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

I assumed that he would do it in Round 3. He didn't. He must do it in round 4, if he doesn't then they are dropped. Voters need to consider this while voting. I can't even rebut my opponent's sources now because there are no new arguments in round 5, and a rebuttal counts as an argument. Therefore, voters must consider this while voting. O2: Con posts an argument in the comments, saying that she misworded A7. According to the rules of the debate, all arguments have to be posted in the debate text, but because my opponent posted it in the comments, and because of the rules, it is impossible for me to accept this, as my opponent is then not following the rules, and it is a loss. So for my opponent's own good, I won't be accepting that argument, only the one in the debate. DefenseDefense 1: Things humans can doCon concedes that humans can do this. But Con says all the health problems and all that sort of stuff. Who cares about their health? Those thousands of people want to go to Mars, and they are risking their life for it. We shouldn't ban it just because it is unhealthy to go in space. That is an entire different topic. They have liberty to do what they want. They made the choice. They made the choice to maybe get harmed, but have a new life in Mars. Why should be stop this just because it hurts someone's health. They are risking for it, and we have no right to stop what they want to do, or it harms, and they have no liberty. Defense 2: PossibleCon says that we have space in Earth too. Well that is impossible according to the debate, because the debate resolution says that the Earth is overpopulated, we don't have any space left. Con says that we can go to another place and colonize Earth. Well, Con doesn't say why we should not colonize Mars, so it is useless to his burden. My opponent says that even though they did not have technology they had ships, and didn't need to ship food, water, air, and gravity. True, they didn't need to ship air and gravity, but they had to ship air and water, because we can't drink water from oceans, and we need food for the ship, and they needed food. You can't get much food in a boat. Yes, in Mars we have to ship everything. When going to America, we had to ship a lot to, I mean, the Europeans. Yes, ship it to another planet, what is the problem? We can melt glaciers, and make ocean water fresh [1], then we will have lot's of water. Why can't we? Con doesn't rebut why we shouldn't go, only saying about the costs. I said, everything has costs. Also, it was hard for the Europeans without technology, but they managed. It will be the same for Mars. Defense 3: LibertyCon rebuts by saying that it is their choice paying themselves, and not NASA. Mars One said that they will pay, and is offering payment, if you look somewhere in the official site [2]. Also, of source there will be an application fee, because then they will just go free, there would probably be some application fee to go there. There is also many things that an astronaut needs [3]. Con doesn't actually rebut my argument of liberty, and that people want to go, and even the Mars One people want to go, and we can't stop these companies when they pay money. They don't harm others, why should be stop them? Defense 4: Not enough spaceCon says that there is 56% of Earth that we can make habitable. Con says that we can just use other places in Earth, and shows some pictures, and things we can do. This isn't helpful because the resolution already says the Earth is overpopulated, so there is no point for Con to say that the Earth isn't overpopulated, because Con is basically arguing that the Earth is not populated, just not saying, "populated. " Therefore, Con cannot argue this. Defense 5: ResourcesSure, it is produced in the Oceans, a bit of it. But in Mars there is much more. My opponent argues nuclear plants, which is strange because I didn't even say nuclear plants in my argument, which is confusing. My opponent counts my point null, which is strange, because I clearly explained that there can be many other resources out in Mars, and my opponent fails to refute my point. Con just tackles one example of deuterium, and that wasn't tackled properly. Con doesn't refute my point of it much better than fuel. Con says that Solar, and wind power is fuel for the future. Well, many people won't ride these cars, because they are more expensive then normal cars. So that won't happen. The best choice is Deuterium. Con doesn't rebut this. And, Con doesn't refute my argument that there can be many other resources in the future. Defense 6: Already working on it/ DependencyCon says that no one's efforts are wasted because instead of going to Mars, we can go to other places on Earth, and explore space. Well, this isn't true. These people do this because they want to go to Mars, they won't do there job just to habitate lame Antartica. Their job is to do Mars, they are studying Mars, and working and training. Their efforts on trying to go to Mars will be wasted, therefore my opponent's argument is wrong. Defense 7: BeneficialCon just spams some sources about that there will probably be no coporations if we go in a space ship for 7 months, and blah. We don't need to make these coporations right until 2200. That is no part of the burden. The burden is to colonize Mars until 2200, or to make some people live there. Therefore we can make these companies whenever we want, possibly we can make faster rockets that can go for around 1 month possibly in the future. Con just tries to refute my companies arugment, and doesn't rebut that we can expand our borders. Therefore my opponent's argument is wrong. ConclusionMy opponent's rebuttals are all wrong. My opponent drops many of my core arguments, just rebutting a few examples. My impact of the argument still stands. The impact is the most important in one's argument. Con doesn't rebut any of that. Therefore my arguments stand, and please vote Pro. Sources in external link: . http://www.debate.org...Thank you.