The Instigator
RyuuKyuzo
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
xxx00
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Resolved: Ancient Astronaut Theory is Bunk

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...
RyuuKyuzo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/30/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,638 times Debate No: 26725
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (19)
Votes (2)

 

RyuuKyuzo

Pro

Ancient Astronaut Theory (AAT) is the theory that Aliens visited Earth in ancient times and are responsible for many of the structures built in said times (Pyramids of Giza, Puma Punku, the Moai of Easter Island, etc).

AATists claim that these ancient peoples simply did not have the technology or the man power to pull off these incredible feats and therefore some sort of advanced technology was required.

I find these claims unwarranted and the supporting evidence shoddy at best and outright lies at worst. As such, I will be arguing against the AAT in this debate.

The specific topic will be decided by whichever one of the following Con feels is their stronger argument:

1. The Pyramids of Giza 2. Puma Punku 3. Moai of Easter Island

Con may choose any one of these three as the topic for this debate. This choice must be explicitly stated in round one.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

=======Resolution=======

--Ancient Astronaut Theory is Bunk--

As Pro, I will be affirming this resolution.

=======Burden of Proof=======


Burden of proof will be shared. Therefore, it is my burden to both discredit Con's claims aswell as provide evidence for my alternative theories on the construction of the structure in question. Likewise, it is Con's burden to discredit the evidence I provide for my alternative theories, aswell as provide evidence in support of the AAT.

=======Definitions=======

All words requiring a definition should be done so as they appear. Words not defined will be assumed to be defined in-line with Dictionary.com [1] and will be assumed to mean that which best fits the context the word is used in.

AAT: Defined above. More information here [2].

Bunk: Fallacious, unfounded, unwarranted.

=======Round Breakdown=======

R1:
Acceptance + Topic choice
R2: Evidence for your case (no preemptive counter-arguments)
R3: Counter Arguments to opponent's R2 prima facie case
R4: Defence of your position + closing statements

Note that, as Con, your R4 defence will be specifically for defence of my R3 counter-arguments. You may not address my R4 defence as I will not be able to address yours likewise.

Furthermore, there will be no new counter-arguments in R4. Any counter arguments made in R4 that were not also in R3 are to be ignored.

Violation of these parameters will result in a loss of conduct -- or worse, at the voter's discretion.

=======Rules=======

1.
No semantics
2. Forfeits are concessions (lose all 7 points)
3. All sources must be cited within the limit of the debate round
4. All arguments must be made within the character limit of the debate round
5. No dropping arguments without justification

Violation of any of these rules will result in a deduction of conduct, unless stated otherwise.

Clarification on anything stated here or rule alteration requests are to be made in the comments section and reviewed before accepting.

Good Luck to Whomever Accepts

=======Sources=======

1. http://dictionary.reference.com...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...;
xxx00

Con

i will argue on pyramid of giza and i will show that ancient astronauts had done it.
Debate Round No. 1
RyuuKyuzo

Pro

Good luck to you, my opponent.

=======Unfinished Obelisk=======

In a quarry above Answan lies an unfinished obelisk. This obelisk is 137 feet long and weighs 1168 tons. The value of this unfinished obelisk is that it gives us a window into the building technique the ancient Egyptians used to build such massive structures. What they did was line workers up and have them dig out trenches using dolerite pounding stones. That is, they dug the shape of the stone into the ground [1].

Once they had gone deep enough, they used the same technique to pound out the bottom of the block. When they had nearly met in the middle, they would use large levers to break the stone out of the ground so it could then be cleaned up and transported [2].

=======Moving the Stones=======

Carving out large stones and obelisks is one thing, but moving thousands of tons of stone is another all together. The method used by the Egyptians is nothing fancy. They used, plain and simply, wooden sleds. The Egyptians even made hieroglyphics illustrating this [5]. The sleds were pulled with papyrus ropes, many of which were massively thick to handle the thousand+ tons of load they were meant to carry [8]. These stones were then shipped to location via the Nile, limiting how far the stones had to be dragged [7].

=======Cutting Granite=======

Much of the pyramids' interior is made of granite [3], which is incredible difficult to cut -- but the Egyptians had a way. Their technique involved using copper saws and sand. They would start sawing away in the same manner we would today while pouring sand into the groove they where sawing out. The friction of the sand allowed the copper saw to cut the granite with relative ease [5]. This technique was proven by modern scientists to work effectively at cutting granite [4]. Evidence of this technique is found in the form of saw marks on several granite stones, especially on the granite sarcophagus in the pyramid of Khufu [5].

Other than that, the other 85% of the pyramid which was not limestone or granite was made of soft sand-stone which was cut on-site [6].

