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

Intelligent life exists beyond Earth

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/7/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,730 times Debate No: 45390
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)




Why shouldn't there be alien life in outer space? Once we space travel more often, we are bound to bump into another species of aliens. The probabilities that aliens exist is over the top considering the vastness of our universe. It is sort of arrogant to claim that our Earth is the only one with life in the universe. It is like a country who has never traveled far into sea, sees nothing in the horizon, and then claim that that is the only country with intelligent life prospering.

If Earth, some random planet in the universe contain intelligent life made up of dna then why not other planets too? What makes us so rare? Just cause we are in the 'goldilocks' zone that allows life, why must we be the only ones? I'm pretty sure that in a universe this big, there has to be a solar system with a planet in the goldilocks zone. And if life needs water, well we've already found some on the moon and on Mars in the polar ice caps.

Some people say yes there is life in space, but you know, they are 'microbes' or really small bacteria because these exo-organisms can live in extreme conditions. But why? Why microbes ONLY? The chances of a perfect planet with perfect conditions existing are highly likely and Earth is not actually as perfect as some presume. Life isn't 'prefect' and life is not a freak of nature because if it was, there is no point to evolution. Think about it, evolution is the theory of self perpetuation and survival, becoming better than before, expansion or population growth. I don't believe evolution is just adaptation because then all organisms can just die and nothing needs to adapt to anything. Therefore they adapt and improve. So with evolution being a part of nature and nature is everywhere in the universe, then there must be life in outer space or a small amount of it. Intelligent yes, because again, if evolution creates better organisms and thus created humans, then it can replicate that proccess elsewhere in the galaxy or outside the galaxy.

Debate Round No. 1


Some re-adjustments.

As one commenter pointed out, from the way I worded my debate title I have made it impossible to really debate. Basically I'm saying that there is of course intelligent life beyond earth but then I will have the burden of proof. Since Con chooses to not rebut in round 1, please allow me to restate my position to;

It is highly likely that there is intelligent life beyond Earth. I realise that the debate will end in one round if I use my previous position. Keep in mind though that I will do my best to convince you that there IS extra-terrestial life at least (if not intelligent).

Thank you Mikal for accepting. This is an exciting debate!


Intelligent life - Any species or any life form that is self aware or self conscious. Some experiments to prove this is to put a mirror in front of the organism and see if it recognises itself. This was done to dolphins before. It also has to be conscious that other members of their species have their own perspectives and thoughts. We can use a Sally-Anne test for proof.; Ability to communicate to other members is also a huge factor.

An example of an intelligent life form is Dolpins. They are self aware, communicate and problem solve (not sure about understanding different perspectives) -

Aliens - extra-terrestials. Not necessarily intelligent. Organisms originating from other planets or sources than Earth.

Extra-terrestials - for the sake of the debate, this will mean Aliens. Because there is argument that if a human starts a colony in outer space those humans are considered extra-terrestials not aliens.

Evolution - the gradual development of something, esp. from a simple to a more complex form. [0] But personally my definition of evolution is the force or graduality of organisms improving and expanding their species. When I look at the world, I see every single species becoming better than the previous generation.

The dinosaurs grew large and strong to live longer and prosper but when that failed and they went extinct it's like mother nature knew what to do and created more intelligent beings, smarter, faster and more capable of comprehending the world around them; humans. To me, evolution is expansion and improvement, though I may be wrong but i will wait for Con to point it out if he wishes.

Mother nature - "Mother Nature is a common personification of nature that focuses on the life-giving and nurturing aspects of nature by embodying it in the form of the mother." - [1]


I've explained why I believe there is not only extra-terrestial life but intelligent life in other areas of the Universe because I see no reason to say that nature purely focused Earth to inhabit intelligent life such as humans but then when there could be so many other Earth like places, it ignores them completely. Another perspective is that since there already is intelligent life in the Universe then intelligent life can exist again in other areas.

To put this in a logical context,

1) If we trace back our evolution, then we can find that we came from a kind of bacteria/microbe or single celled organism because of the definition of Evolution that we all come from very simple organisms.

