The Instigator
hhhtylerw
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Wylted
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Do Aliens 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Wylted
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/19/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 495 times Debate No: 55011
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

hhhtylerw

Pro

Here is the format of the debate:
Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Opening Statement
Round 3: Rebuttal
Round 4: Response
Round 5: Closing Statement

If you can, state your sources.

I am arguing that aliens do exist.
Wylted

Con

I accept. My opponent is referring to extraterrestrial aliens, from outer space. Any reference to immigrants would be ridiculous, because the existence of immigrants isn't controversial and wouldn't be assumed from the title of the debate.
Debate Round No. 1
hhhtylerw

Pro

The universe is infinite, we have no proof that it ends after a certain number of lightyears. In an infinite amount of planets, in an infinite amount of galaxies, how can it be possible for us to be the only life forms. Aliens may not be as advanced as we are to today, but they may cells in the beginning stages of evolution. Also aliens could be more advanced than us, while our ancestors were crawling onto land for the first time they could have been walking on two legs. You may say that if they are real why haven't we received any sort of radio signal? Probably because they can't send anything across an entire galaxy, much less multiple galaxies.

This is my argument you may begin yours.
Wylted

Con

My opponent didn't really do much arguing, and did a lot of speculating. This is basically my opponent's argument:

P1- The universe is really big.

P2- The odds of intelligent life existing in such a vast space is very likely.

C- Intelligent life exists on other planets.

My opponent's argument is actually a really simplified version of the Drake equation. Frank Drake came up with the equation a number of years ago to estimate the likelihood of intelligent life currently existing that should be able to communicate with Earth.

The problem with the Drake equation is thy all the numbers plugged into it are nothing more than guesses. The entire argument is nothing more than math using a bunch of guessed numbers. The guessed numbers could be extremely too large or too small or anything in between.

The argument wasn't really formulated to prove the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life. It was formulated to stimulate intelligent discussion between interested scientists.

Here is an interesting quote from Michael Crichton.

"The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. [...] As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from "billions and billions" to zero. An expression that can mean anything, means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless..."

If you look at the Drake equation and run it's numbers an interesting thing happens. It's something called the Fermi Paradox.

It states that if the Drake equation is right aliens should have made contact with us, but as far as we can tell this has never happened.

So in summary my opponent's entire argument rests on assumptions. We have no ideal what the likelihood of intelligent life existing elsewhere is. If my opponent can some how give the Drake Equation some solid numbers that go beyond mere speculation than perhaps we can apply Occam's Razor to show that intelligent life likely exists elsewhere in the universe, but until he does so, his argument is nothing more than speculation stemming from the gut.

Please reexamine my opponents 2nd premise. The premise rests on an assumption. Until he gives that premise some solid footing, he hasn't made a logically sound argument.
Debate Round No. 2
hhhtylerw

Pro

hhhtylerw forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
hhhtylerw

Pro

hhhtylerw forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
hhhtylerw

Pro

hhhtylerw forfeited this round.
Wylted

Con

Vote con.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Jam, no you wouldn't.
Posted by jamccartney 2 years ago
jamccartney
If I were Pro, I would win this debate for sure. It would be an easy win.
Posted by Kartikey 2 years ago
Kartikey
@hhtylerw - Your argument is say that they COULD exist.And since you're pro the burden of proof is on you.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
I saw your other debate. Please take your time in formulating your arguments and taking the debate seriously. Good luck.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
hhhtylerwWyltedTied
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: Wylted said to vote Con... so I am. Alright, seriously now - let's do this: Conduct - Con. Pro forfeited R3,R4,& R5. This is never appropriate conduct for a debate, and for that, Con receives Conduct points. S & G - Tie. Neither made mistakes. Arguments - Con. Pro failed to rebut anything once Con showed how Pro's logic was ultimately flawed. This doesn't mean that there literally are no aliens out there, but rather that Pro failed to uphold his BOP as instigator by showing that Aliens do, in fact, exist. Sources - Tie. Neither used any.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
hhhtylerwWyltedTied
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: In forfeiting many rounds, Pro failed to provide any explanations for any of Con's counter-arguments.