The US ought to establish an independently viable colony on Mars by 2070

C1: Framework: UtilitarianismMy opponent is quite mistaken, here in this debate we are debating as to whether or not the US ought to colonize the Mars, not how. Arguments in regards to the very specific details are minute, please throw them out of the debate. Even with a proposed statement of settlers stated by Con in R3, we can still see that this will be substainially better in the long run as the colonization of other plaents is needed in order to ensure humanity's continual existance and moving to Mars is the perfect way to do this. To ensure to continual existance of humanity should be our overall priority as a human race which can only be done through the colonization of Mars. There may be a disruption in the US social aspects, but this is more important than as the continual existance of humanity is more pressing. We are currently racing against Global Warming and Earth's ticking timebomb where humanity may not be able to outlive it much longer. This was a harms that my opponent has completely dropped and should be a priori in this debate as it shows that failure to do this plan results in the total human extinction! My opponent has proposed that it would be better to focus on the preservation of environment, but I have already shown that this is impossible as humanity is/has pasted the point of no return in Carbon emmissions, showing that the ecology of Earth will eventually be unable to substain human life and the failure to colonize Mars will result in Human extinction. With this not being addressed by my opponent, we must see that this should be considered first when looking at this type of mission. I have already stated in my previous round why Mars is a better alternative to the Moon. C2: Science LeadershipMostly my opponent agrees with me here, but there are a few key areas where we disagree. One of those areas being the aspects of how the potential of how the failure of a Martian colonization would harm the US reputation. It would actually do the opposite by inspiring other nations to follow suit and this would create a space race to Mars for other Martian colonies to be established and lead to a more futuristic "Scramble for Africa" in terms of Mars. The technology that would come out of this would be substainal as I have brought up in a previous round that the reduced costs of some of the ships can come down to $200,000 and other and newer technologies can develope which are innovative and can help reduce cost as well as speed up technology across the board. The Sino-US war potential outbreak here would be less likely than a US-Sino War that I have shown in my 4th Contention over REMs and that one is one that has a higher probability and will likely happen if we elect to not go to Mars in the near future. The risk of war over REMs outweighs the risk of a Sino-US War over US colonization of Mars. The Cold War scenerio would be the worst case scenerio and is simply an outcome of the "Scramble for Mars" aspect that I have talked about. Technology is completely expanding as even the Orion Rocket is found to be the potential successor the the Falcon Heavy in the search for Mars by NASA. Other companies have also been looking into the colonization of Mars such as the Mars-1 project run by the Dutch who plan a similiar colonization effort in the future. My opponent sites failures by Falcon Heavy and this is a great thing that he had pointed out as it shows how technology can and will improve throughout time as the need for technology increases. The Orion Rocket and other types of technologies are emerging that reduce cost and increase effeicency as I have shown with the potential for such a rocket to decrease from its current price to only $200,000. The increase room, transport, and decreased cost will work wonders for the program and its aid to help colonize Mars. C3: Rare Earth MetalsI do find it interesting that my opponent states that there is a great deal and abundance of minerals on Mars as there is the astriod belt, but then also states that there isn't any samples in terms of evidence that has come out. These are contradictorary statements, please throw them out of the debate and result to the concession by my opponent that in that there is a great abundance on Mars. The amount of minerals mined on Mars and bringing them back to Earth would be substantial and compltely offsets the harms, as I have previously shown. The amount of platanum, which is found in everyday electronics to military satellites and high speed technology which is the key area in why the ability to bring these resources back to the US for production is important. China would not declare war against the US as they are a highly valuable trade partner and, as I have previously brought up, this would likely result in another "Scramble for Mars" or Cold War-esk standoff between the two nations. The risks of not doing this mission would result in a US-Sino War over REMs which would lead to potential nuclear war and human extinction, this is a significant harm which needs to be avoided at all costs. ConclusionHere in this debate we have to look at the Utilitarian aspect of humanity. With humanity staring at extinction, whether it be through Global Warming already exceding the point of no return or nuclear war over REMs with China, one thing is obvious, humanity must do what it takes to survive, with that, the US must colonize Mars. It is the most Earth like planet, has the minerals and resources needed to prevent a global crisis and a Sino-US war over lack of REM exports. My opponent had ignored these key areas of the debate and I would like to ask the judges to consider these important impacts and harms in the case of what would happen if the US does not colonize Mars, which would result in human extinction.