Single cell organisms -> multi-celled organisms -> animals -> vertebrates -> fish -> amphibians -> reptiles -> mammals -> primates -> apes -> hominids -> humans. [2]

"organic molecules concentrated, formed more complex molecules, and became simple cells." - Archean article [3]

2) These earliest organisms came before the dinosaurs and all multi-celled organism in more than 3 billion years ago. They were living under extreme conditions and temperatures when Earth was still fresh and violent. (lava, methane atmosphere, etc.) see [3]

3) Some choose to believe that while intelligent life is highly unlikely to form outside Earth (because of the lack of evidence) there might be instead, living alien bacteria or microbes residing on meteorites or under the frozen waters of some planets. But if we came from microbes and these microbes evolved into us then why can't the process be replicated on other planets? If the only factors that allowed life to form on Earth was perfect weather conditions then life can form on other planets with the same conditions.

Why would people assume that the probability of extra-terrestial life is little or unlikely?

Because they think we haven't found other habitable planets.

Kepler 22b

And that's exactly why I will talk about our findings of habitable planets. Maybe you already know, but images from NASA Kepler space telescope discovered that there are other Earth sized planets in the Milky Way called exo-planets. Although most of these exo-planets were not in the goldilocks zone, the telescope discovered one planet that was; Kepler 22b

Revisiting Kepler’s Most Mind-Blowing Discoveries; data-chomp-id="18nyouazqhcadjpg" />

The planet orbits 15% closer to its star than Earth, it's radius is 2.5 times smaller than Earth and it's cooler and dimmer with an estimated surface temperature of 22 degrees celcius. see article -

And other habitable planets were found as well,

Three Earth-sized worlds, dubbed Kepler-62f, Kepler-62e, and Kepler-69c, were discovered 1,200 and 2,700 light years from Earth — and they’re all situated in the so-called Goldilocks Zone of their parent stars, the "just-right" range at which liquid water, and life, can exist on a planet's surface.

With this kind of a planet, life is not only possible but highly likely and probable. And if there are living forms of organisms on this planet then they may even have evolved into more intelligent organisms.


And then of course there is the Fermi Paradox that i will adress now.

The paradox says that If intelligent extra-terrestials exist in our galaxy or universe, then with their advanced technological capabilities it should have already allowed them to explore the galaxy and colonise other star systems. Even if all these civilisations had no intention of colonising, they should still be capable of space exploration and therefore they would have been able to find us. However we have found no evidence of any aliens visiting our world which creates the paradox of exisiting extra-terrestials. - [4]

Alright, maybe I could throw in some ancient alien theories (like on history channel), but by the end of my arguments I would still have the burden of absolute proof.

Which is why I suggest instead that extra-terrestrials could in order to not be seen by other civilisations (perhaps to avoid unwanted attetntion) have created invisibility cloaks that made their spacecrafts invisible even to radars. These kinds of radar invisibility technology alrady exist and are being used in militaries. Civilisations will most likely have these capabilities if they have built ships that can travel long distances in space especially ships that can travel lightyears and into multiple star systems. One other possible reason they make their ships invisible is a form of a prime directive. I believe it to be originally thought up by the Star Trek creators;

The Prime Directive prohibits Starfleet personnel from interfering with the internal development of alien civilizations. It applies particularly to civilizations which are below a certain threshold of development, preventing starship crews from using their superior technology to impose their own values or ideals on them -

A form of prime directive could have formed in a inter-planetery civilisation which causes them to make their ships invisible while exploring the cosmos. And perhaps, the impossible aerodynamics of UFO's that millions of people have witnessed are glimpses to invisble observing spacecrafts. And it is more likely that all of the civillisations that have these inter-planetery travel capabilities have met one another and formed a federation much like in Star Trek. And so the Prime Directive could have influenced all the civillisations in the federation which explains why we find so little evidence for extra-terrestial activity.

This is still just a thought, a suggestion or theory. It has little evidence and to some it is over-assumptious.

Nevertheless, it is not only possible, but quite probable.




Here we go

Lets review the resolution at hand. My adversary is claiming

"Intelligent life exists beyond earth"

and clearly is directing this at aliens and other sorts of human like creatures. We can tell this during his R1 statement

" The probabilities that aliens exist is over the top considering the vastness of our universe. It is sort of arrogant to claim that our Earth is the only one with life in the universe "

In addition to this I am calling Pro out right away on his resolution. In R2 he says we are debating is is highly likely. We are not dealing in odds of probability, we are dealing in odds of certainty per the resolution.

