The Instigator
VincentFlame
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
Roschach
Con (against)
Losing
5 Points

Is it likely that 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 3 votes the winner is...
VincentFlame
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/27/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 801 times Debate No: 37069
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

VincentFlame

Pro

It is quite obvious, looking at the Physics, chemistry and biology of the universe how not only is extraterrestrial life plausible, but highly probable.
Roschach

Con

First of all there is no solid proof. You may show me those UFO clippings,but I simply argue back that as a matter of fact those pictures are of illegal aircraft . If you see the Drake equation,most of its factors are really variable. En Plus, SETI traces extra-terrestrial life through their ATA (alien telescope array) and other receptors and all of them have turned out to be fake, some kind of star emitting waves or whatnot.the link here-(http://answers.yahoo.com...) is a answer very well written and may explain a lot of your queries
Debate Round No. 1
VincentFlame

Pro

There may not be proof, but proof is not needed for an argument which comments on probability. Is it probable? Obviously.

The average galaxy has 2 x 10^12 stars

There are 2 x 10^11 galaxies in the observable universe

Therefore there are 400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the observable universe.

Our galaxy only has 300,000,000,000 stars, if we assume (pessimistically) that only one alien species exists per this number of stars (in this case us) then still, there would be around 2,000,000,000,000 alien species in the observable universe.

Within our solar system alone, we believe there may be life in: Mars, Europa, Titan, Ganymede and Callisto, Enceladus.

Let us not forget that I am only talking about the observable universe...
Roschach

Con

Probability..... your topic says is it LIKELY. for my say it is rather unlikely because saying observable universe none of the planets/moons you say have no life as there is not supportable environment unless we have a element not in periodic table which again borders on the line of impossible and almost impossible . Again leaning on Frank Drake, his equation might have a lot of factors as a zero. Again, if an alien species does exist wouldn't it have sent some intelligent signal like we do every day and night?Again it might be primitive but seeing that most stars don't have planets it leaves us a guesstimate, again NOT LIKELY.To add to my point life may have survived and then again wiped OUT.This may not be good as i write on mom's behalf
Debate Round No. 2
VincentFlame

Pro

*chuckles*

A planet doesn't need a new element for life, it requires the right conditions. Europa for instance has liquid water under its surface...this means the temperature is above freezing. This is precisely what is required for life.

Furthermore for life Carbon is needed. Carbon is the most chemically active element in the whole periodic table! There are more combinations possible with carbon than there are of all the other elements together! Carbon is the building block for life! Carbon is the 4th most abundant element in the universe; there are around 5 x 10^77 carbon atoms in the universe!

Furthermore, don't you forget that Earth isn't the only "blue" planet. Astronomers find Earth like planet's constantly!

You lose my friend.
Roschach

Con

Carbon.You forgot that we too are carbon based lifeforms and Europa has liquid water below the ice,which means it's too cold for any carbon based life forms .Plus for life you need amino acids and we don't know if it was there.I am one that believes in ancient astronauts but once again the fact of likelihood is quite different from probability. And referring to your earlier comment,"Is it probable? Obviously."probability is something very different. I may get killed tomorrow by a bus or get full marks in my finals.Will it happen?Obviously not.Even though millions of people suffer from these I will certainly not.Again in the debate you said that scientists find planets like ours, they might be primitive i.e.not complex to be alien.And unlike
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by QandA 3 years ago
QandA
You should change the name to "it is likely that aliens" exist to avoid confusion
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
VincentFlameRoschachTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: A sloppy debate. Pro should have introduced the Drake equation and cited the estimates for each of the parameters, as made by reputable scientists. Pro relied solely upon an argument from incredulity: with so many chances, surely life must have evolved. That fails without a logical basis for saying that none of the factors in the Drake equation are zero. Pro failed to meet the burden of proof. Pro said "aliens" rather than "intelligent life elsewhere in the universe." "Alien" implies a UFO-type visitor on earth. It seems that con assumed that definition at first, then went along when Pro clarified what he was talking about. Pro has the responsibility for writing a clear resolution. Pro's taunting is bad conduct.
Vote Placed by rottingroom 3 years ago
rottingroom
VincentFlameRoschachTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: I was put off by Pro's use of exclamation marks and his final proclamation "You lose". So conduct to Con. Con had poor grammar so grammar to Pro. This was clearly a debate about probability. So Pro took the right approach by using numbers to make his case. Con made a comment about getting hit by a bus and how it would obviously not happen. That is obviously not true for there is still some probability that it could happen. At some point, he will die and there will be a cause. In any case, arguments to Con because numbers were basically required to make an argument. Especially with Pro throwing them at Con.
Vote Placed by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
VincentFlameRoschachTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Likely means the exact same thing as probable. Pro showed that it is likely that Aliens exist somewhere in this vast universe, regardless of any solid proof. Easy win for Pro.