The Instigator
Illegalcombatant
Pro (for)
Tied
10 Points
The Contender
ConservativePolitico
Con (against)
Tied
10 Points

Its Possible that there is an alien mothership hovering above 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 6 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/8/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,670 times Debate No: 20282
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (6)

 

Illegalcombatant

Pro

!! Round 1 is for acceptance only, no arguments to be presented in round 1. !!!

Definitions

Aliens = Extraterrestrial life (from the Latin words: extra ("beyond", or "not of") and‎ terrestris ("of or belonging to Earth")) is defined as life that does not originate from Earth.

Mothership = A vessle of some sort that is used to travel through space by aliens.

Earth = Earth (or the Earth) is the third planet from the Sun, and thedensest and fifth-largest of the eight planets in theSolar System.

Possible = A logically possible proposition is one that can be asserted without implying a logical contradiction. This is to say that a proposition is logically possible if there is some coherent way for the world to be, under which the proposition would be true

!!! Round 1 is for acceptance only, no arguments to be presented in round 1. !!!

ConservativePolitico

Con

I accept.

hover - to hang fluttering or suspended in the air [1]

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Illegalcombatant

Pro

I thank ConservativePolitico for accepting the debate.

Definitions

Con has added some definition information in regard to hovering. Cons definition seems to restrict hovering to the "air". Air here could be interpreted as the earths atmosphere..."a mixture of nitrogen, oxygen, and minute amounts of other gases that surrounds the earth and forms its atmosphere." [1]

My intention by saying hovering within the context of the alien mothership was something more along the lines of the ship being in the earths atmosphere or just outside of it, like existing in the thermosphere or exosphere.

Cons source also allows for a more general understanding of hovering as it says..."to keep lingering about; wait near at hand." [2]

There is no logical contradiction in the claim that an alien mothership is hovering above the earth

Wikipedia explains..."A logically possible proposition is one that can be asserted without implying a logical contradiction. This is to say that a proposition is logically possible if there is some coherent way for the world to be, under which the proposition would be true" [3]

Conclusion: Therefore its possible that there is an alien mothership hovering above earth

I look forward to Cons reply.

Sources

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
ConservativePolitico

Con

An entertaining debate I am looking forward to.

My opponent cleared up the bit about hovering, however, I do wish to point out that the second definition does not apply to the situation since there is no way "to keep" an alien mothership "lingering about".

Now onto my points:

By saying that something is "possible" you are saying that you do not know for certain.

Take these examples:

"It is possible for Mitt Romney to win the 2012 presidential election."
"Did you get an A on your paper?" ... "It's possible."

As you can see the word "possible" implies something that is not known.

That being said...


"a proposition is logically possible if there is some coherent way for the world to be" [1]

coherent - logically connected; consistent [2]

In order for this definition and the resolution to be true then there has to be some logically connected way that an alien mothership has been suspended within the area of Earth's atmosphere without being detected by humanity.

Why the resolution is illogical based on this conclusion.

Proximity:

For an alien mothership to hover over Earth we have already established that the ship must be within the confines of the atmosphere. The exosphere is the farthest reaching part of our atmosphere and extends to a maximum range of 10,000 km [3]. This may seem like a lot but it is in fact 30x closer to Earth than the moon. (384,000 km away). [4]

i. Size -
For a mothership to reach Earth from even the closest star, 4.2 lightyears away, the ship would have to be immeasurable in size. A large ship 30x closer to Earth than the moon would eventually disrupt something that would be detectable to humans such as radio waves, light, space junk or even solar winds thereby giving away its existence.

Orbit:

The word hovering implies that the spaceship in question is suspended over the Earth. For the definition to be true the alien mothership would have to be locked over the Earth without being in motion meaning it would have to counteract the orbital forces being exerted on it.

According to Newton's Laws: "The acceleration of each body is equal to the sum of the gravitational forces on it, divided by its mass, and the gravitational force between each pair of bodies is proportional to the product of their masses and decreases inversely with the square of the distance between them." [6]

This statement says that the mothership would have to put out a counter force exactly equal to the orbital forces acting upon it. Given the presumed size of the spaceship and it's relatively near distance to Earth the ship would have to produce massive amounts of energy in order to maintain its position over the Earth without moving. This force would have to take the form of some sort of propulsion which in turn would give off light or heat making the mothership detectable to humans.

Also in order to maintain complete suspension the mass of the mothership would have to remain exactly the same or else the orbital forces would change and the ship would then move into some sort of orbit.