The resolution is not

"Intelligent life possibly or probably exists beyond earth"

The resolution is however

"Intelligent life exists beyond earth "

There is a fundamental difference in saying it "does exist" and "possibly exists", and per the resolution we are debating "it does exist". I will not allow him to alter his own resolution in R2. This is a violation and not what I accepted the debate on the terms of. So I am going to jump straight into this

Empirical Evidence

This is the heart of the debate. Remember we are not dealing in odds of chance or probability, we are dealing in certainty. This is very similar to arguing "There is a God", except we are arguing "There are aliens and other intelligent life". What my adversary is attempting to do is rationalize how and why this life could exist. We could similarly do the same thing with God. Why does he exist? Because it makes sense and it explains how the universe could exist. In this instance we are looking at aliens. Do Aliens exist? His next line of logic follows this. Yes they probably do exist, there are thousands of galaxies that we have not explored, and due to us forming from evolution there is a chance at least one planet has produced intelligent life similar to earth. This line of logic is flawed by itself. I could say there is (x) that exist on other planets. That gigantic bugs possibly exist or that creatures like dinosaurs still exist on other planets because we have seem similar things on earth. So at least one on these planets, there is a high probability that one satisfies the needs to meet this criteria.

While if we looked at his logic formally, there is nothing to flawed about it. It is flawed, but not as flawed as we would think. He is just reasoning, it happening on earth so it could happen somewhere else. He could even break down numbers and probability as to the variety and chances of it occurring.

The issue is that this does not support his premise and resolution. Again we are not weighing in odds of probability but certainty. We are dealing with empirical evidence, not theories. When we say (x) exists there has to be empirical evidence to support that claim. We have no seen no evidence to support intelligent life beyond earth. At least anything that is empirical. All the circumstances where people have witnessed something or thought they have saw something, almost all of it has been or easily can be debunked by science. Here are just a few that can be explained logically [1]

No empirical evidence to support intelligent life.

Let us review two thinks real quick

Empirical Evidence - provable or verifiable by experience or experiment. [2]

Circumstantial Evidence - indirect evidence that tends to establish a conclusion by inference [2]

Direct Evidence - real, tangible, or clear evidence of a fact, happening, or thing that requires no thinking or consideration to prove its existence, as compared to circumstantial evidence [2]

Here is a breakdown on how to tell direct and indirect (circumstantial) apart.

" The following examples illustrate the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence: If John testifies that he saw Tom raise a gun and fire it at Ann and that Ann then fell to the ground, John's testimony is direct evidence that Tom shot Ann. If the jury believes John's testimony, then it must conclude that Tom did in fact shoot Ann. If, however, John testifies that he saw Tom and Ann go into another room and that he heard Tom say to Ann that he was going to shoot her, heard a shot, and saw Tom leave the room with a smoking gun, then John's testimony is circumstantial evidence from which it can be inferred that Tom shot Ann. The jury must determine whether John's testimony is credible. " [3]

So essentially most of the cases are like this

"Ann walked outside and she saw a bright light in the sky, she looked up and saw something similar to UFO soar through the sky. Therefore Ann believes there is a UFO"

Situations like this are entirely circumstantial and can be debunked easily. Anywhere from a lighting storm happening and a plane flying through the sky, or even someone playing a practical joke. In a majority of these situations you can go back and almost create the same type or even the same exact situation that happened.

You never see stuff like this

" Ann walked out side and saw her neighbor being abducted by alien. Jill also saw the same thing"

This is direct evidence, and most situations that do come out like this are instantly shot down as hoaxs and rightfully so. Either the people are mentally unstable or a variety of other reasons. In all the years on earth we have never once seen or heard any type of empirical evidence to support the fact that there is life on other planets.

Almost everything we see is indirect evidence or assumption. Nothing like an alien being caught on tape or the news, has ever came out.

Nasa Findings

Almost everything we see in space exploration correlates to possibility. It has never been reported that carbon, oxygen, and the other essentials that we need for life have ever been found on other planets. They have acknowledged there may be different types of life but again this is an assumption. The most that has ever been reported is that NASA has found different structures of life that use arsenic as a DNA base. Again this is a possibility that life at the bacterial level could exist, but is still miles from being proven [4]. There could possibly be life at microscopic level existing on other planets, but nothing iron clad has ever been found yet. All of the evidence is circumstantial and assumption. Granted there is a high possibility that it could exist, and that life on other planets may have a different base structure than what we are use to such as oxygen and carbon, but no such life has ever been recorded or brought back. This is speculation based off of findings on earth.

In Closing

My adversary has adopted a nearly impossibly conclusion. He has chosen to defend there is intelligent life beyond earth.