=======Construction of the Pyramid=======

New research suggests that the stones where dragged up an inner ramp to a lifting location, where the stones were hoisted up a level and dragged on in this fashion until reaching their final location. This internal spiral ramp was first noticed in 1986 when a French survey team did a micro-gravimetric analysis of the structure. They found a strange spiral structure that could not be explained until an architect named Jean-Pierre Houdin made the theory of the internal ramp. Once his theory was made public, the French team came forward with this image, giving Jean's theory validation. The specifics of this theory and the image in question can be found here [12][9][10][11]. << I cannot recommend watching the video (source 12) highly enough. It's about 7 minutes long and is a must-see if you have even the faintest interest in history.

It should be noted that this theory is young. So young, in fact, that it is not considered proven yet. However, this theory fits all the facts and there is no counter evidence against the evidence for this theory.

=======Conclusion=======

In this round, I have shown how the ancient Egyptians were able to first build and cut these large stones, transport them and place them in the needed location, all with simple tools and a low of man-power. As such, no ancient aliens are needed to explain the existence of the pyramids, thereby affirming the resolution.

I look forward to my opponent's response.

=======Sources=======
1. http://www.pbs.org...
2. http://www.pbs.org...
3. http://www.ehow.com...
4. http://www.pbs.org...
5. http://hbar.phys.msu.ru...
6. Bob Brier, Jean-pierre Houdin. The Secret of the Great Pyramid: How One Man’s Obsession Led to the Solution of Ancient Egypt’s Greatest Mystery. Smithsonian, 2008.
7. http://en.wikipedia.org...
8. http://www.osirisnet.net...
9. http://en.wikipedia.org...
10. http://en.wikipedia.org...
11. http://www.freerepublic.com...
12. http://vimeo.com... [video]
xxx00

Con

i thank my opponent for his contribution.

let me reply to one by one.

1. unfinished obelisk

stones are dug in the ground and large livers were used to separate them from the ground. but why we can't see today those livers which were used to separate stones from ground? where are they now?

2. moving the stone

the stones were moved in wooden sleds with thick papyrus rope. where are those wooden sleds today? why we can't see them physically rather in hieroglyphs?

3. cutting granite

copper saws and sands were used to cut the granite. ok . where could we see those copper saws and sands in these days.? in which museum can we see original copper saws (not replica) used by egyptians to cut the stone?

4.construction of pyramids

i don't really understand the internal spiral theory.

so my friend you see that most of the equipment that are used in building pyramids today were not found anywhere in egypt or in the world. so thos theory won't stand at all.

now lets consider my theory;

ancient aliens built the pyramids with their advanced equipments and then took back their equipment with them. thats why today we have pyramids but we don't have the equipments used to build them. got it?
Debate Round No. 2
RyuuKyuzo

Pro

Con has violated the round-breakdown outlined in R1 by posting counter-arguments in R2, the round meant for his prima facie case. As such, he has forfeited the conduct point.

Since Con barely provided a prima-facie case of his own last round, the only way for con to have even a shot at winning at this point is for me to re-vamp the round outline. The rest of the debate will go as follows;

R3: Rebuttals
R4: rebuttals + closing statements*

*Con will not be allowed to make new arguments in R4. He may use new evidence to support an already existing argument, but new arguments will result in a full forfeit. Tread lightly.

________________________________________________________________________________________________


=======Obelisk=======

Large levers were used to pry the stones free once the bottom had been pounded out to the point where to bottom was only supported by a thin spine. There's no definitive proof that they used large levers, but this isn't exactly a worth-while area of contention. With a thin enough spine, they could very well have just pushed one side of the stone and snapped the block from its spine if they felt so inclined. It would have been easier with levers and we're assuming the Egyptians were smart enough to figure that out.

=======Moving the Stone=======

These stones where moved +to a ship by the use of wooden sleds. Such sleds have, in fact, been found [1].

"A smaller sledge, made of cedar wood, was excavated south of the pyramid of Senwosret I at Lisht"

As we can see, these sleds had intricate grooves and holes made into them allowing for ropes to fasten down whatever odd shaped block they needed to move.

=======Cutting Granite=======

The problem with copper saws is that they wear down quickly, so pure copper saws most likely never made it to today. However, we have bronze saws (copper + tin), which were strong enough to last the ages. We have evidence of these saws both in glyph form and physically [2]. We know sand was used because these saws didn't have any teeth and where therefore only useful if some other substance was being used to break through the stone -- such as the single most abundant thing in Egypt, sand.

Keep in mind that this technique has been proven to work in modern times.

=======Construction=======

Con admits that he doesn't the theory I outlined in R2. Once again, I highly recommend checking out the video I linked you to (source 12 of last round) to get a visual understanding of this process.

Con then asserts that most of the used in building modern pyramids where not found in the ancient world. This is a non-sequitur. I've shown how building the pyramid was possible using only ancient technology.

