The Instigator
xxx200
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Rational_Thinker9119
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points

do aliens exist?

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 2 votes the winner is...
Rational_Thinker9119
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/4/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,869 times Debate No: 20877
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

xxx200

Con

in this debate i will be con. i will argue that alien do not exist.

the pro will argue that alien do exist.

alien= extra terrestrial being coming from outer space.
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

I accept, present your case.
Debate Round No. 1
xxx200

Con

1] the UFO may not be alien spacecraft. it may be any of the following:

1. Human aircraft
2. Unmanned spacecraft.
3. Misidentification of atmospheric phenomena.
4. Misidentification of astronomical phenomena.
5. Hallucinations.
6. Hoaxes.
7. Birds


2] All of the reports about the UFO are based on subjective impression of size, distance and speed. Therefore, the judgement that they are performing "impossible activities" has no useful evidentiary basis.


3] Notice how real the UFO foto looks later in the video and how easy it was for him to fake it.

http://www.ted.com...

4] there is no other clue/evidence other than UFO that aliens exist.


so from above reasons it is clear that UFOs are not alien spacecraft. the UFOs are the only evidence regarding the existance of the aliens. since UFo has nothing to do with aliens, then aliens might not exist.


Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

This debate is not about UFOs it's about the existence of aliens somewhere in outer space. Aliens can exist without visiting earth so basing your whole argument around UFOs isn't really helping you too much considering there could be alien life that exists out there that is too primitive to travel space.

Rebutting my opponents arguments:

"1] the UFO may not be alien spacecraft. it may be any of the following:

1. Human aircraft
2. Unmanned spacecraft.
3. Misidentification of atmospheric phenomena.
4. Misidentification of astronomical phenomena.
5. Hallucinations.
6. Hoaxes.
7. Birds"

You are correct that UFOs may be 1 of the 7 things above, they may also be alien space craft too so I'm not sure what your point is. Unless you can brush off every single UFO spotted as 1 of the 7 things listed above (which you can't) then you have no bases for saying it couldn't be an alien space craft.

"2] All of the reports about the UFO are based on subjective impression of size, distance and speed. Therefore, the judgement that they are performing "impossible activities" has no useful evidentiary basis"

I'm not understanding your point here, if there is an object doing things that none of the 7 things you mentioned can explain then it's only rational to leave the extra-terrestrial option on the table.

"3] Notice how real the UFO foto looks later in the video and how easy it was for him to fake it."

Yes we all know that many (if not most) UFO photos are fake, this does not mean all of them are fake.

"4] there is no other clue/evidence other than UFO that aliens exist."

Wrong.
We are life on a planet so we are evidence that life can arise on a planet. If life can arise on planets then aliens most likely exist somewhere in the universe because there are many planets in a habitable zone in the universe just like Earth is.

Presenting a case for alien life existing somewhere in the universe:

The most current estimates guess that there are 100,000,000,000 to 200,000,000,000 galaxies in the Universe, each of which has hundreds of billions of stars. As far as planets go, there are around 50,000,000,000 in our milky way galaxy alone.
The Kepler mission revealed 1,235 planet candidates, while 54 of them were orbiting their host star in the so-called goldilocks zone.

So I'm going to do some rough math to try an determine how many planets in the universe may be habitable for life like earth is.

So if 54 out of 1,235 planets observed are in the habitable zone, this means that 4.3724696% of these planets are potentially habitable. What I'm going to do is calculate how many planets there are in the universe, and come up with an estimate to the total number of habitable planets there may be in the universe and draw a conclusion regarding the possibility of alien life existing based on those rough figures.

This galaxy has 50,000,000,000 planets, this means that roughly 218,6234,800 of the planets in the galaxy may be habitable for life. If we took 2,186,234,800 and multiplied it by 150,000,000,000 (between 100,000,000,000 and 200,000,000,000) to get a rough estimate of the total number of habitable planets in the universe, we would get 3.2793522e+20 planets in a Goldilocks zone.

If we look at our own solar system though, there are 3 planets in the Goldilocks zone but only 1 supports life that we know of. So if we took 3.2793522e+20 and divided it by 3 you would get 1.093117e+20 planets that are most likely habitable and have inhabitants based on all available evidence we can gather about the universe.

The chances of having 1.093117e+20 habitable planets, with 0 inhabitants is so close to 0 that I can't even think of a rational number to describe it at the point (even though I'm basing these numbers on what we see in our own galaxy and solar system along with the Keplar mission, and the numbers may not be 100% accurate when describing the whole universe, the picture I'm painting as a whole is still very accurate as a concept even if mathematical figures may not be totally correct).

