My 100th Debate: Assuming that the Earth is overpopulated, Mars should be colonized until 2200

I will be making a conclusion to the debate, and why you should vote for me. I thank my opponent for the fantastic debate, and let's get it right on to voting period. ThanksObservationsO1: Con says that I only said 30 sources. Not putting the sources in the debate is actually bad for Con, as I can call them all bare assertions. And logically, I wouldn't say 30 sources over a debate, that's ridiculous. And also, you can just put it in the comments, or an outside link. I posted the comment before you wrote your argument, but you must have not noticed because you were writing your argument, and you should have put the sources when I was writing/posting my 4th round. Then I could have actually rebutted them. I ask voters to think of all of Con's "sources" that he put * as an bare assertion, as he actually provides no sources. That means I can do a million "*" and they will all count as sources. That's ridiculous. And anyways, this is the last round, and even though Con posts it now, it is useless, so I ask voters to think about this, and count of Con's *'s as bare assertions, because there is no reason to count them as sources, if my opponent doesn't even give sources. O2: Con says that I can diregard his comment of A7. I did, and that is because of the rules. If I accepted that, then you would have losed, so it is good for you. O3: Con pictures were not in the debate, but he puts it in the comments. Therefore, do not penalize him for the pictures being like that, it sometimes happens. Rebuttals of Defense1. OverpopulationCon says that there can be cancer, and many bad things if you go to Mars. Con doesn't say why we need to care for this, because the astronauts want to, and are risking their bodies. You can run to a hungry lion, but I don't see how this is an example. What is Earth then? A tiger? Con gives a big list to say all the cancer, diseases, and some more spam. I don't get why Con says that we should not colonize Mars just because it can harm your body. It is your body. You have your liberty. You want to go to Mars, and you are risking the health risks. Why can't you go? My opponent gives no reason for this, and why we should not colonize Mars just because of diseases. Con doesn't say the "so what? ' part, and without that, his argument crumples. Yeah, Yeah, there are differences with Mars and Earth. So what? Just because there are differences, shouldn't we go there? Should we always do the thing we normally did? Just because there are differences, does it mean it is bad? No! !! Differences and Experiences can be good, not only bad. I apoligize for the source attack. Con still doesn't rebut that it was a blog post though, so his source is anyway refuted, as it might be fake evidence. Yeah, we don't overcome gravity, and air. We do overcome water, as we need water to drink, water might not be clean, and we need clean water. Just because we need to overcome more things doesn't mean we should colonize Mars. Con gives examples of animals living in Antartica, but that is a few, looking at Con's list. Most of them are sea animals, or fast animals, so if we can't hunt them, we can't eat. Con doesn't touch the points of Canada and the Desert. My point was that we need to bring food to go there also. Con says that there will be no fresh food in Mars until crops are grown. Yeah of course. Con says that the Martian soil has a problem, and is poisonous. Con doesn't touch my plan in round 2 that we can dig a little part of Mars, and put in soil. "Dig, Dig, Put in, Dig, Dig, Put in" That is easy, and we can do that.2. CostCon gives a new statistic about the source in round 4. Then that means I have to rebut the Cost argument again, and I can't make new arguments in the final round, so it will be impossible. So I have two choices. I can go ahead and ignore it, as it is not following the rules, because then I have to make new arguments, or just rebut it, and not follow the rules, and get a loss. I have to choose 1, and that means I will ignore it, and it is perfectly reasonable to do so. But Con does try to rebut my statistic of Mars One. Con says that Mars One's statistic is wrong, they are fools, but he makes a bare assertion that they are fools. And anyways, Mars One said they will pay for them anyways, so we do not need any particular reason to stop them. I am shocked at my opponent's definition of overpopulation. That never came out. I checked 3 online dictionaries, and 1 book dictionary, and that defintion didn't come out. They were all related to this, "Excessive population of an area to the point of overcrowding, depletion of natural resources, or environmental deterioration [1]. " My opponent provides no source for theirs. As the resolution says Earth is overpopulated, we can't inhabit other places in Earth, as the Earth is overpopulated. So we can't do that. Con shows that Mars has some disadvantages, such as costs, but gives no reason why we should spend it on overpopulated Earth. Therefore, as my opponent provides no reason why we should use this money to Earth instead of Mars, my opponent's argument is refuted. 