The Instigator
flamingbutter05
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
InnovativeEphemera
Pro (for)
Winning
17 Points

aliens are real

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 4 votes the winner is...
InnovativeEphemera
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/7/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 464 times Debate No: 60106
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (4)

 

flamingbutter05

Con

I think aliens are real

No getting of topic
No trolling
InnovativeEphemera

Pro

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
flamingbutter05

Con

Sorry i mean i believe they dont exist beacuse even thoughthere are many possiblites they might exist all chances are slim first life needs water well if gravity and temputare is not right there will never be water or all the water will fly away to space.
Earth got oceans because alot of volcanic explosions occured causing the rain to fall for years that became oceans also they need air.
InnovativeEphemera

Pro

I thank my opponent for initiating the debate.

As my opponent has not provided definitions, I will do so briefly here:

Alien
noun
  1. a foreigner, especially one who is not a naturalized citizen of the country where he or she is living.
    As in, "aliens are real".
Etymology: Latin; alienus, meaning stranger, foreign(1).

Real
adjective
  1. Actually existing.
    As in, "aliens are real".

Foreigners, especially ones who are not naturalised citizens of their country of residence, do in fact exist.
This BBC article describes some recent trends in the numbers of unlawful non-residents in the United States(2).

Furthermore, the United States funds 'U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' through the Department of Homeland Security. The department exists, which demonstrates that the United States government is of the opinion that there are some people who do not live within the United States who would like to live in the U.S., i.e. aliens(3).

Summarily, aliens are real.

___________________________________________

Presumably, my opponent is in fact talking about extra-terrestrial life and not immigrants. No problem, we can cover that, too!

My opponent asserts that: "i believe they dont exist". His claim has a burden of proof; that is, demonstrating that aliens do not exist. He then provides some reasons to hold the position that aliens do not exist. I will first rebut these, then provide the scientific position on the question of extra-terrestrial life.

Firstly, my opponent concded the possibility that they might exist, negating his resolution that "they are not real". This is an absolute statement. If the resolution was "they are probably not real", that would be fine. However, by directly refuting the possibility of the existence of aliens in his resolution, then agreeing that there is a slim possibility, he is contradicting himself.

Secondly, he asserts, "life needs water well if gravity and temputare is not right there will never be water or all the water will fly away to space." While it is true that life on earth requires water, and that is therefore the only way we know of life existing, this does not imply categorical exclusion of non water-based life-forms. Gravity is a function of the mass of the planet and temperature a function of things like atmosphere and proximity to nearest star, and many exo-planets of a similar size and mass to earth (as described by the Earth Similarity Index(5)) have been found(4). Thus, not only is it the case that identical conditions to earth may not be required, we have nevertheless found similar candidates anyway.

"Earth got oceans because alot of volcanic explosions occured causing the rain to fall for years that became oceans also they need air."
Again, the assumption is that all life must start in oceans. Further, the origin of terrestrial water is not clear and is still a point of contention amongst the mainstream sceintific community(6).
As for air, it is not the case that all life forms require air. For instance, fish are a species of animal that does not require air, because unlike mammals who breathe air to gain their oxygen, fish get their oxygen from water(7).
In further addition, many types of life do not require oxygen at all. Certain types of extremophiles do not require oxygen or most other things life typically needs to survive(8). The first multicellular animals have recently been discovered who can survive in anoxic environments.

I have addressed your contentions about the unlikelihood of extra-terrestrial life, and given that you shoulder the burden of proof to demonstrate your claim that aliens don't exist, it is now up to you to present new arguments demonstrating their lack of existence; absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

However, I am happy to also provide you with some of the arguments in favour of the likelihood of the existene of aliens. While we cannot know anything with absolute certainty, what I can provide for you is a series of sound, valid and consistent evidence that seems to suggest to a high degree of certainly (potentially approaching maximal certainty) that the liklihood of the existence of non earth-originating life greatly outweighs the prospect of life only existing on earth.

The Drake Equation

The Drake equation is a tool for calculating the number of detectable civilisations in our galaxy [read: Milky Way only]. Initially proposed by SETI radioastronomer Frank Drake in 1961. With the variables that are currently known, the equation returns a low-end result of approximately 12 000 civilisations in the Milky Way galaxy(10). Carl Sagan suggested the fugure was probably closer to 1 million.

Panspermia

Although initially difficult to grapple with, both slowly mountain evidence and reasonable deduction are beginning to indicate that panspermia may be a genuinely viable option for exploration. In short, panspermia is the hypothesis that life on earth originated from pre-existing life brought to earth by meteorites, comets or some other process(11, 12).
Comets contain ice, a source of water, and as demonstrated previously, extremophiles are capable of surviving in harsh, anoxic environments. Further, tardigrades are an animal that has been subjected to space exposure and survived. They are "Earth’s most tenacious creature can live in boiling water, solid ice, and the intense radiation of space. It can survive a decade in a desert, without a drop of water to drink, or in the deepest trenches of the sea."(13)
Thus, it is demonstrable that some living organisms can survive the treacherous environment of space, and that it is conceivable that aliens could in fact have survived in the vaccum of space and populated earth. While I am not asserting that this is necessarily the case, it is possible, refuting your assertiong that "aliens are not real".

