The Instigator
bazinga390
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Gondun
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

There is other intelligent life 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 3 votes the winner is...
Gondun
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/30/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,109 times Debate No: 31908
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

bazinga390

Pro

I consider any organism capable of higher thought, such as reasoning, to be intelligent life. (A dog is considered intelligent life while bacteria is not.)
I believe it is logical that there is other intelligent life and i will argue why in the remainder of this debate. Good luck to my opponent.
Gondun

Con

I accept this debate.
I don't currently have an opinion on this, but could be swayed if the pro provides good arguments.
The burden of proof is on the pro because the pro only has to prove one situation, whereas if the BoP was on me I would have to prove that there is no intelligent life anywhere.

As of yet, no definite proof has been found for intelligent life off our planet. Crop circles, Roswell, and the pyramids do not count as proof for the pro.
Debate Round No. 1
bazinga390

Pro


Before we delve into the rest of the universe, let’s talk about how there is life on our little planet. We are in a rather insignificant solar system with an average star. Yet we have life. This is most likely due to organic molecules transported on comets from other areas of the universe. These organic molecules later evolved into creatures capable of debating on the Internet.


This brings me to my first argument. If these comets are the true source of life on Earth, then what are the odds that in the entire universe, this event only happened on one planet? With trillions of stars most of them having planets and some of those planets being able to support life, I find it very unlikely that these comets were the source of life for only one planet.


Staying on the topic of these life bringing comets, where did the organic molecules come from? If they came from a place where life already existed, then that alone would prove that there is at least other life in the universe whether or not that life is intelligent.


I have been talking about these comets as if they are a fact but they are not. They are just a theory, but currently, they are the most plausible reason for life to be on Earth. For this argument, however, let’s assume you don’t believe in the comet theory. Then I urge you to look at the solar system around you. As I said before, we are not significant. But we have intelligent life on an eighth of our planets. If this figure holds true for the rest of the universe, then it is logical that there is other intelligent life in the universe.


Gondun

Con

Seeing as the pro did not say otherwise, it can be assumed that he accepted the BoP.

Considering how precise the conditions need to be for a planet to sustain life, it is unlikely that another planet is both able to sustain life and has intelligent creatures on it. Out of all the small things about the earth that are needed for life, if even one of them was different we would all die. The distance from the sun, rotation angle and speed, correct mixture of gasses in the atmosphere, fresh water, correct temperature, etc... all need to be perfect for life to form. Even Mars, our closes neighbor, is a dry and lifeless wasteland. So far we have not found another planet capable of creating life, so there is no proof that we will find one at all.

In response to the Pro's arguments, the comet theory is not very logical. Scientists cannot figure out how life began on earth, so they say it came in on a comet, but give no explanation for where the life originally came from. Therefore none of his arguments about the comet theory prove anything. Even if the comet theory was true, it would only prove that there might be some bacteria floating on a rock out there.

The Pro says that we have life on one eighth of our planets, but that does not really represent what we have found. Out of all the planets we have found and observed, none of them show any signs of life, and very very few of them are even close to being able to sustain life. Lots of potential planets does not prove anything about the existence of life on them.

Now I don't mean to turn this into a religious debate, but the possibility that God put life on earth cannot be dismissed. This idea would mean that just because there are lots of planets out there, it doesn't mean that there is life on them. It is possible that God only put life on earth.

So because Pro's arguments are all based on faulty logic and unproven theories and because from what we do know extraterrestrial life is very unlikely, I should win this debate.
Debate Round No. 2
bazinga390

Pro

My opponent seems very confident with his ability to win this debate. I am not sure why, though.


Con claims that the conditions on a planet must achieve certain parameters in order to sustain life. This is not entirely true. I believe intelligent life could survive on any planet if that life evolved in the conditions of that planet. Allow me to give an example of this from Earth. Deep sea fish have evolved to live in areas that experience pressures of up to 1000 atmospheres, temperatures as low as -1.8˚C, and low oxygen levels. These conditions may be considered ‘unearthly’ yet intelligent life exists. To condense my argument, a planet does not have to be able to sustain human life in order to be capable of sustaining any life.


My opponent says that the comet theory is not very logical. He believes that scientists had no idea where life came from, so they said it came from comets. Thinking this is ill-considered because the comet theory is, like cell theory and the theory of relativity, a scientific theory. Paraphrasing, a scientific theory is an explanation for something using evidence of some kind. The evidence provided for the comet theory is as follows: The conditions in space are capable of creating organic molecules like amino acids, and the trip through the atmosphere that these amino acids took was not enough to destroy the amino acids and the heat and pressure of this trip was what triggered their transformation into a more complex form.