=======Con's Theory=======

Con asserts that aliens where responsible. He provides no evidence or even strong reasoning for his assertion. Con is reminded that he carries equal burden of proof and therefore has to prove that it was aliens.

=======Conclusion=======

Con broke the rules, losing him one point already. His counter arguments have been easily refuted and his prima-facie case is non-existent. Con may post his prima-facie case next round if he so wishes to (this is actually mandatory if he wants to win). At this point, the resolution is affirmed.

I look forward to your response.

=======Sources=======

1. http://hbar.phys.msu.ru...
2. http://www.sawlady.com...


xxx00

Con

i thank pro for his quick and erudite contribution.

let me answer his points one by one.

1. obelisk

pro did not provide any evidence for the livers with which the stones are lifted. so i think that stones are not lifted
that way.

2. moving the stone

pro said that a smaller sledge made of ceder wood was used to move the stone but my dear, how strong the ceder
wood is? it is the weaker than all types of woods, if not weakest. trolly made of such weaker wood cannot be used
to carry huge heavy granite stone. it is so impossible.

source:http://workshopcompanion.com...

3. cutting granite

pro has made a remarkable jump from copper saw to bronge saw. i appreciate the jump. but pro forgot that granite
is one of the hardest stone on earth. to cut it you need something harder than it. in modern day diamond tipped
sawblade or carbide-tipped drillbits are used to cut granite. do you think that a bronze saw with no teeth can cut
hard stone like granite with sand. if it is possible then why such method is not used in modern day?

source:http://www.ehow.com...

4. construction

ok now i think i understand the spiral construction. stones are lifted in a trolly which was moving on ramps. but then also there is a question: where was that ramp? and where was that trolly? why can't we see them now? why other explorars cannot see them before houdin?

my theory

look there is a huge gap between man as cave painter and man as giant sophisticated pyramid builder. a cave painter cannot build such kind of huge pyramid with their primitive tools. then from where the sophisticated tools were coming? if you say that men invented them, then there will be a problem : what was the inspiration behind such invention? there is an inspiration behind every invention. for example: the inventions of plane and other flying machines are inspired by bird's flight. that of car was inspired by electric motor and horsedrawn carriage etc. in a word there must be some basis of invention. nothing happens out of blue. and where is the technology to build such equipment? who taught those technology to men? these questions have no answer.

but if we consider intelligent intervention we will find a reasonable explanation of man's leap from a primitive cave painter to sophisticated structure builder.

besides you see that there are no trace of those sophisticated equipment used to build the pyramid was found. if those instrument were invented by men, then those things must be there today, at least in limited extent. but if those equipments are brought by aliens, then they took those things with them when the job is over. thats why today we cannot find the proper equipments. isn't it a better explanation?
Debate Round No. 3
RyuuKyuzo

Pro

=======Obelisk=======

Con states that he doesn't think the stones were lifted by levers. The fact is, levers were a common tool in ancient Egypt for lifting heavy objects.

"The use of wooden levers to lift, shift, or turn over stone blocks was quite common in ancient Egypt.Instruments that can be identified as levers, however, are rarely recognized in excavations because they would usually have looked like ordinary beams with an obliquely chopped or chamfered end. There are a few examples, and even a bronze crowbar 67.2 centimeters long was discovered at Amarna." [1]

Furthermore, there's evidence on the stones themselves that levers were used in the form of lever sockets [1].

Once again, levers aren't the only way to crack the spine of a large rock, so this point isn't a big deal either way, but there is strong evidence to conclude that levers were used. Short of going back in time and witnessing them use levers, this fact is basically proven.

=======Moving the Stone=======

Con asserts that these sleds would not be strong enough to carry the needed load. He doesn't provide any reason for this other than a general page on grain direction and wood strength which says nothing about carrying capacity. Besides, the sled was lying directly on the ground, meaning all the stone would do is compress the wood -- which would make it stronger, not weaker.

Keep in mind, the Egyptians depicted themselves using sleds to move enormous stones. We have the sleds, we have the Egyptians written confession, so once again, short of having a time machine that can take us back and allow us to watch them use these sleds, this fact is proven.

=======Cutting Granite=======

I didn't make any "jump". As I've shown in previous rounds, we've found bronze saws and proven in modern times that a copper saw and sand is enough to cut granite. Obviously modern tools would be faster, but since this method has already been proven to work and given that we have evidence for this method in the form of saw-marks on the stones (did the aliens use saws?) and the actual saws themselves, this fact is also proven.