Other Detectable Factors:


A large ship supporting life would have to give off some sort of externalities such as: waste, signals and/or energy (in the form of heat or light). All living things produce waste, and since the laws of life are universal, the aliens would be no exception meaning a large group of living things hovering over Earth would then produce some sort of waste that would have to be ejected from the ship or destroyed and eventually ejected. A mothership would also most likely give off some sort of radio or other communication signals that would be traceable by humans on Earth. Also in order to run an environment in space that living things could survive in energy will have to be both collected and expended (in addition to the energy maintaining its stationary position over Earth) and would be detectable.

From these points one can see that it is not some logically connected way that an alien mothership could be stationary within the exosphere and not be detectable by humans.


On to Pro.


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...(astronomy)
[5] http://www.astro.wisc.edu...
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Illegalcombatant

Pro

I thank Con for their reply.

Lack of detection does not prove the alien mothership does not exist

Alot of Cons counterargument rests on the premise that we have lack of evidence of the alien mothership. As Con says..."In order for this definition and the resolution to be true then there has to be some logically connected way that an alien mothership has been suspended within the area of Earth's atmosphere without being detected by humanity."

But notice the hidden assumption, it assumes that if the alien ship exists that we would detect its existence. But what if the alien ship had a cloaking device and/or took measure to hide themselves ? Unless Con can prove that its impossible for the alien ship to exist without detection then the lack of detection does not prove the alien ship as a logical impossibility.

Logically possible vs Plausible

Plausible = (of an argument or statement) Seeming reasonable or probable [1]

Just because something is logically possible doesn't mean its plausible and/or likely to be true. After all, what ever probability you assign to the existence of aliens, is lowered once you add them having an alien ship, which is lowered again once you add a cloaking device, etc.

So I grant the alien proposition is utterly implausible based on the various evidence and observations given by Con, such as lack of detection, suspension of movement by the ship, etc.

Never the less, this doesn't prove that an alien ship hovering above earth is IMPOSSIBLE just that its implausible. As such its still possible that there is an alien mothership hovering above earth.

Over to you Con.

Sources

[1] http://www.google.com.au...
ConservativePolitico

Con

I thank my opponent for a speedy reply.

Logic

I would like to point out that my points were made to prove the logical impossibility of such an object existing over Earth. If you go back and read through I have pointed out some things that must be obeyed by the laws of physics.

Things that must be true following the laws of physics.

- Living things produce waste [3]

- Energy must be given off and taken in

- An object must take up space [1]

- Energy cannot be created or destroyed [2]

- Matter cannot be created or destroyed [1]

Things that must be true based on the resolution.

- The ship resides within the exosphere

- The ship is not moving within orbit

Therefore:

- Since living things must produce waste and matter cannot be created or destroyed waste will be created

- Since energy cannot be created or destroyed it will emmit from the ship

- Since an object must take up space, and said object is immobile, objects orbiting the Earth will collide with the ship

Thus under the circumstances provided and the facts given, all abiding by the laws of physics and nature the existence of an alien mothership hovering over the Earth is impossible.

This renders your second point irrelevant.

Thank you.


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
Illegalcombatant

Pro

I thank Con for their reply.

The alien mother ship does not have to break known laws to avoid detection

Con implies that for the alien ship to exist and avoid detection it would have to break some known laws of physics. Con doesn't prove this he merely asserts it. For example Con talks about how the aliens must produce waste. But so what ? just because we don't detect waste by aliens doesn't mean they don't exist.

Con merely asserts that a hovering alien mothership will be hit by objects in orbit. Why is it not possible for an alien mothership to not be hit by an object in orbit around the earth ? why can't the alien mothership dodge it ? why can't the alien mothership alter the course of an object ? Why can't the alien mothership be in a position that will not get hit by objects ? Con merely asserts it MUST get hit, but even if it gets hit that's not enough to prove its impossibility because it assumes that you would detect such an event and that's not certain.

I anticipate Con will say that if the alien ship moves it is no longer hovering. I would point out that an alien ship that hovers then moves to avoid an object then goes back to hovering is still within the claim that an alien mother ship is hovering above earth.

Lack of detection does not prove the alien mothership does not exist

Con once again makes the same mistake as in the previous round, assuming that if the alien ship exists then we would detect it. Con presents two propositions which are claimed to be contradictory those been.....

1) There is an alien mothership hovering above earth
2) We don't detect an alien mother ship hovering above earth

But there is no logical contradiction between these two premises, this can be shown by adding a third premise....

3) The alien ships exists and has not been detected.

Conclusion

In short Con has not been able to show a logical impossibility that an alien mothership hovering above earth exists. Cons arguments about lack of detection of such a ship doesn't prove it doesn't exist and Cons claims about such a ship needs to break known physic laws to remain undetected is an unsupported assertion.