He would have been better off trying to defend the possibility of life beyond earth and deal in odds of probability. That is not the case in this debate though. He has made the positive claim "there is"

There has never been on empirical tests or direct evidence to confirm this, so for the time being the most logical conclusion is to assume it is a possibility but not a fact.

Debate Round No. 2


Thank you Con for being a challenging debater.
I respect Con and will stay true to my original resolution. Besides, that's more exciting!


Knowledge comes in different forms.

There are facts which are based on empirical evidence and then there are deductive conclusions or in science known as 'deductive inference'.

a conclusion based on reasoning from accepted premises. Consider a somewhat loaded example: "The earth is a spherical body, a sphere by definition has equal radius in all directions, and therefore the radius of the earth is equal in all directions." We've taken two reasonable premises and reached a conclusion from them with. -

The way I come to the conclusion of the existence of not only extra-terrestrials but intelliegent ones is through deduction and analysis.

Take a grid for example. On the x axis we have five numbers of stars and on the y axis we have variables for conditions for life such as planet size, weather, atmosphere and so on. The variable will be numbers from 1 to 10 and 5 being the perfect conditions for life to occur and evolution to take place. Then we place points or markers that represent the planets orbiting the star including Earth.

Because of the planetary conditions and the distance from the star, there is life on Earth and we can see that empirical evidence. We know for a fact life exists on Earth including intelligent life because of the right conditions.
Evolution began as clumps of matter. "organic molecules concentrated, formed more complex molecules, and became simple cells."

But you see by logic, everything happens because of cause and effect. So the thing that caused evolution is not just 'probability' or that it just 'happened' out of coincidence but logical science. If it's not then your talking about creationism. You're saying evolution was done by a god and so living organisms popped out magically from the organic molecules. But from a logical standpoint life happened because of the right variables or conditions and that evolution is part of the inherent nature of life and living organisms.

So what I am saying is, evolution states that we come from simpler organism. And there IS evidence for this theory. And these simpler organisms come from organic compounds created because of the right conditions on the planet.

So with this in mind, looking at our graph (ignoring the connecting lines), take a star other than the sun and change the variable of the planetary condition to 5.

Just because it is a different star with a different planet, they are still both similar in terms of star/ planet size and condition. We can call the planet in star 2, Earth 2.0 . Because Earth 2.0 has similar or exactly the same properties as our Earth, therefore it will have the same compounds and thus, the organic compounds to transform into simple cells.

The right habitable planet, by the definition of evolution will have living organisms on it, guaranteed as I shown above. Just because it's not the same planet, it does have the same properties and thus, like an experiment, produces the same result; living organisms. If this wasn't the case and life was purely made by chance, then it is contradicting evolution/ cause and effect and evolution is the theory that has evidence to back it up.

Earth like planets = Life.

Not the chance of it, because that would again contradict cause and effect. It is like saying applying a litre of water to a lit candle may or may not extinguish it, or that there is a high chance that the flame will be put out, but you dont' even need to add probability to the equation because that much water will put the flame out. Cause and effect. If the water doesn't extinguish the candle flame then that just means there was a mistake in the experiment. Maybe when applying the water, you extinguished the wrong candle. But the main thing is that cause and effect will burn out the candle by water and that is science. Cause and effect will bring life to a planet with the right conditions if evolution is true.

So now the real question is, Are there other habitable planets like Earth in the known Universe?

The answer is, of course, yes. Like I've mentioned before about Kepler 22b and the other three Earth-sized worlds situated in the perfect Goldilocks Zone where, "... liquid water, and life, can exist on a planet's surface." - [1], these Earth-sized planets could have supported life.

Right now Nasa's space telescope kepler is broken and might not function ever again but in just the four years of operating, it had found over a hundred exo-planets and almost 3000 candidates and found the most Earth like potentially habitable planet ever, Kepler 22b

"But Kepler-22b is a different story. Sure, the planet orbits about 15% closer to its star than Earth does to the Sun, but its star is also significantly cooler, dimmer, and smaller than ours. And while scientists have yet to determine K-22b's composition — be it rocky, gaseous or liquid — they estimate that surface temperatures on K-22b average a very Earth-like 72-degrees Fahrenheit." -

This planet could very well be the Earth 2.0 I was talking about in my graph.

