The Instigator
Pwnu059
Pro (for)
Losing
16 Points
The Contender
Sorrow
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

There is Extraterrestrial Life Beyond Earth

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/16/2010 Category: Science
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,400 times Debate No: 11765
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (6)

 

Pwnu059

Pro

The existence of Aliens has been a huge controversy, most scientists believe extraterrestrial life exists, on the other hand, Religious groups believe we are the only ones.
Sorrow

Con

I thank PRO for this debate.

PRO argues that most scientists believe that extraterrestrial life exists, which I would say is false, but I will get to that later. PRO also says that religious groups believe we are the "only ones." To be honest, this is completely not true and PRO most likely produced his argument on the basis of Christianity. In fact, many religious groups acknowledge and advocate ET life, there is even a religion concerned about extraterrestrials (http://en.wikipedia.org...).

I must acknowledge, however, that being a person of reason and logic, I believe that extraterrestrial life can exist, but PRO's argument was based on the fact that there is extraterrestrial life beyond Earth. I am therefore in a position where all I have to do is negate that argument that there is definitely NOT ET-life beyond Earth.

The burden of proof is on PRO to prove that ET life does exist, and I think the only argument he can piece together is something along the likes of the Wow! Signal (http://en.wikipedia.org...), which could in fact be anything really, even the Flying Spaghetti Monster is viable in this situation.

Now, to justify my position as CON, and further refute PRO's intial argument, I say that most scientists accept the possibilities of ET life being POSSIBLE, but there is no further evidence to conclude the current existence of ET life. Semantics can be abused greatly here, as PRO's sentence was "There is Extraterrestrial life beyond Earth." If he had said "there can" then this argument would be extremely hard for me to win. But since PRO is implying the assumption that ET life is already currently existing, he must first provide the evidence of this.

The Fermi paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org...) states that due to the high probability of ET life existing within our vast and expanding galaxy, we would have already noticed them a long time ago. But we have not, and why is this?

The idea is that if *intelligent* life were possible elsewhere in the galaxy, then we'd have been aware of it a long time ago. That intelligent life would really only have to succeed on one other occasion to propagate throughout the galaxy by this present point in time. That the speed with which our own human life sprung up was so quick, that if it were easily developed elsewhere in the universe, it would have had many opportunities in the distant past to do so, of which at least one other species would have succeeded by now if it were possible. That it has not, or that we are not aware of any, suggests that either it has never happened, or has happened in a way in which we will never be aware. And that therefore our understanding of ET life is not likely to ever change.

I eagerly await my opponent's response. First time debating this topic, so I am excited.
Debate Round No. 1
Pwnu059

Pro

First of I like to say thanks Sorrows for accepting, I joined this website today and lets see how I do.

First I will have t say the Source is not Legit, Wikipedia isn't aloud in any debate. People can change the words very easily, even though there is people 'watching' it, I would like to say from now on do not use wikipedia.

Con said:
"The idea is that if *intelligent* life were possible elsewhere in the galaxy, then we'd have been aware of it a long time ago."
Now Extraterrestrial life doesn't have to be intelligent, it can be cells on a planet such as the Mars. NASA's probe Phoenix Lander found water on Mars. Where there is water, there is micro-organisms, and I quote from NASA "where there is water there is life,".

quote: http://ezinearticles.com...

NASA also confirms that there is methane gas in the atmosphere stating: "The first definitive detection of methane in the atmosphere of Mars indicates the planet is still alive," Now saying that Methane has 4 atoms of hydrogen, which is the main component of natural gas on the earth, which organisms digest nutrients, creating methane, yes it might be just oxidation of iron, but astrobiologists think otherwise.

http://www.nasa.gov...

You stated that we would have noticed them if the existed by saying : "we would have already noticed them a long time ago."
We have noticed them, we get 1,000s of UFO sightings a year. yes they are unidentified, since the governments cover them up, the only legit testimony's are the people who've seen them, Astronauts have seen them including Neil Armstrong, policemen see them, even John F. Kennedy saw one. there are even laws in place for Extraterrestrials
such as:
Title 14, Section 1211 of U.S. Federal Code: Forbidding Contact With Extraterrestrials
they wouldn't create laws like these if there weren't not any.

http://www.weeklyuniverse.com...

We have only scratched the surface of the Universe, We haven't even gone outside our own solar system. NASA has found dozens of Exoplanets, which are planets that might be able to support life
Sorrow

Con

I thank my opponent for responding. I guess I'll accept his renouncement that Wikipedia cannot be used, although I heartily disagree, but if my opponent desires that, then I'll go ahead and stop citing Wikipedia.

PRO starts off by arguing that ET life does not have to be intelligent, stating that simple things such as cells can be determined as life. From a biological standpoint, this is true, but for all realistic terms of evidence, cells have NOT been discovered on other planets that pinpoint the discovery of life. I would like to say that all life is composed of cells, at least the life we humans come to know of. Who knows what other fundamental properties of the universe aliens follow? For them, life could be spaghetti sauce. Also, just because there are cells does not mean that life WILL occur. Life-enabling molecules were discovered near the Orion nebula, but these are only basic building blocks, they will need to assimilate in order to form "life," and that is unlikely to happen any time in the near future, just think of how long it took for the first living organisms (or bacteria) to appear on Earth.

