The Instigator
Pro (for)
5 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Do Aliens Exist?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/1/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,006 times Debate No: 66129
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (1)




I believe that aliens do exist. Exist - have objective reality or being. You cannot back out of the debate once accepted. Con will be presenting evidence disproving the existence of aliens.
1) Acceptance
2) Stating side of story
3) Rebuttals
4) Closing statement


I accept.
Debate Round No. 1



According to Steven Kane (scientist at NASA) the existence of aliens is almost impossible to deny. Our galaxy contains a minimum of 100 billion planets. Of those, most are small planets like ours. Statistically, every star would have at least one planet. This statement proves that chances of life and habitable planets in our galaxy is very high. There is estimated to be a lot more small planets than big planets in our galaxy alone, which helps prove alien existence. This does not even take in question the other 500 billion galaxies in the universe, which will not only increase the possibility of aliens existing in our galaxy, but other galaxies also. According to NBC there is an estimated amount of 8.8 billion habitable planets that exist in the Milk Way alone. 1 out of 5 stars in the Milky Way are very similar to the sun with a possible 8 percent error range.

Credible Encounters

Kelly-Hopkinsville Encounter- In 1955 3 floating men had attacked the Sutton farm, but afterwards were scared off by getting shot with shotguns, yet did not have any effect. The Sutton family called the police and they came over finding bullet holes in the walls and windows. According to the police the Suttons were very sober and genuinely horrified. Neighbors reported hearing gun shots and seeing lights in the sky. The police had found no evidence, so they decided to leave. The aliens had arrived almost immediately after they left. The family and the aliens had a stand off with the aliens for the entire night, but the aliens had left before dawn. Police reported that the description of the aliens and the events had matched among the family members, they told a consistent story, and no evidence of a hoax was discovered. The Air Force captain claimed that the beings were either an owl or a painted monkey that escaped from the circus. This theory is ridiculous since if either would have been shot, then blood would come out, the fur of the monkey and the feathers of the owl, would give the apparent smooth silvery texture of the Aliens skin seem messy. To this day there is no reasonable explanation to this event, but Aliens.

Zeta Reticuli Incident- This is perhaps the first and most famous alien encounter. Betty and Barney Hill had been driving on a very isolated road, and noticed an odd shining disc. Barney looked into the window of the disc and claimed he saw humanoid creatures staring back at him. Apparently the Aliens controlled Barney and Betty, and made them unable to control their own actions. Bottom line the aliens had showed the couple a bizarre map and told them they were in a certain area. Betty told the police that the aliens were from the Zeta Reticuli, which was discovered by science in 1996. According to police reports the couple was acting very sane and afraid.



There is no proof for the existence of aliens, there's just stores like the Kelly-Hopkinsville Encounter that are most likely not real, but instead a lie.

There is no real proof or disproof for the existence of aliens, but there are reasons why aliens probably don't exist.

1. If the government knew, or a number of people knew aliens existed, why aren't there more people coming forward trying to capitalize on it by selling books, movie deals, or interview time?

2. How come all the videos are blurry clips that only last a few minutes?

3. How come whenever a picture is released, only one is released and it's usually a little blurry. You would think that someone who just happened to have a camera around when a spaceship flies by would take more than one picture. And on top of that, you'd think they'd claim rights to it and sell the pictures?

4. How come there aren't occurrences that are caught on film while filming live on TV. You would think they'd capture that occasionally?

5. How come all aliens look the same, as in movie aliens.
Debate Round No. 2


My opponent posted no scientific or factual evidence to prove the alien encounters I had chosen to be a hoax or posted any theories that would disprove aliens. I will begin my rebuttal now.

1) I never said that the government knew aliens existed. The people I had chosen were reported to be terrified, so there would be very little reason to make this up. It is also basically impossible to make a 200 page book out of a single encounter. Also less people trying to capitalize is a strong reason for alien existence, because they would lack the experience of the ordeal and alien stories often are not very popular.

2), and also most alien reports do not even last that long.

3) Again, most people who encounter aliens report that they were not there for long, and not claiming rights to the photo can strengthen the chance of alien existence, because the fear evoked from the victims would make them want to put no copyright claims on the photo, so their story would go around faster, and convince people who do not believe in aliens believe in them.

