we need according to Steve Hawkings, and the fact that going to Mars shall benifet the human race rather than hurting it by staying on Earth.
Report this Argument Con We- referrs to speaker and one other person. WHich is irrelivant, because when I restate the resolution I could be refurring to my brother and I. We've got no NASA expirance.
It also means they admit we can get good resources off Mars, we can send our astronauts their saftely, we can colonize there on Mars, and we can create a ship that can get to Mars in 39 days.
This will boost our economy allowing new jobs, and growth here on Earth. It will stimulate the ecoonomy due to the new resources.
We will gain many new advance spin offs, and that the mission can succeed allowing us a new planet to live on! Report this Argument Con Pro dropped the topicality if I don't want to go. We should go to Mars. Since I defined We. It makes this debate illogical.
So I should win on that. Pro There are 3 reasons why i should win.A good thesis statement for a research essay titled, Is it worth the risk and expense to attempt a manned mission to Mars, could be, The knowledge and strategic advantage of a manned mission to.
Jun 12, · Arguments for a Manned Mission to Mars? Starting in about 1 week, I will start doing the debate section of an argumentative project for English class. We had to pick a debatable topic, research it, and hold a debate with the teacher. I said that NASA should have a manned mission to Mars.
Not the easiest topic. Pros and Cons of a Manned Mission to Mars Demarcus Briers November 27, 60, Views Much like the bold journey of Marco Polo and company to the unknown worlds of East Asia, NASA is set to embark upon a 21 month manned mission to the surface of Mars by The Mars rover will explore a site likely to have been habitable.
It will seek signs of past life, set aside a returnable cache with the most compelling rock core and soil samples. Mission Overview. Persuasion Mars It is not worth the expense and risk to make a manned flight to Mars A human mission to visit and land on the planet Mars has long been an attractive subject and a debatable issue.
In terms of expense, risk, worth, and morality, proponents and opponents of whether it is necessary to send manned.
Why we should send a manned mission to mars outline Essay. As they say, this information can help us to understand the origin of life and ways to improve the protection of our environment - Why we should send a manned mission to mars outline Essay introduction.