The Instigator
JustinKalaveras
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
alyfish126
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

There is other life out there

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 5 votes the winner is...
alyfish126
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/7/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 808 times Debate No: 56188
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (5)

 

JustinKalaveras

Pro

We can not be the only life out there, when there are trillions of other planets, and a lot like Earth.
Debate Round No. 1
JustinKalaveras

Pro

Ok thank you for accepting. Now tell me how can we be the only life out there. When there is billions, trillions of planets?
alyfish126

Con

In logic and in philosophy, there are 3 types of claims [1]:

(1) Analytic: True by definition
For example: All batchelors are unmarried; all squares have four sides
These statements cannot be false without logical contradiction

(2) Synthetic: Derived from empirical observation of the natural world
For example: All batchelors are unhappy; alien life forms exist
These statements are either true or false depending on what is observed.

(3) Nonsense: Not true by definition, cannot be observed in the natural world
For example: God exists; ghosts are real
These cannot known as true or false.


The claim "there is other life out there" is a synthetic statement. Since other life has not been formally observed, then it is false. Pro's claim is purely speculation. Formation of a theory without hard evidence.

[1] http://plato.stanford.edu...;
Debate Round No. 2
JustinKalaveras

Pro

Just the fact that we are here should be proof enough, there is no possible way that out trillions of planets ours is the only one with life
alyfish126

Con

Conclusion:

If we are allowing speculation in this debate then I could claim that you're in a dream and none of those planets are real.

Without proof, it's not true. That is how the world and science works.

Pro had burden of proof. He has given no tangible proof for other life forms.

Thank you for the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by alyfish126 2 years ago
alyfish126
My opinion would be found in the "Opinions" section of the site.
Posted by killerinstinct 2 years ago
killerinstinct
Con is being a goof and way to literal.

However, by her logic since she cannot prove life doesn't exist, then they are both at a draw.

I would say that statistically speaking it is more likely that there is other life than not. Therefore Pro is the right answer, though neither debated anything.

The site is called debate, not reference case studies or gtfo. Where's your opinion.
Posted by alyfish126 2 years ago
alyfish126
evangambit, you're right. If I say there are mermaids, it could be true without proof. However, science doesn't accept truth without proof, and in the court of law proof is a necessity. That statement was a bit excessive.
Posted by evangambit 2 years ago
evangambit
"Without proof, it's not true. That is how the world and science works"

This is false. Something's existence or the correctness of a proposition is not dependent on proof. Proof can go a long way to verifying it, but arguing that something is false because there is no proof is akin to "your conclusion is wrong because your argument is faulty".
Posted by alyfish126 2 years ago
alyfish126
I had never heard of the Drake equation before now. Good to know for next time, thanks.
Posted by Samreay 2 years ago
Samreay
Also, new to this site, is there a way to ask for a debate to be reviewed?
Posted by Samreay 2 years ago
Samreay
I agree with Wylted. Pro's only statement was an argument from incredulity. How that is worthy of giving "better arguments", I have no idea.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
I'm getting tired of seeing coldmind's votes. Just about every one if his votes is retarded and on the side that should clearly be losing.
Posted by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
@Samreay

The Drake equation would be overkill for the BoP, as the equations calculates the likelihood of communicative life 'out there', rather than just life. Still, affirming the resolution with the equation would have had Pro a victory.
Posted by Samreay 2 years ago
Samreay
The comment isn't false, it is unknown. What both side should have done is use the Drake equation, and then cite either literature constraining those variables, or to use a Fermi estimate to come up with an answer.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by ChadIrvin 2 years ago
ChadIrvin
JustinKalaverasalyfish126Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made a better argument. Pro just speculated based on opinion.
Vote Placed by Burncastle 2 years ago
Burncastle
JustinKalaverasalyfish126Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro literally presented no evidence, so victory to Con.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
JustinKalaverasalyfish126Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had the bop and his only argument is the logical fallacy known as: argument from ignorance.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
JustinKalaverasalyfish126Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: All Pro had to do was provide a singular instance of life existing 'out there', I mean come on! It's basically a truism! Pro failed to meet this BoP, and could only provide a synthetic claim which had no tangible evidence, as Con correctly stated. Sources to Con for being the only one to provide relevant sources to the debate.
Vote Placed by Cold-Mind 2 years ago
Cold-Mind
JustinKalaverasalyfish126Tied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to Con because Pro repeated round 1 in round 2 and round 3. Convincing arguments go to Pro because he presented 1, while Con presented 0. Con appears not to know that we can't be absolutely sure of anything;