3. CriteriaOkay, this was honestly confusing, but here we go. .. Con suprisingly says that Mars One's credibility is null, and shows NASA's. This is strange, as a) my opponent provides no reason why Mars One's credibility is null, and b) my opponent shows NASA, which is strange, as they don't even plan to go to Mars right now, it is Mars One. Therefore talking about NASA is useless. My opponent fails to defend his argument about my source that you need to be over 18, and a bit more [2]. This argument is rebutted. Vote Pro.4. Contamination/ MicroorganismsCon says that micro. can escape and pollute Mars. Anyways, even if it gets polluted, it won't get much polluted. Earth is polluted. But because we colonize both, there will be less pollution anyways. Just because it pollutes Mars doesn't mean we shouldn't colonize Mars. Also, it is a high probability, we are not certain if it will actually be, why not try it? There is a probabilty that I can get crashed by an airplane while walking in the street. There is a probabilty that someone can bomb the whole world. There are probabilties for everything, and that doesn't mean we should stop. It might be solved in 180 years. Who knows? Humans are unpredictable, and they could do almost anything. Some of those diseases is because we don't know what it is from. We know that this is some kind of micro. in Mars, which is going bonkers. And it is not part of my burden to actually make this all into 2200, only that we need to colonize Mars until 2200. So actually, we can solve this problem in the outseeing future. Yes, they are mere assertions, but there is a probability, same as polluting Mars. Con says that Human waste has microbial, which is the same as Fecal matter, and pollutes the Earth. My opponent gives a bare assertion. And my opponent does not even touch my rebuttal, so this whole argument is refuted. 5. Self-contained environmentCon says that robots can freeze in place because of all of Mars dust. We can make more robots which don't do this, and they could, there is no evidence that they actually can. You can use a toaster underwater, it is possible, it is just that no one would actually do it. And electricity conduct water, so that is basically false, as Mars soil isn't a conductor. 6. BodyCon says that there are health problems in if you ride a space ship for 7 months. For many times, who cares about the health problems? They want to go, they are risking their lives. So health doesn't matter, if they want to do it. My opponent gives a new source. Reading a part, "A 26-year-old ex-factory worker named Valentina Tereshkova was the first woman in space. On 16 June 1963 she piloted the Vostok 6 mission which lasted 70 hrs 50 min. . Later that year in the month of November she married Cosmonaut Andrian Nikolayev, the pilot of the 94hr 22min Vostok 3 mission. A year later Cosmonaut Valentina Tereshkova gave birth to a healthy baby girl. This provides us with the first evidence of post-flight normal pregnancy; at least as far as short duration space flights are concerned. "That shows that someone had a healhty girl after on space. That is the one out of the two times the word baby was used. The second one is about Valentina also. I don't see how my opponent says that babies cannot be in space, when the example she gives says it is possible. My point wasn't that ships will be slow to build. It was that there are still spaceships right now on Earth which are finished, we can just ride them. We don't need to build them right away. ConclusionI have shown that we should colonize Mars. Most of my opponent's points were that going to Mars will make you ill, the cost. Mars One will be paying, and so what about the illness? The astronauts are risking their lives to go, we should let them go. They want to go, and we shouldn't stop them because of their health problems, that is ridiculous. Therefore, we have the liberty, and Mars One and their astronauts have their liberty to go and Colonize Mars. Let's make a better future with more land an happier life. It does have things to overcome, but let's do it. Let's Colonize Mars, and vote Pro. Sources in the external link: . http://www.debate.org...Thank you, and vote Pro. Have a nice day. (I don't really think you need a RFD to judge this debate, but I recommend a short RFD, and just vote Pro. Thank you. I thank Peepette for doing my 100th debate with me, and thank him for the topic, and the debate. Thanks to Peepette, the voters who will vote this debate, and me, as it is my 100th debate that I started. I have around 100 characters left, I wanted to use all characters in this round because it is specfically my last round in my 100 debates. I like this oppurtunity. Thanks again to Peepette, and. .. VOTE PRO! !! !! !! !