[We] the Human race should leave the Earth as soon it becomes possible (fiscally and technologicaly)

I shall take the negative side for this round. To clarify this debate, I shall define some terms: should: must; ought (dictionary. com[1]) Ought: used to express justice, moral rightness, or the like (dictionary. com [2]) Moral: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior (Merriam-Webster dictionary [3]) Must: be compelled by physical necessity to (Merriam-Webster dictionary [4]) Given the aforementioned definitions, the framework is as follows: The Aff must show that [We] the Human race ought to leave the Earth as soon it becomes possible (fiscally and technologically), as well as [We] must leave the Earth as soon it becomes possible (fiscally and technologically). The Neg must show that [We] the Human race ought not to leave the Earth as soon it becomes possible (fiscally and technologically), and [We] the Human race is not compelled by necessity to leave the Earth as soon it becomes possible (fiscally and technologically). Observation 1: Earth is our home. It is obvious that the Earth is the home of all humans, and that space is a very exciting frontier. Because Earth is the home of all humans, and has been, it can be assumed that Earth is effectively the lab rat for humans. Anything done to the planet or for the planet would make Earth the first planet to witness the effects of such actions. All problems dealt to Earth as a result of human intervention would therefore be the first, and solutions to such problems may not yet exist (ie feeding people in times of famine, sustaining agriculture in drought, reversing global warming, sustaining biodiversity, and so on). If we are capable of destroying the Earth, then we are capable of destroying any other planet/celestial body that we may come to inhabit. In conclusion to this argument, should we gain technological and fiscal ability to migrate to other planets/celestial bodies, we would destroy it as well. Observation 2: Finding another Earth "One sunlike star just 19.5 light-years away that may harbor an Earth-like planet is Eta Cassiopeia, the brightest light in this swatch of the northern sky" (Discover Magazine [5]). Key words to note would include "just" and "may. " In astronomer terms, 19.5 light-years is not a vast distance, and the possibility of finding another Earth that is fairly close to our point of origin (again, in astronomer terms) is no greater than a "may. " We would need to achieve a system to support life and travel the 9,454,254,955,488 km at close to the speed of light for more than 19.5 years. As it is stated in the resolution, the technology will be available; however, it does not state when this will be so. Given that there is no bright-line, we would need to sustain the Earth indefinitely to achieve this goal. Contention 1: [We] the Human race ought not to leave the Earth as soon it becomes possible (fiscally and technologically). Given what has been stated in Ob1, it is not morally right. Humans have destroyed countless ecosystems on Earth, and caused countless numbers of unnatural extinctions. " The extinction rate of today may be 1,000 to 10,000 times the biological normal, or background, extinction rate of 1-10 species extinctions per year. .. .species extinction, like global warming, has a time lag, and the loss of forest species due to forest clearing in the past may not be apparent" (Mongabay. com [6]). Therefore, should extinction not yet pose a problem for us today, or when we are capable of leaving this planet, it is not moral for the planet to suffer the effects when we have left. Given that it is immoral to leave, we must remain on this planet to attempt to halt further problems and solve pre-existing ones; moreover, because the impacts of the loss of biodiversity is hard to quantify, we ought to remain on the planet Earth indefinitely. Contention 2: [We] the Human race is not compelled by necessity to leave the Earth as soon it becomes possible (fiscally and technologically). In my Ob2, I stated that the technology will take time to develop; therefore, research could last indefinitely, for there is no bright-line for when technology will be adequate for the 9,454,254,955,488 km journey. I also stated in my Cnt1 that we are morally compelled to remain on this planet. If we are to develop this "tech," then we are also technologically compelled to remain on this planet to develop it. Whereas neither of these two reasons have a bright-line for when we would no longer be compelled to remain, we must, then, assume that it is indefinite. If we are competent enough to sustain the planet indefinitely (either for research and development or moral obligations), then there is no necessity to leave the Earth as soon it becomes possible (fiscally and technologically). Conclusion: Resolved: [We] the Human race should leave the Earth as soon it becomes possible (fiscally and technologically). I have provided very thorough definitions and two concrete reasons why this resolution should be negated. [1] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] . http://www.merriam-webster.com... [4] . http://www.merriam-webster.com... [5] . http://m.discovermagazine.com... [6] . http://rainforests.mongabay.com...