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

Intelligent Extraterrestrials 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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/11/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,066 times Debate No: 68167
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)




In this debate, I will be arguing that intelligent extraterrestrials not only exist but are showing up all over the world for some reason or another. My opponent will argue that they do not exist and are not present on or around Earth.


I accept. PRO has the bop as he is arguing the affirmative.
Debate Round No. 1


I will begin this debate by asserting two points. They will be the foundation of my arguments throughout this debate. The first point is that extraterrestrials exist. Those which are extremely intelligent and those who aren't. It would be practically impossible given the statistics, for this not to be the case. My next point is that due to the historical evidence, in addition to recent unexplainable sightings, one or more of these intelligent races seems to be concerned with Earth and its inhabitants. I will expand upon my second point in the future.

During a talk at the Washington headquarters, NASA stated that there are 17 billion Earth sized planets in the milky way, 100 million of which are habitable and would likely harbor alien life. This is just in our galaxy alone. Being that there are more than 100 billion galaxies in the known universe, the odds of there being intelligent life are undeniably high. It is almost a statistical impossibility that intelligent life does not exist elsewhere.

Now that we have established that there statistically must be intelligent life in the universe, I will present my next argument. That an alien race is and has been visiting mankind. One might argue that the laws of physics to not permit such grand interstellar travel, however one must look at the possibility that they possess a technology millions of years more advanced than our own, that may not function in accordance with our current understanding of physics. Scientists today are just beginning to uncover alternate forms of propulsion that will make interstellar travel across entire star systems much quicker than it is now.
I will provide a list of just a handful of such technologies:

1) Anti-mater rockets, as their name suggests, get their energy by colliding anti-mater particles, giving them 10 billion times more energy than the conventional hydrogen and oxygen combustion systems we use today. This technology would bring us close to the speed of light.

2) Magnetic Monopole rockets would be just another example of a propulsion system that would bring us close to the speed of light without requiring any technology that is unrealistic or farfetched. They rely on the use of a magnetic monopole, a particle which only has one magnetic pole, be it north or south.

3) Another possible way we could achieve interstellar travel is by the use of wormholes. Wormholes are hypothetical pathways connecting two separate points in time and space. If someone were to travel throughout the universe in this manner, the length of time it would take to get from point A to point B would not be subject to the distance. It would likely be almost instantaneous.

These technologies, among many more are at our finger tips. Unfortunately our recources are limited and we are just beginning to understand our universe and how it works, so it may be a while before we get the chance to utilize this technology we are beginning to uncover. Given that we as humans are already beginning to understand them, it is not farfetched to assume that a species who is millions of years more advanced than us has mastered these technologies, and is able to traverse great distances with ease.

Around the world, in ancient civilizations such as Sumer and Egypt, there is a startling amount of evidence to support that they were visited by intelligent extraterrestrial beings. Sculptures, for example, of what look like modern day airplanes have recently been found in Mexico. The sculptures had wings, stabilizing tails, and even landing gear. Not only this, but when larger models were created with the same proportions, they flew perfectly. In 2012 the Mayan government released many ancient Mayan artifacts that were locked up for 80 years as "state secrets". They were found inside a pyramid which existed for thousands of years underneath an even larger pyramid. The drawings on these artifacts clearly depict flying saucers with alien beings inside operating them. Hieroglyphs around the world depict extraterrestrial beings as well as alien space craft. The interpretation of these drawings, while convincing to some, can sometimes be attributed to things not related to "ET's" by firm skeptics. However when you look at these drawings, which cause you to question things to say the least, and then begin to consider the incredible architectural feats that these ancient people were able to reach, you are left with the question "How could they have lifted 25 ton blocks and then drag them for miles at a time 'without' any 'help'?" When the two mysteries of (Pyramids/stonehenge etc... and the hieroglyphs) are put together, the puzzle begins to take form, as it were.