4) Aliens are reported to be extremely smart, so they would probably want to stay away from crowded places where they are easy to spot.

5) That also strengthens the existence of aliens, because we are sure through personal accounts, what they look like, and often aliens do have a clich" appearance, which helps these accounts of extra-terrestrial beings connect with one another.

My opponent technically did not follow the rules, because he placed his rebuttal on the second step. I am from a non-English speaking country so be easy on me for having decent to sub par grammar.


Yes, I didn't leave any evidence or proof to prove the alien encounters you had chosen to be false, but you didn't leave any evidence that proved the encounters were true yourself.

1) In my previous argument I never said that you said the government knew aliens existed, what I did say is " If the government knew". It was just a reason why aliens probably didn't exist. And yes your right that "its basically impossible to make a 200 page book out of a single encounter", But the books or movies people would make would probably not be on a single encounter, but several.

2) There's allot of videos out there that are lies. For an example, Don't believe all the videos you see on YouTube.

3) Just because more people are convinced that aliens are real doesn't strengthen the existence of aliens.

4) You haven't shown any proof that aliens are smart let alone that aliens exist.

5) Just because all aliens look the same, as in movie aliens, doesn't strengthen the chance of the existence of aliens.
Debate Round No. 3


This is the final round of the debate where we finish our debates. Seeing as how my opponent has had a blatant disregard for the rules, and probably did not read my debates too complexly. I say this because he asked me to show proof, yet I had shown proof for #2 since that is only an assumption made by my opponent, and for #4 and #5 he obviously did not read my previous round. I would like to say that Aliens are intelligent, since they have created ufos that can travel through space at hyper speeds, and he thinks that I posted no evidence supporting alien existence, which is implying that he never really read the first paragraph, which I had explained why the alien encounters were real. Overall, my opponent has represented no scientific, or logical evidence to deny the existence of aliens, and has shown an extreme disregard for the rules. I will say again that we are posting our closing statement. I had to word this oddly, since I needed to address some things, and to hopefully remind my opponent that this is not the rebuttal section.

I thank my opponent for the debating, and good luck to he/she. (I was not trying to be mean. Sorry if I sounded like a mean person).

Vote for PRO!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Thank you, good debate.

Vote con!
Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by thebeliver11 1 year ago
are we actually having a debate on this ????i understand the religious people with god and all that but for those who are not religious you just don't believe ? look when you think off the universe we live in it is never ending and in our universe it is counted that there is 8 possible civilizations out there , so please look at the facts.
Posted by thebeliver11 1 year ago
are we actually having a debate on this ????i understand the religious people with god and all that but for those who are not religious you just don't believe ? look when you think off the universe we live in it is never ending and in our universe it is counted that there is 8 possible civilizations out there , so please look at the facts.
Posted by ShadowHawk555 1 year ago
God is not a life form he exists outside of space and time and therefor is not an alien
Posted by WillDC22 1 year ago
a. god exists
b. he created the earth
god would be an alien, because the word alien refers to life that does not come from earth
Posted by wolf24 1 year ago
No he's not.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
god is an alien
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 1 year ago
I'm definitely going to follow this one. Looking forward to seeing the proof you present pro, best of luck!
Posted by james14 1 year ago
How can you "prove" that something does not exist? Would it be enough to simply argue that there is no evidence for aliens? Is the BoP on Pro or Con?
Posted by dtaylor971 1 year ago

If the BoP is on pro and pro only- Pro must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that aliens exist. If con makes one irrefutable and solid point, then pro would lose, since he did not meet his BoP without reasonable doubt.

If the BoP is shared- Both sides try to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that their side is correct. Whoever achieves their BoP better will win the debate. No one point can settle the debate, and it creates a level playing field.

If the BoP is on con and con only- Con must negate pro's point beyond reasonable doubt, and prove his own. This is generally the toughest, since pro has arguments in mind that could beat con. Pro must only make one good, highly likely point to defeat con.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 1 year ago
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I felt like con left many arguments un-refuted. And I'm pretty sure "closing statement" did not mean giving up a round (since that would mean con losses two rounds of debating). Nevertheless, with sources and unrefuted arguments, pro wins.