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

The possibily of life existing somewhere else in the universe

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/17/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 792 times Debate No: 25650
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




Based on the information I have learned about in documentaries and other studies, I think it is very possible that life can exist in other places in the universe other than just Earth. The Kepler telescope, launched into orbit in 2009, has discovered over a thousand Earth like objects just by pointing in one area of space, and identified over 800 planets. Kepler 22b is one of those planes and it looks pretty promising to be very earth like for now. One of the important things to look at is that we only know of life as we know it. Before we discovered the first exo planet, we thought that rocky planets would be in the inner orbit of the star and the gas giants would be in the outer. The first exo planet discovered, 51 Pegesi b, was a huge gas giant that was very close to the star. My point is that even though we are searching for life as we know it, there could also be life as we don't know it.


I wish to state a resolution:
'Sentient aliens exist.'

That is an easily supported claim to give the pro side an advantage, but its evened out by his burden of proof. So this should be an interesting debate.
Sentience: feeling or sensation as distinguished from perception and thought [1]
aliens: extra-terrestrial life forms capable of survival and reproduction.

So, let the affirmative state his case.

Debate Round No. 1


Okay, I thought this was supposed to be a debate, but all you said was there is not much proof. The topic is the POSSIBILITY of life existing somewhere else in the universe. I hope that your argument is more thought out when you respond because you really didn't give me anything to debate.


Let it be known that this is a debate. My opponent wishes to argue over a topic that has no resolution. I merely stated one. In rebuttal of his claims:

a) "I thought this was supposed to be a debate"
It is, we are waiting for you to give your opening argument(s) on the topic: 'Sentient aliens exist.' If you are somehow dissatisfied, we can always change it to: 'Sentient aliens probably/might exist. I'll be willing to support the heavier case since this debate is going nowhere at the moment.

b) "you said was there is not much proof"
I never even hinted at that statement, I said that you had 'an easily support claim,' which means the opposite to what you claimed I said. Don't put words in my mouth please its rude.

c) "The topic is the POSSIBILITY of life existing somewhere else in the universe"
The topic is about that, but as I said, its unresolved and cannot be debated. Refer up to my first post for an alternate topic.

d) "I hope that your argument is more thought out when you respond."
I haven't posted my arguments yet, but despite that, Challenge accepted.

My arguments:
1) Observation is indisputable and it tells us that there are no aliens in our immediant vicinity. Meaning, the likelihood of extraterrestrial sentients living elsewhere must also be identical to observations here.

2) The fermis paradox will remain unresolvable mainly due to its own existence.

C1: Observation:
We have been pouring copious funds into departments similar to NASA that are dedicated to the search for extraterrestrial life. When the search for off earth life began, Scientist were fully expecting to see something. The amount of Stars out there number 1000000000000000's and the amount of those stars that have planets number 10000000's, so they expected at least a few of them to be able to sustain life in earth like conditions. The question now, is where are they?
Scientists that are faced with these sorts of dilemmas use a method to tackle it called the null hypothesis[1]. In a nutshell, the null hypothesis works by a statement being made, in this case, 'there are no aliens.' And all the scientist attempt to negate it. They do this by finding evidence against. Evidence against would include observation or contact with these sentients. Until then, the null hypothesis is considered true until proven elsewise. Or in other words, there are no aliens, until proven elsewise.

C2: The Fermi paradox:
The Fermi Paradox is the apparent contradiction between the high probability extraterrestrial civilizations' existence and the lack of contact with such civilizations.[2] The fact that there is an apparent paradox seeks to make the case for the existence of aliens VERY unlikely. If sentient aliens existed, we should be able to detect them, or vice versa. The notion that humanity is the most advanced race in the galaxy is assuming all the other races are out there. In which case, those chances are so slim they can be easily dismissed. The more probable theory is that there are no aliens out there, and if there were, humanity is definitely not the most advanced. Which means they would have found us already, and if they have the capability to find us on earth, then we have the ability to detect the source for fuelling a tier 2 civilisation; one that harvest the power of stars for energy.

In concluding, I hope my opponent will be able to satisfy his BoP. I am very interested in this subject and I hope for an excellent last round.

Debate Round No. 2


Jeffster184 forfeited this round.


'Jeffster 184 forfeited this round.'
I would like to point out that the fact that my opponent can type in red doesn't seek to advance his claim one bit. My opponent implicitly claims that he may have been abducted by aliens. If this is true, then why didn't he try to send us one last message in an attempt to prove his case? Really, claiming that you have forfeited in fancy red writing is hardly the way to go about it.

Extend all arguments.
This was a rather disappointing debate. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ObiWan 4 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: cons arguments were better and were never rebutted.