Terra-forming Venus vs Mars

Nuking Mercury/Venus's new moonThe Pro said that only a couple thousand nukes would be needed to put Mercury on a trajectory to become Venus's moon. But there isnt any evidence that nuking Mercury a thousand times will actually make any change in its orbit, we could simply be creating a ton of nuclear sized craters all over Mercury as it continues to orbit around the sun. That being said if we cant even move Mercury to be Venus's moon then Venus in the end would be without a moon while Mars at least has some sort of satellite moon getting the job done. Temperature on VenusThe Pro says that drastically removing levels of CO2 and speeding up the rotation of Venus will bring down temperatures, I do not dispute either of these but the Pro has only provided one strategy as to how this would be done ,and that is completely attributed to the orbit of Mercury around Venus. I previously questioned whether or not Mercury could even be positioned next to Venus, but now I will examine whether or not Mercury could even impact Venus's rotation.The Pro's plan is to put Mercury into orbit around Venus at a rate so that the rotation of Mercury around Venus would be faster than the rotation of Venus itself.... Meaning that Mercury would orbit around Venus at a rate where Merucry revolves around the whole planet in under one day on Venus. Such a speed would be extremely hard, and even impossible to achieve because even if somehow Mercury is nuked enough to make it go that fast without being blown to bits by the nukes themselves, then Mercury would still have to be caught by Venus's gravitational pull or Mercury would simply fly by....Another reason why such a thing would not work is the fact that moons cannot orbit around planets at a rate faster than which the planet itself spins, because then that moon would be traveling at a speed to great for the Planet's gravitational pull to keep in place. This is a fact because the same principles work with satellites, http://www.gma.org...This means that any object traveling too fast, like Mercury rotating around Venus once every 30 hours, would be travelling at a speed so fast that Venus's gravitational pull would be unable to control it, and Mercury would simply fly away.... That being said it would thus be impossible to use Mercury to stabilize the orbit of Venus or speed it up in order to cool it. Water on VenusThe Pro says that Water can be brought to Venus by using CO2 and using Hydrogen from places nearby to manufacture water on the atomic scale. Later the Pro questions how water will be brought to Mars, and since Venus and Mars both have very large amounts of CO2 in the atmospheres, there is no reason to believe that the same process used to bring water to Venus could also be used on Mars. The only problem though is that Venus is so bloody hot that any water that is created would immediately be boiled off into a gaseous state while water on Mars can still be kept in a solid form. Surface of VenusI offered the Pro to explain how people could live on the surface of Venus since temperature and pressure are so high, The Pro though only explains that this doesnt matter since pressure will decrease because of the vast amounts of water being made, however he does not address the issue of Venus's core being partially molten in some areas. Tilt of VenusThe Pro again offers Mercury's orbit around Venus as the solution, but I have now provided evidence of how Mercury might not even move, and even if it did the rate it would go around Venus at such a high speed would be impossible for it to change the planet's tilt since under such conditions Venus would not be able to keep Mercury in orbit. Moon of MarsI offered evidence showing how massive engineering combined with bodies from the asteroid belt could provide an acceptable Moon for Mars. As for the danger zone argument the Pro emphasizes how the moon would be torn apart if it entered the danger zone but i still emphasize that this new moon would be kept at a minimum of 2x the distance away from the danger zoneCO2I overlooked how we cannot use time as a parameter for terraforming planets, thereby I concede that manipulating CO2 levels on Mars and Venus would be the same since time cannot be used as a parameter in this debate. WaterWe could make water on Mars the same way we would make it on Venus, by using CO2 from the atmosphere with Hydrogen from sources to make the water on an atomic level. The water already on Mars reference was to show how there currently exists a buffer of available water supplies to support early colonization while efforts to make water are carried out, whereas on Venus water (in a vapor form) would be the only way to support any life at all at the beginning. Nitrogen"the numbers for nitrogen that I looked at early is only considering Atmospheric Nitrogen, not all the Nitrogen in the soil on Earth (since we don't know the starting value for Mars or Venus)"In retrospect I admit that this tactic is only hypothetical and unproven, however the sources I gave does state that there will be nitrogen within these salts, what is unknown is how much.... If we are to get a large amount of Nitrogen similar to that of Earth, then there is only one plausible source to get such a large amount of Nitrogen....Take it from Venus.....I am assuming that such projects are not being done at the same time since this debate is only about which would be easier to Terra-form into Earth, therefore I offer evidence that in order to get more Nitrogen we can take it from the abundant amounts of Nitrogen in Venus which the Pro even said would have to be disposed of in the first place.Magnetic FieldThe problem with my argument on this is that not much is known in the first place about manipulating atmospheres since so little evidence already exists of just how Planets gain and lose atmospheres. This means any solutions I do propose would be based on hypothetical arguments which the Pro and I both agreed on would not be used. Therefore my hands are tied on this argument and since I cannot offer theories on what could be done I can only concede this argument....The CorePeople would live underground and could do so with normal attire, on the surface though they could live only if they wore something to protect themselves against radiation from the sun. This means that on the surface people could live normal but would have to wear astronaut suits to protect from the harmful rays. I know this sounds silly but people on Earth wear stuff to protect themselves from sunlight and radiation too, meaning that living on the surface of Mars would be similar to living on the surface on Earth, just with a twist. Also the surface could be used for agriculture since crops and plant life could grow under the conditions of sunlight on Mars, something you cant have on Venus. That would make Mars a better candidate to be mroe Earthlike since crops can actually be grown on the surfaceTemperatureIf the Pro wants a plan to boost temperatures on Mars, then I will offer a plan to pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to lock in more heat from the sun. Guess what gas does just that.... CO2.... Guess where we could also get an abundant amount of CO2 from....... Thats right, Venus. If CO2 doesnt float well with you though we could use a variety of different gases to do the trick to such as water vapor, methane, and NO2.... Something Mars has plenty ofhttp://www.nasa.gov...Well now im down to 400 characters... I will use them to re-emphasize how it is impossible for Mercury to put into a high speed orbit around Venus to fix its axle tilt, its rotation, and heat problem because it is simply impossible for an object to travel that fast and still be kept in orbit. Instead it would merely fly away, if it could even be moved in the first place....Back to you for now Pro :)