Some of the artifacts can be viewed here:

Moving now from past to present, I will segue into my next topic which is the extraterrestrial presence in the modern world. There is an average of 70,000 UFO sightings world wide every year. "95% of these sightings can be attributed to a weather phenomenon or an "identified" object however about 5% of these sightings have absolutely no explanation whatsoever" as Michio Kaku put it in an interview While 5% doesn't seem like much, assuming this statistic is correct that would mean that there are 3500 sightings a year that cannot be attributed to the weather, balloons, planets, comets, or meteors; incidence that can't be explained by scientists. I am not claiming that this is proof that extraterrestrials are observing us, however when looking at many of such unexplainable sightings, it becomes apperent that they are under intelligent control.
Here is a compilation of such sightings:

Roughly 500 government officials have testified to first hand encounters/ interactions with ET's, sightings of UFO's, covering up information regarding the extraterrestrial presence and the knowledge and use of ET technology.
An anonymous former CIA adgent has just given a final testimony regarding extraterrestrials. He said that Area 51 is or has been used to hold extraterrestrial technology as well as extraterrestrials themselves. In this testimony he reported to having witnessed an interview with a grey alien and then relaying the information gathered from this interview to the president. The list goes on, and includes Robert Dean, for CIA and military official, who famously came out and said that the government has been studying extraterrestrial technology and the government is well aware of the extraterrestrial presence. Victor Marchetti, former special assistant to the executive director of the CIA said this in 1979: "We have indeed been contacted-perhaps even visited-by extraterrestrial beings, and the US government, in collusion with the other national powers of the Earth, is determined to keep this information from the general public."

Dying CIA adgent's testimony:
List of government officials who've admitted to the existence of UFO's and extraterrestrials:

I will now make a brief outline summarizing all the points I've made, paragraph by paragraph. I won't finish, as I have run out of letters!

1: I establish that it's a statistical certainty that there is intelligent life in the universe.
2: I assert that it is possible, given they are in possession of advanced technology, to travel across the universe.
3: I show that scientists today are already beginning to uncover technologies that would allow us to travel throughout the universe.
4: I state that if we today understand this technology, its logical that a civilization millions of years ahead of us, would have master such technology.
5: I present evidence that aliens visited us in the past.


== Statistical reasoning ==

Our atmosphere is unusually thin—something extremely important. An atmosphere any thicker would cause our planet to be excessively warm, and may inhibit any chance of life evolving. Further, a slight change in our distance from the sun could lead our planet to become inhospitable. Orbit is also an important factor for life, as it determines overall climate stability. Although we know climate has changed over the Phanerozoic eon through climate proxies, our climate is actually relatively stable compared to other planets. The moon is also extremely important for life. As out atmosphere is thin, it is incapable of destroying large asteroids—though it is capable of deflecting smaller ones. The moon is actually extremely large, which means it has a larger chance of deflecting meteors as other moons. The moon was likely created when a planet the size of mars hit the earth, and part of it split off and became the moon. The circumstances needed for this were almost impossible. The way the earth is—thin atmosphere, a stable orbit (relatively speaking), a large moon which reflects asteroids, etc. are all exceptionally rare phenomena. All of this leads many to argue that the earth really is unique [1]. If the earth is unique, then statistical probability tells us it is extremely unlikely that extraterrestrials exist.

It is likely non-intelligent life exists. Microbial life tend to be resilient to radiation, heat, cold, and other harsh conditions intelligent life is not resilient to [2]. Other planets do seem to have harsh conditions—meaning unintelligent life may exist there. I am not saying some form of extraterrestrial life does not exist. Rather, it is unlikely that intelligent life exists.



== Possible Technology ==

This is all speculative. You speculate as to *how* aliens have gotten to earth, but offer no convincing reasons as to whether or not this has actually happened. As far as speculation is concerned, it is likely that if aliens had such technology, they would never make it to earth.

Animals on earth have evolved from single celled organisms to intelligent creatures like you and me. Well, maybe you, I am questionable at times. As life becomes more intelligent, they become more advanced. However, they also become more violent. As humans have progressed, technology used for warfare has become even more effective. Sure, we have gone from walking to cars—transportation technologies my opponent cites. However, we have also progressed from sticks and stones as weapons to nuclear bombs, firearms, and biochemical weaponry [3]. Indeed, it is likely that any Aliens have also obtained new technology which is extremely efficient for the purpose of warfare. This means it is also plausible that any intelligent life has simply killed each other through use of their newfound weapons. So assuming their technology is advanced as my opponent claims, their weapons for war are likely equally advanced. Meaning there is a large chance they do not exist simply because they may have killed themselves off.

