Debate Rounds (4)
The existence of life on earth is evidence that there is life on other planets, because there is no scientific basis in the idea that earth is unique. We live on a planet in an average solar system orbiting an average star, in an average spiral galaxy containing many such star systems, in a universe containing many such galaxies. therefore, due to vast size of the universe, it is more likely that life is prone to developing and earth is one amongst many life-bearing planets then the idea that earth is a unique life bearing planet in a universe that abhors life.
I understand that we have no significant proof towards the existence of aliens, but this in itself should not disprove the existence of aliens. Man's area of detailed information does not go beyond our solar system. although we are able to view other stars and even planets, we have no way to prove that there is not alien life on a planet.
My opponents proposal is an interesting one. I will agree that there may be life on other planets.( notice my use of the word may) However I don't absolutely believe there exists aliens on other planets. We cannot assume conductive things based on inductive arguments. This is just simply faulty logic.
My opponent made a statement witch he/she believes to be factual and absolute. My job is to prove that we cannot assume facts based upon probability or inductive arguments. Pro clearly states the their is no evidence to believe his assertion. How then can he make a claim to be fact if he doesn't have support to stand on. Let me demonstrate why we should not support this flaw in logic.
I believe the sun is hot because my friends have told me such. (because the person may trust his friends the person probably thinks what they are saying is true however they may be lieing or pranking him. Then the statement can be false because it is based on probability.)
I believe the sun is hot because my friends said such and I can feel the suns heat myself. ( the friends have said the sun is hot and the person has experienced this himself. He therefore can safely conclude that the sun is hot. This scenario is based on proven facts.)
So as we can clearly see inductive arguments cannot be used to prove conductive things. Therefore my opponents case hold no water. Thus he cannot prove aliens exist. A con vote is a very logical response to this debate.
natoast forfeited this round.
Since my opponent has forfeited. It is assumed he drops his case and my points are still standing firm. Therefore I suggest to the audience to vote in a negative favor to this resolution being con.
note: the round 3 forfeit was accidental, I didn't have an opportunity to respond in time.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by philochristos 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments to Con because Pro forfeited.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.