The Instigator
pariashi
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ragnar
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

Aliens are present

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Ragnar
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/1/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,063 times Debate No: 51361
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

pariashi

Pro

Rules:

Round One: I will post the rules and argument and my opponent will post their argument.
Round Two: I will post my rebuttals and my opponent will post their rebuttals.

Failure to follow rules will result in a 7 point deduction.

Here is my argument-
1. There are so many planets out there, there just has to be life on other worlds.

2. It is impossible to disprove the existence of ETs because you would have to search every inch of the universe, and other universes

3. They could be microscopic.

4. UFOs exist, The Tinley Park case is the best evidence

These UFOs were proven not to be flares, they have to be, a. Top Secret Government Craft, or aliens

5. The meteor found in Antarctica proves there was life on mars

http://www.telegraph.co.uk......

6. Europa may have life on it.

Conclusion since it is impossible to disprove the existence of life on other planets, it is not possible to say there is no life on other planets.

Probability suggests there is life on other planets.The universe is estimated to have 3e26 stars in the galaxy. That is an unimaginably large number. Assuming conservatively that there's 1 planet per star, and no moons, that's 3e26 chances for life to emerge in the universe.

But that's a very conservative number. After all, it's not as if each planet only gets one chance. The universe is 13.82 billion years old.[2] Let's cut off the first two billion years and assume there were no planets before that time. Still, that's 11.82 billion years that planets have been around. If we assume, conservatively, one chance at life every year, that's 3e26 times 11.82 chances at life. And if we assume chemistry is happening, not just in one place on a planet, but all over the planet, that raises the probablistic resources to a mind-blowing level.

So it would appear that there are enough probablistic resources in the universe to produce life no matter how unlikely life is prima facie.

But that is assuming nature is all on is own. However, if nature is not all on its own, then there's an even greater chance of life emerging. If there is a God known to be capable of producing life, and if this God produced life on earth for the sake of its own glory, and if this God had a passion for his glory, we should expect this God would want to produce life in more than one place in the universe. With the ability and the motive, there is at least some positive probability that God would produce life somewhere else in the universe.

So it is highly likely that there are aliens elsewhere in the universe.

NOTES

1. http://www.physics.org......

2. http://www.slate.com......

I leave it to Con to search the entire universe and show me it is all dead.
Ragnar

Con

This debate is clearly referring to intelligent extra-terrestrial life, being present on earth. This round I shall present a basic case against that motion, next round I shall obliterate pro’s case; or in the famous words of Marvin the Martian (a fictional character), “I'm going to blow it up; it obstructs my view of Venus” [1].

Argument:
As much as the possibility is fun to ponder, the likelihood is too remote to be of any significance.

I will concede that UFOs exist, as UFO stands for “Unidentified Flying Object.” It does not stand for “Disk-Shaped Aliens From Others Planets,” as clearly evidenced by letters in the acronym. Everything seen in the sky, is first a UFO, until such time as it is identified.

I admit there are witness accounts of anal probing, however I think alien connections to those rape fantasies are easily dismissed; as there is no logical reason for a species to invest in coming here (likely hundreds or thousands light-years of travel, which by all known science means hundreds or thousands of years spent traveling), with no better visible goal than to rape a very small number of people who can’t get pregnant from it [2]. As for aliens with nice goals, well if such friendly visits were as common as some people claim; there would be mountains of evidence by now.

Without evidence in favor of aliens, there can be no more than assertions to claim their existence. However from an objective standard, lack of evidence means until such time as significant evidence is provided, the resolution is to be rejected.

Sources:
[1] http://www.imdb.com...
[2] https://www.facebook.com...

Debate Round No. 1
pariashi

Pro

pariashi forfeited this round.
Ragnar

Con

Rebuttals of Arguments:
Here is my argument-“
Points 1-6, the “conclusion,” and the statement after the sources are all plagiarized from DDO user Mothman [3].

The rest seems to be plagiarized from DDO user philochristos [4].

Rebuttals to Sources:
“telegraph.co.uk”
The existence of this website proves nothing. It’s a news site with thousands of stories, you can’t just declare them all to be a source; that would be like claiming “all the .com websites, there’s got to be some evidence on one of them you can’t refute.”

“physics.org”
See above.

“Slate.com”
See above.

Summery:
This was clearly intended as a trap debate. Pro blatantly committed plagiarism, hoping to be called out for it in the first round; at which point he could cite the debate rules. When I did not fall into the trap, and came up with an argument about anal probes to which he lacked the ability to refute, he chickened out.

As my argument is the only one with a leg (or otherwise) to stand on, vote con.

Sources:
[3] http://www.debate.org...
[4] http://www.debate.org...

Debate Round No. 2
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by AbdullahAther 3 years ago
AbdullahAther
Any thing or specie about which you do not have any knowledge or idea is Allien....yes they are present because man can not know all thing's knowledge except by the will of GOD.....
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
@philochristos, I actually liked your argument. However when combined with Mothman's it became a self refuting Gish Gallop (alien UFO visitors are microscopic, and might just be top secret government planes...).
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Reminder, you've got 30 minutes to post your argument...
Posted by zthomas2017 3 years ago
zthomas2017
you're high
Posted by The_Scapegoat_bleats 3 years ago
The_Scapegoat_bleats
http://www.debate.org...

This is plagiarized.

Bad move.
Posted by philochristos 3 years ago
philochristos
Hmm. Some of this sounds really familiar.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 3 years ago
Actionsspeak
pariashiRagnarTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro plagiarized and forfeited.
Vote Placed by Geogeer 3 years ago
Geogeer
pariashiRagnarTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited.
Vote Placed by jh1234l 3 years ago
jh1234l
pariashiRagnarTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to con, as pro plagirized and forfeited. Sources to con, as pro's sources were copy-pasted (ddo changes the last characters of links to periods, which makes them fail to work if copy-pasted), and arguments to con as, while pro's arguments were convincing, they were not written by pro himself.