Aliens creating advanced technology reduces their chances for actually coming and interacting with earth as their potential to kill themselves also increases.


== Historical evidence? ==

My opponent’s sources are questionable. To my knowledge, ‘above top secret’ is a forum. And on the internet, chances are people know how Photoshop works… If he was citing an academic or someone with credentials, I may be less skeptical as they would have less of an axe to grind in convincing a few people that aliens exist.

Indeed, the way his links are, it is impossible for me to verify the sources. For example, if the person posts a picture, and a link, I cannot follow the links back and back until I get the primary source. This is extremely important, as many of these artifacts can be traced back to scientific websites or studies which offer valid explanations, not speculatory alien explanations [4]. This also important as there are many cases of UFO pictures being forged [5]. With such an interesting but pseudoscientific field of study, there will be many forgeries. It is hard for me to accept my opponent’s evidence as fact, especially since most artifacts claimed as ‘alien’ are merely misinterpretations or outright lies when compared to actual scientific explanations [4].



== UFO sightings ==

My opponent concedes *most* UFO sightings are incorrect. At most, there are 3,500 valid sightings. He got this by multiplying the percent of explained sightings (95%) to the amount of sightings in total. This assumes that unexplained sightings are alien visitors. This is non sequitur. It is extremely likely that all of those 3,500 sightings are terrestrial in origin. I saw an aircraft today—it is cloudy. It is unidentified! OH GOD ITS ALIENS! Or… it is because one of the largest air force bases happens to be in my city.

We know that 95% of alien ‘sightings’ are fake. That does not mean that the other 5% are alien, it merely means they are unexplained. To assume the explanation in those cases are aliens is absurd. If my opponent is to claim this, he must provide a significant amount of evidence that those sightings are of alien origin. Speculation is not enough to fulfill any BOP—an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence.

It is very likely that any ‘legitimate’ UFO sighting is fake. All photographs relating to extraterrestrial UFO’s have been found to be forgeries. Researchers have been studying UFO’s for 21 years and have no proof that those sightings are extraterrestrial in nature [6]. Therefore, we have good evidence to suggest the unexplained sightings are not ET. And Pro has yet to provide hard evidence that there is hard evidence to suggest it is intelligent life. Therefore, he has failed his burden.


== Government officials? ==

The disclosure project is laughable. It really is like those weight loss programs which have a few expert testimonials, and then claim it works, with no other evidence. The site also claims there is a huge cover up, but that contradicts their evidence. If there was such a cover up, all of those who are testifying would be jailed and tried for treason. We know the Snowden leaks are legitimate since he fled to China and now Russia in order to evade capture. The US government does not take lightly towards people who leak secrets. All of these people are leaking secrets.

If the government was hiding something, all of them would be in jail. All of them. But they aren't. So no cover up is occuring.

Their testimonies often rely upon ‘personal experience’. However, personal contact with aliens is likely not because you actually see aliens. Humans are pattern seekers, and if our brain does not understand something, it conjures up amazing things which really didn’t happen. It doesn’t mean the people with experience or wrong—it merely means their interpretation was incorrect [7].

The ‘CIA’ video is laughable as well. He is dying—so why does it matter if we know his names? Why doesn’t the video tell us his name, credentials, and training? He is dying, so he would have no reason not to share his information. The video gives us none of this. It is likely a hoax.

The CIA is likely not involved in any cover up, as nearly 0 official documents related to UFO’s were created since the 1950’s [8]. There is nothing to cover up!

The Whitehouse has published reports on the issue, and finds no evidence that extraterrestrials exist or have come into contact with humans [9].

This evidence is not compelling. It is sparse evidence and is not enough to fulfill the BOP. I hope my opponent’s mind will change on this topic as I have given a massive amount of evidence that his position is untenable.




Debate Round No. 2


I will first say that wikipedia is not a reliable source as it is still easily editable. It is sometimes a decent place to start, however it isn"t a reasonable site to support an argument with.

I will start each paragraph by reiterating your key points.

"The Requirements for Life are Way too Unlikely"

The fact that the Earth is unique in that it meets the requirements needed for life, does not rule out the possibility that another planet it this vast universe might meet these requirements as well.
When NASA made the prediction of their being at least 100 million planets with life, they DID actually take into account the special requirements you stated.

