Is alien study even worth looking into? Why would you believe it?
Debate Rounds (4)
Aliens is something most smart people are against, but wonder. Other people feel they just know something is out there, other than boring humans! I for one do not believe in them. Why would you? They are said to be anything (other than germ-like creatures) that live on other planets, asteroids, or even stars. We have literal evidence that, as far as our solar system, there are no other heavens that have the slightest possibility of owning life. Too cold . . . Too hot . . . Too wet . . . Too dry . . . Too little resources . . . Nothing but earth has a force field (which is running out) to protect against solar radiations, nothing has the absolute perfect temperature range, no other heavens have just the right climates, etc.
So how would it be possible for others to live on another planet, and if so, why aren't they coming near us? We have gone fairly far into the universe, but have seen nothing. If other species were out there, they would obviously be very smart, otherwise they would be extinct. So if they are smart, wouldn't they venture into space like us, and we would have found more obvious signs of each other?
This debate is not whether or not they exist, that would be stupid since we have no evidence for either side, this topic is specifically what it says: is studying aliens worth the drama? Is it even the slightest bit possible for it to happen that we find something new?
Study to find out.
Round 1 = Main argument
Round 2 = Studying and coming back with resources and examples and stuff like that
Round 3 = Commenting on what we learned from each other's research
Round 4 = Arguing again, noting what we learned, and closing with votes on who is wrong . . . who is right?
Thank you for this interesting topic. I hope we will have an interesting and informative debate.
I will be arguing that scientific enquiry regarding alien life is a good thing.
I. Scientific Enquiry is Universally Good
Under this contention, I will simply be arguing that scientific investigation is an unqualified good. The purpose of science, generally, is to observe and study the natural universe. Therefore, we can deduce that science should strive toward discovering and learning everything that can possibly be known about the natural universe; such is the steady march of knowledge.
Whether or not aliens exist (which I will discuss later), science should work to either discover or discredit any and all possible entities and theories. The evidence of these should be irrelevant toward their study. For instance, ancient scientists worked to show that the universe was more than our Solar System, and, later, that the Earth was not the center of the universe or Solar System. This work was vindicated when later evidence proved them correct. Where, exactly, we would be without these pioneers who investigated the universe and all of its wonder is difficult to imagine.
Con will have to show that limiting science to what is currently known and observed is a good thing. I feel that, quite intuitively, this is an anti-intellectual position.
II. Existence of Aliens
The Universe is almost unimaginably large, with millions of galaxies and billions of stars. These stars collectively have an unknowably large number of planets, who then have satellites. What this means is that there are billions upon billions of possible locations for alien life in the universe. In fact, SETI scientists have declared that, with the advance of technology, alien life will likely be found within 20 years . Odds of this occuring are rapidly shortening, approaching 5 to 1. Therefore, on a probabalistic level, it is nearly certain that life exists somewhere in the Universe.
Turning to our neighborhood of the Universe, scientists have identified several spots where life could exist, including several of Jupiter and Saturn's moons . This is possible because some of these planets and satellites have atmospheres, liquid water, and other components necessary for life. Thus, finding extraterrestrial life could be as simple as landing at one of these locations. Contrary to Pro's unsourced claims, this is, at the minimum, possible.
What all of this means is that it is fairly plausible that aliens could exist. Considering that the discovery of alien life could teach us a plethora of critical, seminal information, dismissing this sort of investigation seems unwise.
I will quickly address Pro's claim that aliens do not exist because they have not visited us. Considering humans could only go to space in the last 50 years, it does not seem too farfetched that civilizations could exist that are not as advanced, not looking in the right places, or simply not interested. This does not mean we should not make an effort to find them.
We have not been able to find any forever-sustaining planets. I'll use an exerpt from a website I found:
Through advances in technology, we might certainly be able to create an environment in which we could live on almost any other planet (e.g. a space suit is a miniature of such an environment). But whether another planet out in space harbors conditions similar enough to earth that we would need little or no "artificial environment" is unknown. We might think that such another planet ought to exist, but it doesn't mean that it necessarily does.
So now that humans have been able to find a way to make life very easily sustainable on other planets, we would have to make it that way. How would you survive from nothing livable, with enough time to find out how to make it possible to live in? Granted, there could be other versions of creatures than similar to our species of humans that would be able to live in. What would they use to live in it?
When you said that science should always study to prove and disprove, and then used the examples you did, I realised you had a good point. I apologize, I actually agree with you, I simply worded it considerably bad.
Imagine voyaging to a new planet. You are the first crew to ever make it to Jupider. Jupider is One of the most life-sustaining planets in the galaxy. You create a building, and now we are able to live here for as long as we want. Like I said earlier, how would you make that building as soon as your species is introduced in the Big Bang? You cannot simply believe that other aliens are living. As promised, this round is mainly for research, so I will get away from my opinions since last comment I made you claimed was wrong in some ways.
Here are some sources, and afterwords are exerpts and quotes.
http://www.universetoday.com... (This is the best site I found)
the Earth should already have been colonized, or at least visited. But no convincing evidence of this exists. Furthermore, no confirmed signs of intelligence (see Empirical resolution attempts) elsewhere have been spotted, either in our galaxy or in the more than 80 billion other galaxies of the observable universe. Hence Fermi's question, "Where is everybody?"
On 4 November 2013, astronomers reported, based on Kepler space mission data, that there could be as many as 40 billion Earth-sized planets orbiting in the habitable zones of sun-like stars and red dwarf stars within the Milky Way Galaxy. 11 billion of these estimated planets may be orbiting sun-like stars. The nearest such planet may be 12 light-years away, according to the scientists. Nonetheless, by concluding that complex life is uncommon, the Rare Earth hypothesis is a possible solution to the Fermi paradox: "If extraterrestrial aliens are common, why aren't they obvious?"
Locations in space would necessitate a space habitat, also called space colony and orbital colony, or a space station which would be intended as a permanent settlement rather than as a simple waystation or other specialized facility. They would be literal "cities" in space, where people would live and work and raise families. Many designs have been proposed with varying degrees of realism by both science fiction authors and scientists. Such a space habitat could be isolated from the rest of humanity but near enough to Earth for help. This would test if thousands of humans can survive on their own before sending them beyond the reach of help.
(My statement about needing to build a habitat.)
Even if astronauts were to reach Mars without any negative health effects, living conditions would be impossible without a triumph of engineering. Not only is Martian gravity little more than a third of what we experience here on Earth, Mars is also extremely cold and wrapped in a thin, low-pressure atmosphere, composed predominantly of carbon dioxide. "I think what people are not keeping in mind is what a truly horrible place Mars is," says astronomer Steve Squyres of Cornell University [source: Tyson]. There's no question that the raw Martian atmosphere is strictly uninhabitable for humans, and even with technological help, living there would probably be extremely hard on the body.
TruthHurts forfeited this round.
Demosthenes25 forfeited this round.
I am going to wrap this up, as Pro has conceded that scientific enquiry is good. If this is the case, then at least some marginal amount of investigation into extraterrestrial life is beneficial, regardless of probablity, which Pro does not dispute.
I would also like to note that the evidence I presented still gives plausibility to life in the solar system, as Pro's evidence only states that there is not another Earth in the solar system. This only precludes life if you assume that life can only exist in identical conditions to Earth, an assumption that cannot be rationally made.
Beyond this, I honestly do not know what Pro is talking about when he mentions living in outer space and other nonsensical, irrelevant topics.
To keep it short, knock me a conduct point, if you wish, for the initial forfeit, but vote Con on arguments, as Pro has conceded.
Demosthenes25 forfeited this round.
Extend, vote Pro.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||2||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.