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

ObservationsO1: Con agrees to the burden that I set up. Therefore,I need to show that Mars should be colonized by 2020 because the Earth is overpopulated, and Con's burden is that even if the Earth is overpopulated, Mars should not be colonizedO2: Con says that he will put a * because it is a source, but the source count is low. This is confusing because there is less than 23 * from con, and it is 30 sources. I ask Con to make his sources in the debate, or and external link. Rebuttal 1: OverpopulationCon states that we should just colonize. Areas such as frozen areas of Canada, Siberia, Antartica, Sahara Desert, or beneath the Ocean are better choices. Con say that there will be fewer things to overcome, like dangers of space, radiation, gravity generation, atmosphere, energy, and extreme costs. Con doesn't neccessarily say why these obstacles are worse. Con gives no other reason to affirm his statement. His statement is a bare assertion too. Con's source was about the Earth is not overpopulated, which is useless, as the resolution says that the Earth is overpopulated. We need to overcome other things to go to Canada, or other places too, nothing can be so easy. We need to bring lot's of food because there isn't much food and animals living in Canada, Antartica, or the Sahara Desert. We need to bring warm things, or cool things. We need houses and all building material. We have to face the cold/hotness. We need to bring lot's of clothes and water. These have their own costs. So does Mars. As I showed that everything has there own things to overcome, not only colonizing Mars, please vote Pro, and don't buy Con's argument. Rebuttal 2: CostCon says that colonizing Mars will be very costly. He provides one source, and that source is useless to his claim. His claim is that the total cost will be around 48-121 billion dollars. His source is Lake Vostok, a lake in Antartica. I can't see how that is a source. Therefore, this is a bare assertion, and it probably won't cost as much. This source says that it is 6 billion, which is very different to my opponent's bad source [1]. Because I am the only one with a real source, voters have no choice, but to buy my claim. And, of course, everything has a cost. Buying your grandma a shirt has costs. Almost nothing is free. Yes, money goes into colonizing Mars. So does in almost every single thing. Con says that the money would be better spent on Earth, or colonizing asteroids. My opponent doesn't say why the money will be better spent by doing this. Therefore, you cannot buy my opponent's cost argument. Rebuttal 3: CriteriaMy opponent says that only rich people can go, not other people, because it is costly. This is my opponent's worst argument. One of my sources in the 2nd round said that people over 18 can go [1]. My opponent's argument is wrong, and his example of the 20 year old Bangladesh is wrong, as he can qualify because it is over 18 years old. Rebuttal 4: Contamination/ Repeating HistorySubpoint 1: MicroorganismsThis is probably my opponent's best argument yet, but falls. My opponent says that some microorganisms out of trillions can survive in the environment of Mars, and form something dangerous to human health. Con says that some microorganisms may exist in Mars. Con says that it can pose danger to the planet and human life. First of all, nothing actually now lives in Mars [2]. We have no evidence of anything living, so we assume that nothing lives in Mars by looking at all the robots that are in Mars. This is also a bare assertion. Con gives no source that this can happen. Assuming it might happen, as humans, as I showed will probably provent this. We made many cures to diseases, why can't we just do some microorganism? Humans can easily make a cure to some microorganisms in 180 years, if we conclude these are some types f diseases. Therefore, this argument is false, and rebutted. Subpoint 2: Human wasteThis is a easy rebuttal. Con says that human waste from then dying will pollute the surface of Mars. What do we do with dead bodies in Earth? We put them in a grave. We will do the same in Mars, why shouldn't we? Con says that there will be a pollution problem. Con doesn't say why dead people makes a pollution problem, so we cannot buy this argument, as there is no reasoning to the argument. Rebuttal 5: Self-contained human environmentCon says that there are some bacteria that grow in low gravity places which can be harmful to people. Con says that they can work on this with complex machines in Earth, but no evidence to say if it can work on space. If it will work on Earth, it will probably work on space. If it doesn't work, humans will probably solve the problem in 180 years making a robot. Therefore, this argument can be easily solved, therefore not containing weight from the resolution part "until 2200", and as it is rebutted by the resolution, the argument is rebutted. Rebuttal 6: The BodyMy opponent says that there can be health effects to the body, and after a 7 month trip from Mars, some people will arrive in illness. This is not true, as I showed that some person accomplished over 540 days of space, normal people will overcome 7 months easily. We can cure the illness with medecine. Being ill doesn't nessecarily needing to make us stop this. My opponent says that colonization entails reproduction, and there was not study that we can have babies at space. Well, why can't we? Is there really a difference? No source, because we didn't do it yet. My opponent can't neccesarily claim this. My opponent says that reptiles, bird eggs, etc. had uneven results. First of all, reptiles and amphibians are cold-blooded, and so such animal went on space, we are not sure of the study. They are all laid in eggs, different from humans. Also, my opponent source is a blog, which is not a good source. And when I commandf/ crtlf the words reptile, bird eggs, etc. , nothing came out, which means the study didn't actually happen, and my opponent has no source that it happened. Pregnancy comes out once. I don't see how this makes a study. Next, my opponent's other reasonings all fail to do with "body", but I'll address this argument anyways. Con says that as a minimum there needs to be at least 40 thousand people for a colony. My opponent provides no source. He doesn't really need to provide a source anyways, as over 165,000 people will go, and 40,000 < 165,000. My opponent says that we need at least 2333 years for 1 ship. One ship is ridiculous. How can 165,000 people go on one puny ship? This obviously doesn't make any sense. Even with 10 ships, there will be 16500 per ship, so we need at least over 50 ships, and that will probably make it around 50-60 years out of 180 years. We will have 120-130 years left to build a colony, that is a lot. There will be lot's of spaceships in the world anyways, so we don't need to build as much. And, as I said, everything has a cost. My opponent provides no source that it will cost 209 billion. My opponent is wrong that only wealthy, healthy, and educated would be able to colonize. This is wrong, as I showed that anyone over 18 can qualify on going [1]. Therefore, all parts of this argument is wrong. ConclusionI showed that all of my opponent's arguments are wrong, and they are all refuted. Con has no barely no sources, and they are all bad. Therefore, vote Pro. Sources in external link: . http://www.debate.org...Thank you, and vote Pro. Over to Con.