=======Construction=======

I'm not sure I understand con's criticism of the internal ramp theory. The ramp is still in the pyramid, that's how they new about it in the first place. It can be seen in the micro-gravimetric analysis photo taken in the 80's that I linked to back in R1. Here it is again [2]. The trolley is probably long disposed of, but we don't need it. As the video points out, grease marks (lubrication) and scratches in the stone suggest a trollay was used to trandport stones within the pyramid. Once again, check out the video and the links provided in previous rounds to learn about the specifics [3]. Why couldn't other explorers see this before Houdin? Houdin was the first to figure it out. That's all. Anyone else could have figured it out potentially speaking, but most of the people who have looked at this structure have been historians. Houdin was an architect who just happened to be really into ancient Egypt.

=======Con's Theory=======

Con's argument is essentially that humans couldn't have been inspired to build the pyramid, therefore aliens. This is not a prima-facie case. Con provides no evidence for alien intervention, which means he has failed to attempt to fulfil his BOP. Since this was the last round allowing for new arguments, Con has effectively lost the debate.

=======Conclusion=======

Con opened up his case by immediately breaking the rules of the debate (no counters in R2) and never presented any evidence for Ancient Astronaut Theory. Furthermore, he failed to debunk the evidence I presented showing a primitive means of accomplishing the construction of the pyramid. Even if he could have successfully debunked my arguments, that would, at best, show my theory wrong -- not prove his theory, leaving his BOP unfulfilled. Con has lost this debate, but I thank him for taking part in it all the same.

=======Sources=======


1. http://hbar.phys.msu.ru...
2. http://perfidy.org...
3. http://vimeo.com...
xxx00

Con

i have already proven my point quite clearly.
Debate Round No. 4
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Freedom1Man 4 years ago
Freedom1Man
Just look at Coral Castle, no aliens involved there.
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
Emo, like sees like. HEHE :D
Posted by emospongebob527 4 years ago
emospongebob527
I know a troll when I see one and xxx00 is obviously one.
Posted by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
Egyptian kings are called pharaohs. So are their queens, so it's a fairly important distinction.
If you want to debate the topic of ancient aliens with me, send me a challenge. Otherwise, stop wasting my time.
Posted by elplaga08 4 years ago
elplaga08
First off Pharaoh translates to "ruler or king" so read a book. Secondly their death had a major impact on the building not everyone liked the ruler and the next ruler wanted his buildings to start. Its not a true debate if your going to cry like a baby everytime someone post a comment. And just fyi the idea of those wooden sleds is a joke. Basic mechanical principal tells you that kind of weight especially on sand would not be possible to drag on wooden sleds by men who are ants in size comparison.
Posted by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
Once again, please refrain from debating this issue in the comments section before the conclusion of the debate.
Posted by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
That only makes sense if you assume the Egyptians built the pyramid 1 stone at a time. They had several cut-stations going at once -- and remember, 85% of the stones used in the pyramid were cut on-site.
Posted by Freedom1Man 4 years ago
Freedom1Man
Number of blocks over time frame to have been built.

Let's try to replicate that even using today's tech.

I personally don't think aliens built the pyramids though.

As for Easter Island those carvings are not so hard to understand, build frames around stones, fill frame with sand, start carving, as carving progresses start draining the sand.

As for the Pyramids believe it was higher technology which means that our archaeologists have been lying to us or there were aliens.
http://www.freemaninstitute.com...

So you figure out which one is correct.
20 years.....that is what the "historical / scientific" community claims.

It took about 20 years to build the great pyramid of Giza.........

Humm...20 years... well ..lets do the math and see how this sums up.

so there are 2.5 million stones in the great pyramid.

20 years equates to roughly 10.5 million minutes

-20 years x 365 = 7,300 days..

-7,300 days x 24 hours = 175,200 hours
-175,200 hours x 60 minutes = 10,512,000 minutes

so then....

that means they were cutting stones from the quarry, transporting to the site and placing 1 stone every 4.2 minutes ...24/7/365 for 20 years straight non stop.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com...

Stone henge was proven to be build able without advanced tools.
Posted by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
And to think some people have the audacity to claim that this issue isn't hotly contended! XD
Posted by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
... Pharaoh, first of all. Second of all, the pharaoh's death has absolutely no impact on their ability to build the pyramids. It's common knowledge that the pyramids took life-times to build. No one is contending that.
Finally, I will request that everyone in the comments section refrain from debating this issue either way until after the debate is finished, please and thank you.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by yuiru 4 years ago
yuiru
RyuuKyuzoxxx00Tied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Wow, con just lost. Aliens did it!!!!
Vote Placed by dylancatlow 4 years ago
dylancatlow
RyuuKyuzoxxx00Tied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had much better arguments than those of Con. He also didn't drop his opponent's arguments like Con did. Also, Con didn't even try to address Pro's arguments in round 3 and thus I think he loses a conduct point. Pro also used sources and Con didn't. It's quite apparent that Pro deserves 7/7