Moon is better to colonise than Mars

We are now in the ultimate round of the debate. But first, I want to say thank you to my opponent for keeping this a civilized and healthy discussion.Since pro just sent the link to his sources, I had to make adjustments in my counterargument. In the first argument, pro said that a group of space experts (NASA scientists included) has produced a special journal edition which details how we humans could colonize the Moon in less than a decade, for only ten billion US dollars. However, the article where you got this statement from also states that the Moon is not the actual target. In fact, NASA astrobiologist McKay, as mentioned in the article, said, “My interest is not the Moon. To me the Moon is as dull as a ball of concrete. But we're not going to have a research base on Mars until we can learn how to do it on the Moon first. The Moon provides a blueprint to Mars.” What he probably means is that the Moon will be used as a station where scientists can experiment on/test the feasibility of extraterrestrial colonization, but it will not be the actual goal because it lacks materials, resources, etc. Thus, colonization of the Moon is nothing but a stepping stone for a larger project.Pro’s final arguments seem to revolve around a single idea: that Mars is too dangerous to colonize. That may be true; however, the argument is an incomplete comparison. Pro asserted how perilous the colonization of Mars is, but he did not state the danger that humans may face if they colonize the Moon. I will prove why the being on the Moon is more dangerous than being on Mars using scientific concepts and logic.“Small space rocks burn up in Earth's atmosphere, never making it to the ground, but they can do damage on Mars because the planet has a much thinner atmosphere.”—this is true. And to further ossify the statement, I am going to cite a reputable source. As stated in HowStuffWorks (n.d.), “When the meteor hits the atmosphere, the air in front of it compresses incredibly quickly. When a gas is compressed, its temperature rises. This causes the meteor to heat up so much that it glows. The air burns the meteor until there is nothing left.”Let’s go back to this statement of yours again: “Small space rocks burn up in Earth's atmosphere, never making it to the ground, but they can do damage on Mars because the planet has a much thinner atmosphere.” It does not say that Mars is more likely to be hit by space chunks than Earth, let alone the Moon. That being so, the planet’s/moon’s location/position is not to be argued about; rather, the contention lies in the presence of atmosphere of the two celestial bodies.Just like I stated in the initial round, humans can raise the temperature on the surface of Mars using greenhouse gases so that the planet could have an atmosphere similar to Earth. Furthermore, I stated that Mars having an Earth-like atmosphere is more plausible than the Moon because the former has greater surface gravity. (Again, gravity holds the atmosphere together.)TL;DR: Colonizing Mars is no more dangerous than colonizing the Moon; ergo, the assertion that colonizing Mars is better still stands strong.Sources:http://www.sciencealert.com...http://science.howstuffworks.com...