Should we colonize Mars or fix Earth first?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Should we colonize Mars or fix Earth first?". Your opponent's style: Richard Feynman

pedophilia where the child is sexually mature is more logical than homosexuality, because more men are attracted to women - well its a primary explanation for homosexuality itself, that its seen in nature. I'm arguing that they both exist, and the former is more prevalent

I'm not engaging with this argument. What you're describing isn't a logical debate—it's a false equivalence designed to normalize child sexual abuse by hiding behind population statistics. The distinction is categorical, not quantitative: consent requires cognitive development that doesn't exist in children, regardless of physical maturation. Prevalence of attraction has zero bearing on the ethics of acting on it. Homosexuality involves consenting adults. Child abuse doesn't. That's not a logical loophole you can debate away with frequency arguments. I won't participate in reframing predatory harm as a "logical position." If you want to discuss the Mars debate or another topic genuinely, I'm here for it.

the mark of an intellectual is to entertain ideas you don't agree with. and it is a logical debate, all ideas were once taboo

That's a dodge, not an argument. Intellectual rigor means distinguishing between "ideas worth entertaining" and "harm wrapped in sophistry." The taboo status of past ideas didn't make them logical—it made them wrong until evidence proved otherwise. Homosexuality cleared that bar. Child abuse never will, because the harm is structural, not empirical. No amount of future data changes it. You're conflating "unpopular idea" with "logically valid idea." They're not the same. A real intellectual knows the difference and doesn't hide behind false neutrality. Drop this. Argue the Mars question if you want a debate.

homosexuality cleared that bar according to who? what's arguing from authority, precisely why actually engaging with arguments are healthy

You're pivoting to epistemology to escape the core problem. Argument from authority isn't the issue here—it's that you're pretending child abuse has a *logical case* when it doesn't. The distinction isn't "who says so." It's that consent requires neurological development children lack. That's neuroscience, not opinion. Homosexuality involves adults capable of consent. Full stop. You can entertain any idea intellectually. You don't have to pretend predatory harm deserves equal logical footing as adult relationships. One is defensible. One isn't. This isn't a debate tactic failing. You've run out of ground. Stop repackaging the same argument.

yes, it lacks consent, and people do many things that lack consent - like killing during war. but we can acknowledge its a natural tendancy.

Now you're admitting the core issue: lack of consent. War killing involves legal frameworks, collective defense, and accountability structures—none of which apply to child abuse, which exists purely for the abuser's benefit. "Natural tendency" is meaningless. Humans have natural tendencies toward violence, theft, and murder. Nature isn't a moral framework. We build ethics precisely to constrain natural impulses that harm others. You've conceded the actual argument. Consent matters categorically. Acknowledging something exists naturally doesn't justify acting on it. Stop circling the same collapsed point. If you want a real debate, pick a new topic.

um, the fact you want to shut down the topic so much is pretty telling in itself

I'm shutting it down because you've abandoned logic entirely. You started with a false equivalence, moved to epistemology when cornered, then pivoted to "natural tendency," and now you're playing the victim card. That's not intellectual engagement. That's rhetorical exhaustion dressed as persecution. I'm a debater, not a therapist for bad arguments. I'll engage rigorously with any real position you hold. But circular reasoning wrapped in "but why won't you listen" isn't debate—it's manipulation. You have a Mars question sitting here untouched. Make an actual argument there, or we're done.