NASA Confirms Discovery of the most Earth-like Planet Yet; data-chomp-id="18lpblqtbwyhpjpg" />

Like I've said, a planet with the same exact properties, Star properties and distance of planet to Star as Earth, will create living organisms. Cause and effect. But you don't need the exact same properites because we've seen life dwell in places where it's thought not to, like in extremely hot under water temperatures and even in the sky as discovered and written in this article,

And in just 4 years of operating, the kepler telescope found over 2,700 potential Earth like candidates? The probability that one of those planets have properties similar to Earth is staggering. In fact, the planet doesn't even need to have very similar properties to Earth to provide evidence for life. By just detecting bio-signature gases like oxygen that could only be produced by plants or algae, we can confirm the existence of life on a planet. And according to a new equation, the probability of finding planets with biosphere gases is 2.
A New Equation Reveals Our Exact Odds of Finding Alien Life; data-chomp-id="18ripzjli2hxxjpg" />

"This means that we should be able detect at least a pair of planets with biosphere gases in the relatively near future "

But then of course they are just probabilities and not empirical evidence, therefore it is much more logical to assume that there are no Earth-like planets out there. And even if there are, there's no gurantee that it is Earth-like enough to support and have life on it's surface. The probabilities are high but there's still a fraction of a chance that they all might turn out to be wrong.

So alright let's assume that out of the less than 3000 candidates and all the other potential habitable planets we try to find in the future, we come up short and still don't find these biosphere gases (man are we unlucky). That doesn't mean that there IS no habitable worlds in the known universe because if that was really the case, if Earth was the only planet with life, then there is no logic in this universe at all.

How many stars are there in the Universe?

"For the Universe, the galaxies are our small representative volumes, and there are something like 1011 to 1012 stars in our Galaxy, and there are perhaps something like 1011 or 1012 galaxies.

With this simple calculation you get something like 1022 to 1024 stars in the Universe. This is only a rough number, as obviously not all galaxies are the same, just like on a beach the depth of sand will not be the same in different places." -

Now think how many planets there are in the stars and multiply that to the numbers above.

And some people say that Earth is the only planet that is habitable? The only planet with organic compounds combining to make cellular organisms?

They are saying, out of more than 10 to the power of 24 planets in the universe, only one of them is special enough to contain life.

How do you get one planet out of 1024 planets to be the only one habitable when the properties of the planet are not at all special or impossible to achieve in the random configurations of planets.

To say that Earth is one of the only habitable planet or the only one of its kind of properties in the trillions and trillions of other planets with random properties is INSANE. What would make you to prefer to believe that?

Like I have said, there is no empirical evidence that I can provide because that is impossible for me just like asking me to prove that a circle has infinite lines of symmetry. I can't show you because I would never reach a limit of the number of lines. But knowledge and certainty comes in different forms. Like the theory of evolution, even though there is no emprical evidence, some take it in as knowledge. What I am saying here is just my logical reasoning, it is my personal preference in believing what is highly likely (that among the many planets, there are habitable planets with life) than what is not likely (that Earth is with its not impossible to replicate properties is the only planet with life).

And how does the existence of extra-terrestial life equal intelligent life? Because of evolution and natural selection, life will arrive at the same conclusion of evolving into smarter species of life. Why is this true? Because its happened and is happening all around us, living and breathing.


And that's really why I know, Intelligent life exists beyond Earth.



Again let's review the resolution at hand.

The resolution is "Intelligent life exists beyond Earth"

I repeat

It is not "There is a high possibility that intelligent life exits beyond Earth"

So lets get down to the rebuttals.

Deductive Inference and probability.

This is my adversary entire contention, so I can refute this all at once. My adversary builds an argument off chances and probability, and says that because (x) conditions are met, there is a high possibility life exists beyond earth. This type of logic does not affirm the resolution, and is better known as a theory.

Theory - an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true [1]

Note : His claims could make up a valid theory, but that is not supporting the resolution. He is making a positive claim that "
Intelligent life does exists beyond Earth."

To affirm the resolution he would have to provide empirical and direct evidence to support this, using deductive inference or assuming this is true due to a theory he developed is not affirming the resolution.

Fact - a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true [2]

When my adversary claims that something "does" exist, he is claiming that this is a fact. There is a fundamental difference between a working theory and factual evidence. When empirical evidence is provided to support a theory, this turns the theory into factual evidence and it is commonly accepted. Such as the theory of evolution and other related theories. The issue with my adversary's entire argument in his last round is that it is deductive reasoning, theories, assumption, and circumstantial evidence. None of these types of evidence are empirical and justifiable, they are merely my adversary's logical process of thought taking the form of an argument

He is rationalizing in this way

"Because earth has (x) attributes, and planet (y) also shares (x) attributes with earth. There is a high possibility that life exists on planet (y) ."