Now, when PRO says that "where there is water, there is life" I would also like to concur. Water is necessary for all life, that is a given. But where this is water does NOT mean life will suddenly appear. There must be other necessary components, such as amino acids, proteins, etc. for life to form. Also, oxygen must be a factor for life. HOWEVER, some organisms, most commonly bacteria, can live without the presence of bacteria; in fact, they die from being near bacteria.

For all sake of argument, water contains oxygen molecules. I expect PRO to know this as well as anyone who passed basic science courses. So, why is it that humans can't breathe in water, which contains oxygen? The key is evolution. Fills have gills, which allow them to breathe. Humans do not have gills. When we think of extra terrestrial life, we think of green blobs, or "The Grays." In fact, we have never seen extra terrestrial life, we can only assume, we do not know if they can use the water and oxygen to sustain life. Therefore, even if water is found this does not immediately conclude the premise of life, meaning life is yet again another POSSIBILITY. To wrap this all up, life has NOT been found on Mars, only water, and this is water that froze over possibly millions of years ago and is not sustainable for the development of life.

Also, I am not sure what you are implying with the methane gas and the atmosphere thing. Methane gas is present in Mars's atmosphere, yes, but what does this prove? Nothing, except that life is yet again another POSSIBILITY. Now, to go back on my first argument, and PRO's first statement which was "There is extraterrestrial life beyond Earth." I do not think this is possible, therefore the burden of proof is for PRO to prove conclusively that there is in fact extraterrestrial life outside of Earth, not just sources or possibilities of there being life.

Regarding the the UFO sightings and such; this is highly controversial material and cannot be used to provide any sort of accurate evidence. The media over-sensationalizes everything, their job is to report on findings, not document the accuracy of such findings. Even still, many conspiracy theories have arisen over the past years based on the government's "cover-up" of such details. This is complete BS IMO, as none of these sightings have proven ET life, again, the UFOs could be the Flying Spaghetti Monster's siblings coming down to greet us. The testimonies are all highly-opinionated, and each and every single one of their primary accounts differ greatly, none of them recall seeing the exact same details, therefore this leads to many plausible explanations, most of which are valid scientific explanations, not explanations given by firsthand sources who probably are doing it for the money and attention anyways.

As for the "ET law," this should be enough to disprove that: http://www.snopes.com...

PRO concludes his argument by saying that "we have only scratched the surface of the Universe." Hypothetically speaking, we have access to the entire universe through thought experimentation and visualization through external senses. Realistically and physically speaking, it is true that we cannot travel beyond our own solar system. But then again, if ET life is abundant, why have we not held contact with them or have evidence of their surroundings? You would think ET life would be much more intelligent than our own kind, seeing as how Earth is pretty young compared to the cosmological realm.

I thank my opponent for his response, and I eagerly await his rebuttals.
Debate Round No. 2
Pwnu059

Pro

Hey man u got me lol I was just bsing this because until what I thought was the status quo, now is nothing more than possibilities, until the government coughs up, you kicked my gluteus maximus, well hopefully in the future I can debate you again, this was my first time and I lost, but when you fail, you learn to succeed. good luck in all of you debates.
I FORFEIT YESH!!
Sorrow

Con

Well, you are very kind and humble, I wouldn't go so far as to say I kicked your "gluteus maximus", I just hope my arguments were convincing enough for people to vote for me.

Anyways, good debate, hope to see you in the future!
Debate Round No. 3
Pwnu059

Pro

Pwnu059 forfeited this round.
Sorrow

Con

Arguments extended, please vote CON.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Brendan21 7 years ago
Brendan21
Sorrow, you forget that when we look into space we are looking into the past, and depending on how far the object we see is, the farther in the past it is. The Orion nebula probably has formed life some time in the past.
Posted by Pwnu059 7 years ago
Pwnu059
yea i forfeited i dont win
Posted by Sorrow 7 years ago
Sorrow
wtf he forfeited and he's winning wtf is this sh1t
Posted by Sorrow 7 years ago
Sorrow
Fine, penalize me for making a minor factual error. My resolution still stands.
Posted by GeoLaureate8 7 years ago
GeoLaureate8
Sorrow, you misunderstand what an extraterrestrial is. You argued that UFOs could be anything, even a Flying Spaghetti Monster, implying that it's wrong to conclude that these sightings are of aliens. However, even if it were FSM, he is still an alien, despite what pop culture media depicts aliens.

ALL LIFE not from earth is an alien / extraterrestrial by definition. Even if it's the Flying Spaghettie Monster.
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
"There is" is an absolute statement. Pro you are arguing a probability based case.
Posted by Sorrow 7 years ago
Sorrow
CORRECTION:

"HOWEVER, some organisms, most commonly bacteria, can live without the presence of bacteria; in fact, they die from being near bacteria."

I meant to say "can live without the presence of oxygen; in fact, they die from being near oxygen."
Posted by Pwnu059 7 years ago
Pwnu059
yea no probelm lol
Posted by Sorrow 7 years ago
Sorrow
My apologies for the long introduction.
Posted by Pwnu059 7 years ago
Pwnu059
hey man this is my first tiem lol go easy on my. jk
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Brendan21 7 years ago
Brendan21
Pwnu059SorrowTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Pwnu059 7 years ago
Pwnu059
Pwnu059SorrowTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by smarterthanmost 7 years ago
smarterthanmost
Pwnu059SorrowTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by russianmaster999 7 years ago
russianmaster999
Pwnu059SorrowTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Romanus 7 years ago
Romanus
Pwnu059SorrowTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Vote Placed by Sorrow 7 years ago
Sorrow
Pwnu059SorrowTied
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:03