Now just because it is possible does that mean we should believe the alien ship exists ? of course not, as I already said the proposition is implausible, never the less its still a strict LOGICAL possibility and thus the resolution is affirmed.

I ask the vote go to Pro.

I thank Con for the debate.
ConservativePolitico

Con

The premis of my arguments was that these things will make detection of an alien mothership impossible to miss. Eventually waste will be detected if it keeps being released regularly as it must.

I must point out that my opponent has dropped a major piece of my argument in that the energy concerns of operating such a spacecraft would be impossible to miss. They have completely avoided the fact that it is impossible, as by the laws of physics, to hide so much energy from modern instruments. With so many satelites, telescopes and technological devices orbiting the Earth it would be impossible to hide the things that requires such a ship to run.

1) There is an alien mothership hovering above earth
2) We don't detect an alien mother ship hovering above earth
3) It would be impossible not to detect a mothership hovering over Earth due to the points outlined throughout this debate
4) If we do not detect a mothership hovering over Earth there is no mothership

My opponent misses the fact that based on my arguments it would be impossible for such a ship to hide from modern technology.

Through my points, logic, common sense and the laws of nature I have clearly pointed out that in the circumstances pointed out in the Resolution it would be impossible to miss an alien mothership hoving over Earth therefore if we do not detect one there is no mothership therefore the resolution is impossible.

I urge the voters to indeed vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Illegalcombatant 4 years ago
Illegalcombatant
The aliens will not be pleased.
Posted by ConservativePolitico 4 years ago
ConservativePolitico
A tie :D sweet

Good debate!
Posted by Gileandos 4 years ago
Gileandos
Sorry,
I meant Con won. The points were correct.
Posted by Double_R 4 years ago
Double_R
Logically impossible and physically are two different things. The laws of physics are written by human beings, based on human observation. If I casually throw a ball in the air, the laws of physics (ie: gravity) says it will come back down. We know this because we have observed this phenomenon countless times. However that does not mean that it can not continue into space, it just means that we have not observed any phenomenon that can cause this.
Posted by Double_R 4 years ago
Double_R
Gileandos, you gave the points to the wrong person.
Posted by Gileandos 4 years ago
Gileandos
Also Conservative, there should not have been a conduct point against you for adding a definition.
Posted by Gileandos 4 years ago
Gileandos
Interesting debate.
Con took a tactic that adhered to the concept "we have contrary evidence to the idea of such a ship exists and we have no supporting evidence from Pro that such a ship exists"

Con failed to deal with evidences on scale posited by Pro.
Con also failed to deliver the fact it was a logical debate and not an evidentiary debate. The resolution should have been more clear.
That made Pro win.
Posted by ConservativePolitico 4 years ago
ConservativePolitico
Did you see it in the latest RFD. Definition is a no-no? wtf? really? lol I've been trolled...
Posted by cameronl35 4 years ago
cameronl35
haha definition was a "no-no"
Posted by cameronl35 4 years ago
cameronl35
haha definition was a "no-no"
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Double_R 4 years ago
Double_R
IllegalcombatantConservativePoliticoTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: Logically impossible and physically impossible are two completely different things. Con only argued that it was physically impossible, but Pros statement that "The alien ships exists and has not been detected" is a clear logical possibility and thus the resolution is affirmed.
Vote Placed by Gileandos 4 years ago
Gileandos
IllegalcombatantConservativePoliticoTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: See comments
Vote Placed by cameronl35 4 years ago
cameronl35
IllegalcombatantConservativePoliticoTied
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: Countering aliasam's conduct vote
Vote Placed by aliasam1337 4 years ago
aliasam1337
IllegalcombatantConservativePoliticoTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: All Con proved is that it is unlikely to happen. He did not prove that it was impossible. Adding the definition was also a no-no. Con could of private messaged Pro to ask him a question instead of trying to alter something.
Vote Placed by phantom 4 years ago
phantom
IllegalcombatantConservativePoliticoTied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gave a poor effort, and con clearly took more time for this debate thus the conduct point, but overall pro proved its possibility. All con proves is that it is logically improbable; not impossible. Even if the chances are very slim, it doesn't mean it is impossible. Con makes the flaw of asserting statements as if they are facts, but there is a possibility that those assertions are not true, thus flawing cons argument. Overall pro sufficiently proved the possibility of a hovering mothership
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
IllegalcombatantConservativePoliticoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: his refutations and arguments where sound and I liked his format better. Also he had more sources. Since both used mostly Wikipedia then more Wikipedia is better. Good debate, con wins.