Scientific consensus

In May, Forbes reported on Seth Shostak, Senior Astronomer at the SETI Institute, testifying to the U.S. Congress, "It is not hyperbolic to suggest that scientists could very well discover extraterrestrial intelligence within two decades’ time or less"(14).

Summary
My opponent asserts that aliens are not real, however not only has he yet to provide evidence substantiating this claim, it is in direct conflict with the current understanding of extra-terrestrial probability.

Based on scientific enquiry, we have a high degree of confidence and certainty in the impending contact with aliens, and although we have yet to directly observe them, just because we haven't yet doesn't mean they don't exist at all.

Thankyou, and best of luck to my opponent!


___________________________________________
Debate Round No. 2
flamingbutter05

Con

We have no proof
20
years ago scientists have sended a signal wave around
a few galaxys to see if thre really were aliens but there have been NO
Results at all

I MIGHT forfeit the next round cause of my homework

Anyways good luck
InnovativeEphemera

Pro

Thanks to my opponent.

Initial rebuttals
"We have no proof".
While we have no direct observational proof for the existence of aliens, it is approaching statistically impossibility that no other organic chemistry arose elsewhere in the universe, as demonstrated in the previous round. In the same way, we have no direct observational evidence for dark energy or dark matter, or even black holes for that matter, but we can calculate very high confidence levels for their existence because of modelling on their effects. While it is not yet possible to say "we have seen a black hole" because black holes, by their very nature, are not observable (light that enters them does not escape. I don't think we need to get into Hawking radiation but you get the gist). What we observe is their effect on the universe, for instance light being bent around the hole, gravitational projections for proximal celestial objects and other measures. We can't actually say we have visual proof of black holes (technically we never have proof of anything!) but what we can say is that we are approaching maximal certainty in its existance. The same is said for non-terrestrial life.


"20
years ago scientists have sended a signal wave around a few galaxys to see if thre really were aliens but there have been NO Results at all".
Although you have not specified, presumeably you are referring to the Arecibo message(1). While you are correct that no response has been received in *40 years, this is because the message was sent to the globular star cluster M13, which is 25 000 light years away. 25 000 - 40 = 24 960 years before it reaches its destination. If anything is in that region, and it can detect the signal, and it can respond, it will take another 25 000 years to receive a responce. No wonder we haven't heard anything yet!


My opponent has not attempted to refute any of my contentions, so they stand.

Until refuted, two points stand:
1. Aliens, synonymous with foreigners, are real, to a maximally certain degree of confidence.
2. Aliens, being non-terrestrial life forms, are real, to a degree of certainty approaching maximal, despite not having achieved direct physical contact...yet.

Best of luck with your homework!

(1) [http://en.wikipedia.org...]
Debate Round No. 3
flamingbutter05

Con

flamingbutter05 forfeited this round.
InnovativeEphemera

Pro

I extend my arguments.

Kudos to my opponent for taking his education seriously and completing his assigned homework.

I eagerly await your final round.
Debate Round No. 4
flamingbutter05

Con

flamingbutter05 forfeited this round.
InnovativeEphemera

Pro

Extend. Thanks for the debate.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by InnovativeEphemera 2 years ago
InnovativeEphemera
Oh my goodness a real-life terrestrial alien claimant! Could you please provide some references? :)
Posted by ruthpumarejo 2 years ago
ruthpumarejo
theres been over 12,000 alien sigh seeings just in London. It's sad most people never hear about this kind of stuff
Posted by BlurtItOUT 2 years ago
BlurtItOUT
The universe is so vast. I believe aliens exist. It hasn't even disprove. So that's my point.
Posted by InnovativeEphemera 2 years ago
InnovativeEphemera
You've listed yourself as Con but in your opening you state that you believe they are real. What is your position?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Max.Wallace 2 years ago
Max.Wallace
flamingbutter05InnovativeEphemeraTied
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 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: There are no reliable sources on whether or not aliens exist, but to believe that they do not, as vast a universe as we live in, is complete stupidity. And to believe that humanity is the most brilliant is even more stupid.
Vote Placed by AlternativeDavid 2 years ago
AlternativeDavid
flamingbutter05InnovativeEphemeraTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
flamingbutter05InnovativeEphemeraTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Daltonian 2 years ago
Daltonian
flamingbutter05InnovativeEphemeraTied
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: Forfeiture