We should go to Mars

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. yet, if my opponent bought up colonization doesn't this mean that he too thinks that we shall eventually go to Mars, and there by supporting my point that we should go to Mars. 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. According to. .. . http://www.msnbc.msn.com...- July 10, 2010 Even without soil, we can still farm in Mars by using aeroponics, meaning that we can continously grwo food 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. Second of all. .. 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. This means. .. the astronauts can be supplied with basic needs during their stay in Mars and there for creating a livable conditions that humans can live on on or visit. 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. First is. .. Micro Magnetosphere Shields According to… The New Scientist, on July 28, 2010-. http://www.universetoday.com... 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. Second…Chemoprevention vs. Radiation According to. .. spaceflight. nasa. gov/shuttle/support/researching/. .. /marsrisk. pdf- Last access 2011 Chemoprevention, or the use of chemical agents, drugs, or food supplements to prevent disease, is one option to help prevent radiation for astronauts. This means there is a way to prevent dangerous radiation from affecting astronauts, and therfor keeping our astronauts safe. Finally. .. Artificial Gravity According to. .. . http://www.space.com... ( date proving the time we have had the technology We have successfully created artificial gravity, and have been tested on human subjects. With testing done, since 2008 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.