Resolved: The US federal government should colonize Mars.

Rebuttals(1)The Earth is overpopulated. Rounding everyone up and moving them to Texas sounds like a great idea. Let’s start filling the state with sky scrapers immediately, or let’s migrate to Mars. (2)US colonization of Mars is forbidden! Your argument is grossly misrepresents the treaty. Upon your claim, I read the treaty in its entirety and I find nothing in the treaty that claims occupation of a celestial body is forbidden. I do find that restricting a nation (U. S. or otherwise) from conducting activities in space, which must be to the benefit all of mankind, is illegal. Article 2 reads that “Outer space and celestial bodies are free for exploration and use by all States on a basis of equality and in accordance with international law. [1]” [1] . http://www.unoosa.org... In the most favorable view, the treaty shows that the U. S. may not claim sovereignty of mars. But it in no way restricts the U. S. from being involved in the occupation, or from providing funds and people for an international mission to occupy the Red Planet. Whether the mission is international or not international does not negate the U. S. ’s ability to colonize according to the agreed definition of colonization provided in round 1. It seems as though you are basing your argument on semantics. If your statement were true, it would also be illegal to occupy the ISS because it is a celestial body according to the link you provided. Because Americans do occupy the ISS, your interpretation of the treaty must be false and therefore your argument is false. (3)Mars would cause nothing but problems. I would like to see you actually defend this statement. However, for the argument you do provide under this heading, you give information about surviving in space, not on Mars. Mars has a protective atmosphere, whereas the Moon does not. If this debate were about occupying the Moon, your “how stuff works” link would be relative. But this debate isn’t about the Moon, and your argument isn’t relative to this debate. (4)Getting there. I see nothing in any of the information you provided about the Orion shuttle being illegal. As a matter of fact, I would like to prove that it is Legal [2] and for the sake of readers of this debate, I will also provide a link to information on the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty [3]. [2] . http://oriondrive.com... [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org... Closing This debate is part of a tournament which has the restrictions of 4-5 rounds. Due to Con’s forfeit of Round 2, this is essentially a three round debate. Although this fact may or may not cause both of us to be disqualified from the tournament, I urge voters not to base conduct points entirely on this factor. Con was an adequate opponent who took this debate seriously, even though he was limited by a natural disaster. Con failed to provide rebuttals to all of my arguments except earth overcrowding. Much as he made an adequate rebuttal, he did nothing to prove that earth not overcrowding was a reason to not colonize Mars. His further arguments were erroneous and unsubstantiated. His best argument was that one State could not claim sovereignty of a celestial body or restrict another State from also occupying the same celestial body, but even that was a correlation that I made from the evidence that he provided, not his own. Despite the claim, occupation for the purpose to live on and populate Mars by people originating from the U. S. meets the criteria for Colonization as presented in Round 1. I have presented adequate reasons why the U. S. should Colonize Mars, and even went further in answering the questions presented by Con despite the fact that the questions focused on our capability to occupy Mars not the actual topic of whether we should or shouldn't do it.