The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 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: 5/8/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 308 times Debate No: 74986
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




Aliens existing is a very controversial topic for the scientific and religious community globally. This argument has been going on for hundreds of years and now i am going to ask my opponent to try and argue my points. First of all, if one doesn't have a belief that aliens exist, I believe that they are very ignorant to themselves and society. Now, the evidence that people have of them visiting in ancient times and even today is very compelling and factual.


I will argue that there is no sound proof or evidence that life outside of our planet exists.

My first point is that a majority of research in this subject is completely testimonial. These are assumptions formed when finding an odd rock in a desert, having an odd realistic dream, or even the phenomenon of UFO's, or Unidentified Flying Objects. In any scientific field, a testimonial piece of evidence is virtually completely unreliable for two reasons:

Placebo effect. This phenomenon is when the person can report results regardless of the actual effectiveness of treatment [1]. For instance, in a controlled clinical test, patients given a sugar pill instead of any actual medical treatment reported a rather surprising difference than the control group [2].

Secondly, the vividness effect. This occurrence is built of an idea of a person's hierarchy of trust. A person will first believe personal experience, then trusted testimonial, then sound evidence. A common example is when a supplements scientific research shows it to be ineffective, but a trusted friend claims it worked [1].

Works Cited:

Debate Round No. 1


Ignoring the fact that there are extraterrestrials in our inverse is completely ignorant. There is far too much evidence to deny this fact. One example would be strange and unexplained metals implanted in humans who claim to have been abducted. Scientists have studied these different metals and have come to no conclusion. There are also hieroglyphics and paintings that depict aliens and UFO's in the sky. Drake's equation: an equation that depicts the number of planets that are like Earth that can potentially have alien life. With this equation, there are about 1700 planets in our close galaxies. Therefore, societies like ours and civilizations like ours can exist. Maybe more advanced and maybe the opposite.


My opponent uses the basic argument that there is no proof against it, therefor it must exist.

The commonly accepted explanation for life on Earth is the primordial soup theory, in which nucleic acids were crated from inorganic compounds in Earth's atmosphere. These events are statistically rare, but I do accept that if a statistic is repeated infinitely then it must happen. However, simply because it can happen is not enough proof that it has happened.

On Earth, there are countless species but only one known species with self-awareness and capabilities of civilization. Given the time-span of human civilization, we have only just reached the stage where an unmanned craft has left the boundaries of our solar system.
Debate Round No. 2


Let's take in the account of hieroglyphics in Egypt, depicting technologies that we have invented in the last 80 years. These ancient drawings depict technology that looks exactly like technology we have today. They have drawn these "aircrafts", some look like extraterrestrial UFO's, and some depict our current airplanes, helicopters, etc. We can't forget Napoleon. Not the fact that he was a French leader, but had an implanted microchip in his body. This evidence of a foreign object goes along with his story of 'abduction' where he disappeared for a week, claiming he had been held prisoner by strange men. Now, i am not saying that these extraterrestrials have to be little or tall green men that have huge black eyes, but they could be just bacteria on other planets. Such as when the British scientist sent a balloon into space. When the balloon came back, it was covered with tiny, biological organisms. However, Lance Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin also have claimed to have seen aliens and alien spacecrafts whilst landing on the moon. Lance stated this in an interview that i cannot find the source of currently. He said, after landing on the moon, "They're here, they are on the other side of the crater, they're watching us." Now this alone is complete proof since he was one of the first people to go land on the moon.

Thank you for your time and debate arguments.


bman7720 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


My opponent has obviously given up in this argument hence his forfeit.


bman7720 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by HomelySherlock 1 year ago
Con should pretty much have this in the bag. Pro refuses to cite sources and makes ridiculous claims. Without verified hard evidence, probability is irrelevant - Con wins.
Posted by Titanium_Conservative1776 1 year ago
I may accept this debate if nobody else does. I believe that there may be life on another planet, but I'm not speculating about it as Pro is. If nobody else cares to accept within a few hours, then I will take the Con side.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit by Con, so conduct to Pro.