Terra-forming Venus vs Mars

As we move to the final round, I will address a few issues that were recently brought up by my opponent. I will try to not add any new arguments but only address what needs to be addressed. After that, I will sum up both of our plans and see how they hold up to our measuring sticks.So to start with the some of the things brought up by my opponent last round.1) Nuking may not move Mercury.Unless my opponent thinks the most basic laws of physics might be wrong enough for us to question them, then this holds no water. Nuclear bombs release energy, some of that energy is transferred to objects around them. The only way that energy can be transferred without moving an object is if not enough force is provided to overcome static friction, but there is no static friction in space, so there will be movement caused. The only question is how much, not if. The energy in nuclear bombs is easily calculable from the mega-tonnes of TNT that they measure them in.I find it odd that my opponent questions this, since this is the basic principle of how to move asteroids to protect earth. If my opponent doesn't believe that this will work, then he has no method listed of how to move any object in space to make his own moon.2) Mercury as a MoonMy opponent claims that Mercury will be revolving at around 1 rev every 30 hours. I have no idea where he got this number and it is not anywhere in my arguments, and not backed up by anything he's said. The only thing I can see where it may have come from is at the end of my "moon" section of R2, where I said, "...drop the rotation to 38.6 hours." However, this is talking about the rotation of Venus, not the revolution of Mercury. Mercury, being out 914k km, will be actually be orbiting slower than our Moon, not some super fast orbit.After these two clarifications, my opponent has no other complaints about any of my issues. Other than these, he has no other complaints regarding temperature. From there, he has no complaints on water. He has no other complaints regarding the tilt after the moon is put in place. He has none about the pressure, and once he has none on pressure or temperature, there is no argument on the surface of Venus. My opponent's entire case against Venus boils down to his last line, " it is simply impossible for an object to travel that fast and still be kept in orbit. Instead it would merely fly away, if it could even be moved in the first place." And since I have shown that this came from him misreading my argument, he has no case against Venus.3) Stealing from VenusMy opponent talks about taking the gases he needs for Mars from Venus. Totally not cool dude (JKing). Since my opponent just brought up how to increase the atmosphere last round, I feel the need to refute it here with my one and only link [1], "Gravity on Mars is not strong enough to stop most gas molecules in its atmosphere from escaping into space." This means that Mars can never have the atmospheric pressure that we have, at least not with lighter gas particles (O2, H2O, etc, CO2 is about 40% heavier than O2, so you can have a good deal of that, but you don't want too much of that).Now, let us sum up both planets under our plans.1) MoonsMy moon is a single composed body being brought over slowly and safely (nothing in the way of it's course). My opponent's moon has to be constructed from countless asteroids and other undefined sources. My opponent has suggested that nuclear force may not do anything, but has not proposed any other ideas for it.2) AtmosphereAs explained, Mars will not be able to have an atmosphere close to that of Earth. However, Venus can, and the methods for obtaining them have not been challenged. This means that Mars cannot stand against Venus when it comes to the atmospheric potential.3) TemperatureVenus will be able to support liquid water at all latitudes, while Mars will still be frozen at all latitudes. Life requires LIQUID water, not just water.There are quite of few others, from plate tectonics, to magnetic fields, to tides, and others that were simply not covered for Mars. Just a simple look between my opponent's plan on Mars, "People would live underground..." "Mars might not need to be modified to hold an atmosphere since it is being considered that early colonization may be located UNDERGROUND!" "...a process could be reversed on a small enough scale to allow for humans to colonize Mars." "We dont need to overhaul Mars to have a massive atmosphere similar to Earth, we can make due with what most of Mars already has and still be pretty well off."While my plans make Venus basically a warmer Earth, same pressure, same atmospheric composition, almost same gravity, same tidal forces, similar H2O levels (at least compared to Mars). It's simple. Venus can become much more like Earth than Mars could, and with much more basic technology (as presented, most is decades old).I thank my opponent for this dabate, and await his final round.[1] http://astrobioloblog.wordpress.com...