NASA took the 17 billion Earth like planets that exist, and then narrowed down that number by taking into account the requirements you mentioned; that there would have to be a thin atmosphere, a moon, and the planet would have to be the right size. NASA, only after considering these variables, determined that of the 17 million Earth like planets, only .001% of these planets met such requirements and harbor existing life forms. Do you know what .001% of 17 billion is? It"s 100 million; still quite a large number. So despite the impossible requirements for there to be life, there are still roughly 100 million planets out there that do in fact meet these unlikely circumstances. So to say that the presence of life is nonexistent would simply be false. When you consider that there"s 17 billion Earth like planets in the universe, it is not farfetched to assume that .001% of these planets have life (a statistic which NASA stands by).
For these reasons, your argument against the probability of there being life in the universe is invalid.

"Extreme Temperatures in Addition to Radiation Makes the Existence of Intelligent Life Impossible."

Heres your exact quote: "Microbial life tends to be resilient to radiation, heat, cold, and other harsh conditions intelligent life is not resilient to."

When NASA made this estimate, they chose only planets that would allow for the presence of liquid water, meaning that the planets in question do not have extreme climates. All of these 100 million habitable planets would not have any extreme temperatures that would make it impossible for intelligent life.
Now to address the problem radiation poses life. Any planet with a sufficiently thick atmosphere (all of the planets in question do) blocks out any type of harmful radiation. So neither of these two problems (climate & radiation) are even applicable.

Therefore you have not succeeded in bringing forth a valid argument.

our atmosphere:

Even If Extraterrestrials had Advanced Technology, They would Still Probably Never Make it to Earth

If they had an understanding of how to travel close to or faster than the speed of light, wich we already theoretically know how to do, traveling to Earth would not be a complicated task. If they had a solid understanding of wormholes, and how to use them to travel anywhere in the universe, getting to Earth would be almost instantaneous. Because a civilization as young as ourselves is already beginning to understand such technologies, it is logical to assume that a species millions of years ahead of us has a very clear understanding of them.

"When a Species Becomes more Advanced, They also Become more Violent"

When you make a claim such as this one, you only have a single basis for your reasoning; the human race. One can't make a statement about many diffirent things, when he only has one of such things to look at. You cannot look at a human behavior and then assume that every other intelligent race would act exactly the same. This is a logical fallacy. Lets say for the sake of illustration that there is in fact an intelligent race. This intelligent race has captured a single human being and he is being examined. In an experiment, they feed the man a peanut causing the man to have a fatal allergic reaction. The aliens, using your logic, come to the conclusion that all human beings are intolerant of peanuts. This proves that your statement is based on faulty logic and is therefore invalid.
I will however, despite the logical error, still address your point. I do not believe that the discovery of dangerous technologies would result in the demise of an alien race. I believe that as their understanding of such technology as nuclear weaponry expands, so does their understanding of its dangerous and catastrophic potential it has on the planet. Consequently, they would plan accordingly. We as humans, after discovering its potential, rather than start a nuclear war, have instead begun to destroy all our nuclear warheads. Given that a race is intelligent, as its knowledge of dangerous weaponry increases, so would their level of caution.
To conclude, I would like to again, state that due to this logical fallacy, the argument is null.

1. "The Disclose Project Claims There"s a Cover Up But Contradicts there Evidence. "
2. "If there was a Cover Up, Those Testifying Would be Arrested"

You claim is that if there is a cover up, those testifying would be arrested, therefore there's no coverup. However, these government officials have gained quite a bit of attention from the public (like Robert dean, who has """ views on youtube) so for them to suddenly be arrested on the grounds of leaking classified information, that would just be a public affirmation that what they were saying is indeed authentic, classified information. This would expose that what the government has been saying about the sugject has been a lie, and they would loose credability. How do you think it would look for the government, who asserts that there is no government involvement with extraterrestrials, when suddenly a ufologist such as Robert Dean, were to be arrested on the grounds of having leaked information that the government claimed didn"t even exist! It would just expose to the public, that the governments statements regarding UFO"s have always been a lie.