Con believes that even if the comet theory was true, it would not be very significant even stating, “Even if the comet theory was true, it would only prove that there might be some bacteria floating on a rock out there.” I see two things wrong with this. One, “some bacteria floating on a rock” is not accurate. As I said, organic molecules are on the comets, not bacteria. Also, Con thinks that the comet theory isn’t significant. I believe that if the comet theory is true, then it is very significant to this debate and I will explain why using an analogy. Imagine the comets containing organic molecules are the ‘seeds of life’. These seeds are distributed by wind like dandelion seeds. Now imagine space is like the air, and planets are like soil. One of these ‘seeds’ has obviously reached the ground otherwise we would not be here, but when was the last time you saw one dandelion in a field? There are usually several at least. This is why I think that if the comet theory is true, and it has evidence to say that it is, then there would be many more planets with intelligent life.


Con says that of the planets we have observed, none of them show any signs of life. This may be true, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that there is no life on those planets. If you looked at Earth from another planet during the Cambrian period, then you wouldn’t think that there was any life on Earth at all, but there was intelligent life. Perhaps these other planets are in a period like the Earth’s Cambrian period, or maybe they have some kind of below ground society that we will never be able to detect.


My opponent states, “Lots of potential planets does not prove anything about the existence of life on them.” I completely agree that this does not prove that life exists on them. However, a lot of potential planets does make it more likely that life exists on at least one of them. With billions of galaxies and billions of stars per galaxy, there are a lot of potential planets.


Con says that the possibility that God put life on Earth can’t be dismissed, but I believe it can. This is a scientific debate and there is no evidence of God.


I have provided valid arguments based on logic and evidence. I will now leave my audience with a question to think about: Is it really illogical that we are not alone?


Gondun

Con

I have said this in every round, giving the Pro plenty of opportunity to challenge it, so the burden of proof is still on the Pro. Remember this because it will determine the outcome of the debate.

Pro's arguments can pretty much be summed up in the idea that if there are so many planets and galaxies out there, at least one of them probably has intelligent life. In his own words "I completely agree that this does not prove that life exists on them. However, a lot of potential planets does make it more likely that life exists on at least one of them." Because the burden of proof is on the Pro, this will not be enough for him to win. The Pro said that the idea that God put life on earth could be dismissed because there was no proof, but his arguments have no more applicable proof than God does. Talking about one theory of how life started on earth then saying that there is a possibility that it happened somewhere else is not proof, it is assumption.

I win this debate because Pro did not prove that there is other intelligent life in the universe, he only said that it is a possibility. His argument about the comet theory does not prove that there is other intelligent life, only that there is a possibility. He also says that we may not be able to see the life or that it might be underground, but this works against him because that would make it harder to prove. For these reasons, vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by x2MuzioPlayer 4 years ago
x2MuzioPlayer
@bazinga390- "Burden of proof" (BoP) is the obligation a person has to support their claim. With this resolution, "There is other intelligent life in the Universe," you are making a positive statement that such beings exist. To win this debate, then, you have to show conclusive evidence that "intelligent life" exists elsewhere in the Universe. The opponent, on the other hand, has the burden of rejoinder (BoR). They have to show the support for the resolution is flawed or isn't warranted. What Con did was show how accepting the possibility of intelligent life doesn't bridge the gap to proving other-worldly intelligent life actually exists.
Posted by bazinga390 4 years ago
bazinga390
This is my first debate on this site. Will somebody please explain to me what the burden of proof is?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Misterscruffles 4 years ago
Misterscruffles
bazinga390GondunTied
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: Pro missed the BOP, and only got as far as "There could be other intelligent life in the universe."
Vote Placed by x2MuzioPlayer 4 years ago
x2MuzioPlayer
bazinga390GondunTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro needed to be able to prove there is, in fact, intelligent life apart from life on Earth. Con concedes the possibility, but maintains the BoP hasn't been met, since there isn't any conclusive evidence presented. Without any substantial reason to believe otherwise, this resolution stands negated.
Vote Placed by LibertarianWithAVoice 4 years ago
LibertarianWithAVoice
bazinga390GondunTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was very good. I thought this was going to be a debate full of citations and logic challenging thoughts. I was sadly disappointed. Good job con. Pro I hope to see you get better as times goes on.