Human expansion into space is a must

:Ensure Survival of Humanity: I do grant my opponent that if humanity does indeed last another 5 billion years, we will need to expand into another planet to escape death from the sun. However, I would like to address these points. 1. First of all, hostile aliens is strictly hypothetical, no evidence has been shown to why as to they must exist, be intelligent, or be hostile. 2. If there aren't an infinite number of planets to colonize, the original intention to ensure humanity's survival is negated. Once we run out of planets that are able to be colonized, humanity will meet its end. 3. And my challenge against the sun argument is that we need to focus on surviving for another 3~4 billion years, before we can worry about the sun killing us all. It does us no good to focus on space traveling, while the situations on earth are unstable. All 3 points remain. :Discovery of Habitable Worlds: "It is necessary to discover new habitable worlds because we need to discover them before we can go to them." My point is that expansion (colonization) is not necessary to discover new things in space. We have yet to land on mars, and yet we have discovered many things about it. Discovery can be done with robots and droids. Therefore, the resolution that "Human expansion into space is a must [for discovery of habitable worlds]" is negated. :Gaining Resources and Places to live: "Non renewable resources are great, and I agree we could use the money for finding ways to power the world with them." Seeing as my opponent has not refuted my non-renewable resources argument, I will take it that he concedes his resources argument. "However, Con's position on regulating population is not plausible. With free countries, such as America, where we both live, it is illegal for the government to enact such a restriction. In America, for example, it would be unconstitutional for the government to limit the amount of kids people can have. Eventually, when overpopulation is a huge issue, we will probably begin to expand into space, maybe with space stations at first, but sooner or later we will take more planets." Regulating population is a possible solution to overpopulation. I am not here to argue on whether or not such action is ethical or moral, I am merely offering a possible solution in answer to your problem of overpopulation. A solution exists without the need for expansion (colonization), and therefore, the resolution that space expansion is a must to solve overpopulation is negated. :If we are alone: "These lands are barren and that is the reason no one lives there. Once America suffers from overpopulation, these areas will no longer be unclaimed and the poorer peoples will inhabit this area" My opponent has offered no sources or supporting facts as to why the above statement is true. And most importantly, he has also yet to clarify why space expansion is a must, "If we are alone." Unfortunately this is the last round, so I'll leave it to the audience to decide whether or not this point is valid to the debate at hand. My opponent's refutation against C1: We should focus on earth Con: "While my opponent claims that the sun will destroy the earth in 5 billion years. It does no good if something else destroys humanity before then. We should focus our resources on surviving for another 5 billion years, rather than what will happen after the year 5 billion." Pro: "I 100% agree with Con on this, which is why we should have our eggs in more than one basket." My opponent agrees with me, but has not explained his "we should have our eggs in more than one basket" metaphor, and how it applies to my argument. My contention was that we should seek to better secure the earth rather than focus our time and funds on space colonization. C2: Infinite Colonization-able Planets Con: "My opponent's claim that we need to colonize to ensure survival does humanity no good, if humanity is doomed to extinction sooner or later. We can focus on escaping the next death of the sun in another solar system, but ultimately humanity is still doomed to extinction. The only difference is where the extinction occurs, on earth or another planet in a galaxy far, far away…" Pro: "My opponent's claim that humanity is doomed to extinction is only true 100% if the universe will one day come to an end. Planets will continue to end and form in the universe, as I've already pointed out, thus we won't run out of places to colonize." First, I would like to address that granted that planets die and are reborn, this does not mean any of those planets will be inhabitable. "I would also like to point out that the fact that there isn't an infinite number of planets is not a reason to sit around on earth waiting for doomsday." My contentions are aimed to only support the fact that expansion to ensure human survival is flawed, if there aren't planets that can consistently be colonized. The resolution "Human expansion into space is a must [to Ensure Survival of Humanity]" is negated, unless my opponent provides evidence as to why those reborn planets are inhabitable. As he has not chosen to do so, my argument remains. C3: Evolution "This point is extremely awesome and I would like to give credit where credit is due. However, I don't think our DNA will change simply because the land under our feet is different. It will take thousands if not millions of years for there to be a noticeable difference from humans on a planet with low gravity than on a planet with high gravity and even with this difference, we will all still be apart of the human species. Its not like humans in the future are going to look exactly like us either, so I don't see this point as valid." I would like to note that Homo sapiens are not Homo erectus. Though Homo erectus evolves into Homo sapiens, the two are distinct. The origin of all species is alike, but that does not mean we are all the same. Therefore, the evolved form of humans that live on mars will no longer be "human" when they grow into another distinct evolved species. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... I thank Con for this debate, and leave the rest to the voters.