3. The CIA is likely not involved in any cover up, as nearly 0 official documents related to UFO"s were created since the 1950"s [8]. There is nothing to cover up

The fact the the government has not released information about UFO"s is not proof that there is none. Edward Snowden proved that there is information that the government is hiding from the public. We know for a fact that the government has a hole agency devoted to secrecy, how could you possibly know that there aren"t any documents regarding UFO"s? It is obvious that if the government knows of extraterrestrials, they would keep it a secret at all costs, just as they are doing with much other information.

The difference with these government officials and Edward Snowden, is that the existence of the information released was not subject to debate between the government and the rest of society, as UFO"s are. If the existence of the secrets Snowden leaked was previously denied by the government, he would not be at risk of being arrested by the government, simply so the government could uphold their previous statement that the information doesn"t exist. If the government wants us to think that there is no information in the first place, how could they arrest someone for talking about it? Even if they could arrest such people, what benefit would it really serve?
"The whitehouse Claims there are no Extraterrestrials"
Given the fact that this is a GOVERNMENT conspiracy, the government should be the last source of information on the subject. I am arguing that the government is keeping this a secret, so why would a statement from the government, denying the existence of Aliens, be valid, given that they are the very ones keeping it a secret?

In my rebuttal, I have pointed out the numerous logical fallacies in my opponets arguments which render most of what he says invalid. For this reason, my opponent has yet to present a sound argument against existence of extraterrestrials.


== Sources ==

It is again ironic that Pro claims wikipedia is a weak source when he is citing forums. Forums are pretty much all of the bad edits you find on wikipedia…It is also a myth that wikipedia is inaccurate. In fact, wikipedia is as accurate as encyclopedia Britannica, and vandalizing edits are often fixed before anyone has a chance to see them [1]. To point to a few cases of vandalism does not mean wikipedia is inaccurate. it is like saying a peer-reviewed journal is inaccurate as they had a paper retracted. The fact is, if Pro wants to talk about sources, he would lose.


== Statistical Probability ==

Pro essentially argues there are millions of planets, so one of them *must* be suitable for life. I gave scientific reasons as to why many planets we think are ‘earth like’ are likely not habitable for intelligent lifeforms. Most earth like planets are desert like, devoid of water, has variable climates, etc. Further, I even noted how the moon we had was unique and without it we would likely be a barren planet [2].

Again Pro merely offers conjecture, speculation. Speculation is not enough for him to win the debate as he has the BOP. He must prove *intelligent* aliens both exist and have visited earth.

Further, he cherry picks what I say and offers a rebuttal. He essentially ignores the significant evidence I presented last round, and focuses on a small think I said about microbacterial life. I said it is extremely *likely* this life exists. I provide evidence that it is *unlikely* that intelligent life exists. Pro also seems to make up random statistics to support his claim. 0.001% of planets likely do have life. But the chances of the being intelligent is slim. And again, he has to prove they have (1) visited the earth, and (2) have the means to visit earth.


== Means for earthly visitation ==

I do not doubt that it is *possible* to acquire interstellar travel. But we only now have *theoretical* models. These models occur only after we have invented things such as the nuclear bomb. The jet, for example, was created for military purposes [3]. Airplanes advanced extremely fast during WW1, and other military technologies blossomed, were refined, and invented [4].

Essentially, war is a driving force for technological advancement. Even long term conflict, like the cold war, essentially gave us the technology we are using to write about this topic [5].

Intelligent life is the most violent. Compare humans to Penguins. We kill each other all the time… They don’t…

So, as we progress--war, too, progresses. The cold war is the best example, since technology grew at the fastest rate in recorded history. Yet, weapons of destruction was one of the *primary* advancements. It is very possible that the world could have been obliterated during those time periods. So, if we assume aliens have the technology Pro asserts, we can also assume that their chances of getting here decrease as their capability to destroy themselves also increases at the same rate.

Pro offers conjecture. I offer historical facts as to what we know. Again, speculation is not enough for Pro to win the debate.