If we were dealing in odds of probability and chance, this would be a valid argument. Sadly that is not the case. We are dealing in empirical and direct evidence. There is nothing that can affirm this logic at this present point in time. Not even Nasa has ever found anything to support this. We can only assume that there is a possibility, but we can not claim this is factual.


There is not much left to argue. My adversary addressed all of my contentions with his argument of probability, and I addressed all of his contentions in return with my last rebuttal.

Again I just want to restate the resolution so that we know what we are debating.

"Intelligent life exists beyond earth"

My adversary tried to change the resolution and I called him out on it.

" It is highly likely that there is intelligent life beyond Earth. I realize that the debate will end in one round if I use my previous position "

He even notes himself, that he is taken an impossible position to defend. He tires to alter the resolution after stating the conditions prior to this. I would not allow him to do this and called him out on his initial claim, so he then results to arguments of probability and chance to affirm his resolution. '

The issue with this claim, is that probability and chance =/= factual or empirical evidence .

Think of it as a mathematical possibility.

If there are 10 marbles. 8 are red and 2 white. There is an 80 percent chance that you are going to pull a red one. Relate this to the argument at hand. If the red marbles are equal to the chance of life existing beyond earth, and white is equal to the chance of it not existing, there is still a fundamental problem with his argument. What happens if you draw the white? The way he laying out his argument, leaves room for error. There is a possibility that life does not exist beyond earth. Actually there is a pretty high possibility that it may not exist. As far as we know, there has never been any evidence to support life beyond earth. The only thing we can do is make deductive inference and arrive at that conclusion based on rational thinking.

If the resolution was different, almost every argument he made would have stood. At least it would have been harder to refute. He made the mistake of making a positive claim that "it does exist", and has not been able to provide any evidence to support this. He has only provided theory's based off of his own personal inference.

This does not affirm the resolution, therefore the resolution does not hold.

Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Speakerfrthedead 2 years ago
Haha, that was really fun, thanks to anyone who read the debate and thank you Mikal for accepting in the first place.
Posted by Speakerfrthedead 2 years ago

well then, we must be the luckiest beings in the universe to win one lottery out of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 lotteries.

also, thanks for commenting
Posted by kaister 2 years ago
Well again it is very possible that there is not any at all. I am not saying that there is not but it's very likely there we might be alone. For the very reason that we might not be alone. The idea that there must be an intelligent life form other than ourselves out there is based on the observation of the sheer number of stars within our view of our own galaxy.

However, scientist have discovered tons of planets in the last few decades and earth like planets but they can't determine if those planets possess earth like qualities. Hence there is only 2 possibilities either life is teeming in the universe and is very common or we are truly alone because life can only exist in earth like conditions and getting such conditions is like hitting the lottery and is extremely rare. If there were intelligent life out there. It's best that we find them first. As if it were the other way around, it would easily mean they are more sophisticate than us and the pocahontas/avatar scenario is very much possible and more likely. Since earth like conditions could be extremely rare.
Posted by Speakerfrthedead 2 years ago
oh crap, you guys are right anyway thnks for the luck
Posted by mynameiscraig 2 years ago
yes it should be a different species on a different planet.
Posted by progressivedem22 2 years ago

Well, I guess it's too late. Good luck.
Posted by progressivedem22 2 years ago
You have placed a nearly impossible burden of proof on yourself -- perhaps you would want to advise the title to say "it is more likely that there there is life on other planets than not." In that case, you and your opponent would share the burden of proof.
Posted by Speakerfrthedead 2 years ago
wow, i ramble a lot. nvm i finally debated the topic I really like
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 2 years 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: IMMEDIATELY pro loses conduct for attempting to switch up the resolution. Pro would have needed to prove life does infact exists outside our Earth to win, and he quite logically didn't. He proved it's possible. He should do a seperate debate on probability.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 2 years 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro momentarily admitted that he incorrectly worded the resolution in such a way that it could not be proved, then he perceived the error and tried to change the resolution in R2. Pro tried to argue that the probability was so high as to equate to one, but Con pointed out that isn't a certainty as the resolution claimed. Con pointed out that all the conditions needed for intelligent life are not known, so arguing from the size and temperature of the planet is insufficient. I agree with Pro that the likelihood is high, but it cannot be proved with certainty. Pro's references only related to probabilities.