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

I shall attack my opponents points which is also the same as defending my own. I WILL NOT BRING UP NEW ARGUMENTS AND IN THE EVENT THAT I DO, IT SHALL BE DISREGARDED After, I will summarize Rockylightning's points and my own. >>Earth is more dangerous than you think. We should relocate to a planet with a stable star and a stable planetary system. >> First, I shall say that I will concede this point. I agreed with this point in my last speech; therefore, I stand by it in this one as well. The second part of my speech that was quoted referred to the resolution, saying how it is negated as long as the Human race remains on Earth. I assume my opponent recognized this fact, for he quoted it in his last speech. However, he did not respond to it in anyway, simply stating the dangers of this solar system and planet Earth. >>First of all we cannot predict the future, you cannot use predictions to support your arguments; especially if they are a wild guess. >>The idea of this prediction (which was not a wild guess; it was from whatfutureholds. com) was to enforce the fact that it will take a long time to achieve the "possible" stated in the resolution. Because of this, the Earth must be sustained for long periods of time to conduct research and development. Therefore, it is possible to live on Earth until a catastrophic event wiping out all life on it. >>I do not think you understand this point exactly. .. >>Let me clarify. Should we move to another planet, it is no guarantee that that planet will be free of the problems that me opponent proposed about Earth (ei sun dying. asteroids, etc. ). Therefore, moving will not guarantee survival anymore than staying and expanding. >>My point is that if we leave Earth right before the sun dies (and there is a high probability of man putting it off until then) then we will obviously go into a younger solar system. .. . >>Then, it shall not be as soon it becomes possible (fiscally and technologically). It is highly improbable that we shall achieve the "tech" right before (enough time to evacuate the entire planet of humans) the sun dies. We must achieve the "tech" before then; thus, this statement supports the Neg. >>If we CAN save other species, GREAT! But there is a probability that we cannot. And are we just going to stay on the sinking boat that is Earth? >>Once again, I am not proposing that ALL humans stay, simply that some do. The resolution is negated as long as the race never leaves the Earth. Expansion is an option that is being pursued by international organizations as well as entrepreneurs. NASA's constellation project is an example. I provided a reason with evidence as to why leaving Earth is immoral. My opponent makes the claim that it is not with no reference to any source what so ever. It is then safe to conclude that that is an opinion, and the point on the immoral aspects of leaving are still valid. My opponent does not refute the morality argument. Simply because each species' self interest to ensure continuity, does not make it right relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior. On the contrary, by allowing the suffering of innocent life forms for the actions of this species, it definitely wrong, relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior. This makes leaving Earth still an immoral act upon all other known life forms. >>So for the sake of the debate motion, we cannot go into fractions. >>In the first speech, my opponent said, "Let's compare the Human race to eggs in a basket, which is Earth. " This is a contradiction, and because my arguments were based on the principles of the basket with multiple eggs, I shall conclude this debate with Earth containing multiple humans upon it. >>5) Individuals will not want to move 6) The government will not want to spread out the human race in the name of survival >>These two are to be disregarded for they are not within the framework of Aff burden. ======Summary: AFF >Humans must leave earth; it is a dangerous place to live. We need to go some place safer. >Predictions are not arguments. No one can predict the future. >We must be going to a younger solar system if ours' is dead. >Leaving animals and plants to die is ok. Saving them would be great, but survival of the Humans supersedes all. ======Summary: NEG >Humans will eventually leave Earth, but not ASAP. We will expand, but not leave. >This prediction is a time frame, saying that we must remain on Earth for a while, and must sustain it too. Therefore we can sustain it indefinitely. >But that "younger" solar system will have the same problems (if it is still there when we get there) and is not a solution. >It is immoral by definition, with legitimate (uncontested) links and warrant. ======Conclusion I placed it upon the Neg to prove that [We] the Human race ought not leave the Earth as soon it becomes possible (fiscally and technologically) and that [We] the Human race is not driven by necessity to leave the Earth as soon it becomes possible (fiscally and technologically). The Aff, [We] the Human race ought to leave the Earth as soon it becomes possible (fiscally and technologically) and that [We] the Human race is driven by necessity to leave the Earth as soon it becomes possible (fiscally and technologically). These burdens were accepted along with the definitions. Ought: used to express justice, moral rightness, or the like. I claimed that it was not expressing justice or moral rightness to leave other organisms to suffer for human deeds. This was backed by common sense, for, whereas justice was not defined, it is not just to have the innocent suffer for the crimes of another. My opponents responds with self-preservation, but, as he stated in his last speech, the human race is a single unit. If so, then it would not be safer to keep this single unit in another part of the universe, for it is the same universe with the same problems as our location in it. Considering how by colonizing other planets without leaving our own is an option (shown by NASA and others), the resolution is negated. Must: be compelled by physical necessity to I claimed that it is not necessary to leave ASAP, for, while the option is nice, we are not driven by necessity to leave. My opponent says that we must migrate, but the universe is a dangerous place, and no matter where we go, it will be just as dangerous. The humans can be divided, and until the last egg leaves the basket, the resolution is negated. A thanks to Rocklightning for this debate. And thanks to all those that took the time to read this debate.