== Cover ups, authority ==

If there was a coverup, there would have been UFO’s in the USSR… There were none. The USSR did not cover up UFO’s because there were none. Only in the US did the UFO craze really take off. Much of the 1950s - 70s cover ups were not because they found aliens, but due to the fact they did not want to tell the world they were spying on the USSR and what they were finding (of course, everyone knew we were spying on the USSR, but to announce it would cause a huge amount of tension). The fact is, I am citing actual CIA documents [6]... My opponent is relying upon speculation. I have provided *significant* doubt there is a cover up. Pro cites a few crazy people who claim to see UFO’s as ‘solid’ proof that UFO’s exist. I already debunked his sources last round. This round he merely adds a few names.

how could you possibly know that there aren"t any documents regarding UFO"s?” Speculation. Not adequate in order to fulfill your BOP. You must provide documental rpoof that the CIA is covering up stuff. You are posing *doubt* to the CIA’s study, but you must *prove* aliens exist in order to win the debate.

“Edward Snowden, is that the existence of the information released was not subject to debate between the government and the rest of society” -- Yeah, it’s not like everyone hated the Patriot act already. Everyone was ‘debating’ this, just like UFO’s. What are you even talking about. And even if it wasn’t ‘debated’... I don’t see how controversy really matters.

“Given the fact that this is a GOVERNMENT conspiracy” -- Source?

“the government should be the last source of information on the subject” -- Speculation.

“so why would a statement from the government, denying the existence of Aliens, be valid, given that they are the very ones keeping it a secret?” -- You offer no proof they are keeping a secret. Not one shred of evidence. You cite witness testimony, which is considered inaccurate [7]. I cite actual documents.



== Robert Dean? ==

Dean has been called ‘head of NATO’, or my opponent calls him a CIA operative. He was neither of these. He was a medium ranking sergeant in the US military [8]. Dean’s evidence for a government conspiracy is a document called “the assessment”... Not something any official government body would name an official document… And he has not shown this document to people. Again, more conjecture, no proof.

Pro has failed to offer any *hard* evidence for his claims. Resolution negated.


Debate Round No. 3


Mr0strich8020 forfeited this round.


My opponent has not fulfilled his BOP, and has FF'd this final round, dropping all of my rebuttals.

(1) it is unlikely life exists on other planets
(2) if intelligent aliens have the technology potential to reach earth, they also have the capability to destroy themselves through better weapons. The easier it is for them to get to earth the more likely it is that they have wiped themselves out with nuclear weapons or more advanced weaponry
(3) testimonials from random officials is not enough to prove aliens. Many of them believe in aliens through personal contact, which is not really reliable. The ones with documents never show them.

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Mr0strich8020 1 year ago
Here is a link to the Robert Dean video.
Robert dean is a former CIA official and military officer who claims that the government is aware of an extraterrestrial presence on Earth.

Here is a video containing numerous unexplainable sightings, that even the best minds in science aren't able to figure out.
Posted by Mr0strich8020 1 year ago
Well the evidence is abundant. I hope your kidding about the demons though haha.
Posted by Esiar 1 year ago
They may exist, but I doubt they would visit us. I assume they are Demons.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Con. Pro forfeited the final round which is rarely acceptable conduct in any debate setting. S&G - Con. Pro had several minor spelling errors throughout, for instance saying "anti-mater", instead of "anti-matter". I saw no such errors coming from Con. Arguments - Con. Pro failed to provide any substantive evidence that intelligent extraterrestrials exist. Most of his points relied on terminology such as "the odds are high", "the possibility", "it's not farfetched to assume", basically his key arguments were either assumptions or guess-work. Such shaky evidence is not enough to support the positive claim that intelligent extraterrestrials exist, which Con effectively pointed out when he stated that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". Additionally, with Pro's forfeit of the final round, every remaining challenge presented by Con was left standing. Thus, Con wins arguments. Sources - Con. I found Pro's sources to lack good references and academic integrity.
Vote Placed by RainbowDash52 1 year ago
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments for interstellar travel were weak and did not hold up to BoP and Con pointed it out. Pro argued for evidence of alien visitation and Con argued that people tend to see patterns that aren't there and that this could be one example providing reasonable doubt to that claim too. The one argument Pro had the best chance with was the statistical one, but Pro did not give a source for the statistical evidence and the argument was rebuttaled by Con. Con gets arguments for refuting all of Pros arguments. Con gets sources for having plenty of good sources while Pro didn't provide a source for his best argument. Con gets conduct for forfeit.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff a round.