The Instigator
iMeriel16
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
Phoenix_Reaper
Con (against)
Losing
16 Points

Alien does exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/16/2011 Category: Science
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,914 times Debate No: 16549
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (9)

 

iMeriel16

Pro

Rule: You must prove that Aliens does not exist to win.
Phoenix_Reaper

Con

"Rule: You must prove that Aliens does not exist to win."

Since my opponent failed to provide a definition, and I love semantics;

Alien;

1 - strange and frightening; different from what you are used to [1]
2 - from another country or society; foreign [1]
3 - not usual or acceptable [1]

My opponent is implying that Aliens are people but by definition is it a sense or feeling or a different location.

I expect clarification on round two.

I pass it onto the Pro

[1]http://www.oxfordadvancedlearnersdictionary.com...
Debate Round No. 1
iMeriel16

Pro

I meant by aliens as an extraterrestrial being that does not exist in this planet. My point is Aliens/ET is real.
One evidence I found is in this link: http://www.cbsnews.com...
That meteorite came from the outer space that have some organism, which prove that Aliens are real.
Phoenix_Reaper

Con

"That meteorite came from the outer space that have some organism, which prove that Aliens are real."

These claims can only merely be speculated at the moment. Everything is questionable such as this. These meteors that are claimed to have smashed into Earth could have been over come with these organisms while it sat on Earth.

"does not exist in this planet."

A lot of creatures and organisms in this planet have yet to be uncovered especially those in the Ocean.

I may also use the Religious counter to your claim;

11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. 12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. 13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Genesis 6:11-14
Debate Round No. 2
iMeriel16

Pro

"These claims can only merely be speculated at the moment. Everything is questionable such as this. These meteors that are claimed to have smashed into Earth could have been over come with these organisms while it sat on Earth."

Your claiming on R2 that the organism on the meteorites that was discovered by NASA could have been an "Earth" organism. But based on my research, the complex filaments found embedded in the CI1 carbonaceous meteorites represent the remains of indigenous micro fossils of cyanobacteria. It states that the organism is not a earthly organism but a outer space bacteria because that bacteria can only live beyond this planet which is the outer space.

And you claimed to have a religious counter.

"11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. 12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. 13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Genesis 6:11-14"

But do you have a proof that there is a such thing as "God"? Lets assume that the bible was written by a popular writer that have wild imaginations long time ago and made a millions copy of his "bible" then sold or distribute to people.

Phoenix_Reaper

Con

"Your claiming on R2 that the organism on the meteorites that was discovered by NASA could have been an "Earth" organism. But based on my research, the complex filaments found embedded in the CI1 carbonaceous meteorites represent the remains of indigenous micro fossils of cyanobacteria."

You claim to have research but you have provided nothing.

"It states that the organism is not a earthly organism but a outer space bacteria because that bacteria can only live beyond this planet which is the outer space."

Since these are scientific claims and not skepticism you have again failed to back up your point with a source which weakens your argument. It is mere speculation that these "ETs" exist without any hard facts to back it up. One source is not nearly enough to prove something as profound as other life out in the universe.

"But do you have a proof that there is a such thing as "God"? Lets assume that the bible was written by a popular writer that have wild imaginations long time ago and made a millions copy of his "bible" then sold or distribute to people."

This is an entirely different debate but I do see the point you are attempting to make, but for that point to become useful the proof that God does not exist must be present. Even than in the dawn of the bible it was not made for money or distribution (via printing) due to the fact that neither of those existed during that time.

The Pro with lack of evidence to validate his claim is what has defeated him. Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by BillBonJovi 6 years ago
BillBonJovi
just like to say... Aliens could also come from parallel universes, not just outer space.
Posted by Diogenes_Of_The_Internet 6 years ago
Diogenes_Of_The_Internet
Rule: You must prove that Aliens does not exist to win.

The debate is already over before it began. You can't prove a negative.
Posted by Phoenix_Reaper 6 years ago
Phoenix_Reaper
It is hard to debate something you agree with. XD
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
That`s funny, we should have three way debates.
Posted by BlackVoid 6 years ago
BlackVoid
Cool! I was about to suggest defining "does" as the plural form of a baby deer. But this is fine too.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
I would have run this straight up on the classic Aliens from Aliens (Riiiiiiiiiiiiipley!).
Posted by Phoenix_Reaper 6 years ago
Phoenix_Reaper
BlackVoid - do not fret I love semantics.
Posted by BlackVoid 6 years ago
BlackVoid
"You cannot accept this challenge because you do not match the Instigator's age and/or rank criteria."

I'm sad. I was going to run semantics on every word of his round 1 post.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
``You must prove that Aliens does not exist to win.``

That should be interesting.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by OMGJustinBieber 6 years ago
OMGJustinBieber
iMeriel16Phoenix_ReaperTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con surprisingly did not challenge BOP. It was interesting to see Pro's highly diverse use of language spanning from "Alien does exist" to "But based on my research, the complex filaments found embedded in the CI1 carbonaceous meteorites represent the remains of indigenous micro fossils of cyanobacteria."
Vote Placed by ilovedebate 6 years ago
ilovedebate
iMeriel16Phoenix_ReaperTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was right when he stated that pro did not have any evidence to back up his "studies" but con did use religious evidence which he cannot prove is true as well
Vote Placed by Cobo 6 years ago
Cobo
iMeriel16Phoenix_ReaperTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I have to say. The Pro was abusive in the fact that he did not state any arguements till the third round.
Vote Placed by BillBonJovi 6 years ago
BillBonJovi
iMeriel16Phoenix_ReaperTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: better arguments from Pro and I think Con clearly knew that Pro meant by aliens as an extraterrestrial being before he said what he said in Round 1, so i'll give my conduct point to Pro
Vote Placed by tvellalott 6 years ago
tvellalott
iMeriel16Phoenix_ReaperTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: You know what? Fvck BOP on this debate. Con at least attempted to make arguments throughout, while Pro didn't write more than 2 sentences until the 3rd round. S
Vote Placed by BennyW 6 years ago
BennyW
iMeriel16Phoenix_ReaperTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro seems to have a less than satisfactory grasp of the English language and also doesn't seem to argue to support his point except for the rock.
Vote Placed by XimenBao 6 years ago
XimenBao
iMeriel16Phoenix_ReaperTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro set a high BoP, Con failed to either meet or dispute it.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
iMeriel16Phoenix_ReaperTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Normally, I'd give Pro the conduct for Con trying to semantic this debate, however, since Pro set an extremely high BOP, that neutralizes the conduct. Con never did provide any arguements, or decent refutations and merely said that 1 link was not enough.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
iMeriel16Phoenix_ReaperTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: The OP made the BoP clear, Con had to proves "aliens does not exist" not simply attempt to refute Pro, and certaintly not simlpy demand sources 3:1 for Pro.