This means that it is more likely that aliens exist somewhere in the universe, then not (even if only primitive life like bacteria exists, it is still alien life)

Conclusion:

Even though me and my opponent may both be operating under false assumptions, he is basing his entire argument regarding whether Aliens exist or not on UFO sightings (I'm skeptical myself when it comes to alien visitation claims, but this is a debate about aliens existing not about them travelling to Earth). Not only did I refute his whole argument, but I have provided a pretty solid case proving that it is more likely that aliens do exist somewhere in the universe, than the alternative.

Sources:

http://www.universetoday.com...
http://www.space.com...
Debate Round No. 2
xxx200

Con

so there is probability that aliens exist.

but it is only a probability math. it may not be true. we need more sound proof.

none of the spaceship we send had ever found any traces of alien. nor they got any signal.

our scientists on earth did not get any signal from an intellectual being from outer space.

now my opponent is not accepting UFO based argument but these UFOs are only evidence that gives us a probability that aliens might exist.without UFO it is just a probability math having no solid base.

can you give a solid case that aliens do exist?
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

Rebutting my opponents arguments:

"so there is probability that aliens exist."

I'm glad that you concede this point.

I cannot prove that aliens exist and you cannot prove that they don't exist, if this was the case one of us would be millionaires by now..All we can do is present cases back and forth regarding which option is most likely. Since you agree with the high probability of alien life, then it's clear that this debate is leaning in my favor.

"but it is only a probability math. it may not be true. we need more sound proof. "

Once more, if I could prove aliens existed I would either be killed by the government or become a millionaire. All I can do is present a case that they most likely exist, rather than most likely do not exist.

"none of the spaceship we send had ever found any traces of alien. nor they got any signal."

This point is moot really, mainly because human inventions have a limited range. Considering how large the universe is it's not surprising that we haven't found much of anything yet. As far as signals go, what reason is there to believe that they use radio signals like we do?

"our scientists on earth did not get any signal from an intellectual being from outer space."

Once more, there is no reason to think they would use radio signals and no reason to think that not finding much in our limited range indicates aliens don't exist.

"now my opponent is not accepting UFO based argument but these UFOs are only evidence that gives us a probability that aliens might exist."

Wrong.

Scientists know what the building blocks of life are, therefore if a planet potentially has some of these elements present then it raises the probability of alien life existing. Therefore, this provides evidence leaning in the direction of aliens existing without having to invoke UFOs.

"without UFO it is just a probability math having no solid base."

Wrong.

Planets/ moons in a habitable zone with elements on it which are the building blocks of life are actually more evidence that aliens most likely exist than UFOs, because we can't conclude what each UFO actually is. We can conclude however what it takes for life to form, and if there is a potential match, that constitutes as evidence of alien life being more likely than the alternative.

"can you give a solid case that aliens do exist?"

I have presented a solid case that aliens most likely exist somewhere in the vast universe, even if only simple life like bacteria. You however have provided no solid case that aliens do not exist, and until you do that I don't think you have any grounds whats so ever in this debate.

Continuing my case for alien life:

Europa

Europa is the 6th closest moon of Jupiter, and was discovered in 1610 by Galileo Galilei.
This moon most likely has a water ocean underneath a smooth layer of ice which the moon was confrimed having many years ago.
This moon's atmosphere is mostly oxygen. Scientists believe there most definetly is an ocean at least hundreds if not thousands of miles deep.
All of this is evidence leaning towards the likelyhood of alien life existing even if only simple non-intelligent life, and this is just in our very own solar system.

Not all life needs sunlight to thrive

In the depths of the ocean, there are organisms which will never see sunlight yet thrive.
For life liquid water plays a role, then you need an energy source. For us this energy source is the sun, for a long time scientists believed this is the only way life could thrive. This was until a diver who was sent on a mission regarding the titanic found whole ecosystems of life thriving without being exposed to any sunlight. So what is the energy fueling the life in the deep waters? It comes form the Earth's core, hydrothermal vents provide all the energy needed for ecosystems to thrive without the sun. This is even more evidence of alien life existing somewhere (perhaps on Europa), because this means a body like a moon or a planet doesn't even have to be in a Goldilocks zone to support life!

Conclusion

I have provided evidence leaning towards the likelihood of alien life existing somewhere in the universe, even if only primitive life. My opponent however, has not provided any evidence (besides irrelevant UFO arguments) leaning towards the likelihood of alien life not existing somewhere in the universe. Based on this, I believe I have the advantage in this debate.

Sources

http://www.solarviews.com...
http://www.theglobeandmail.com...
Debate Round No. 3
xxx200

Con

xxx200 forfeited this round.
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

Rebutting my opponent's arguments:

My opponent forfeited a round, so there is nothing to rebut.

Continuing my case for alien life:

Kepler 22b

Kepler 22b is a planet that was discovered 600 light years (approximately 3,550,000,000,000,000 miles) and it would take about 22 million years to travel there was far as we as humans are concerned. Kepler 22b has an average tempetare of 72 degrees fahrenheit, is roughly the same distance from it's sun that we are from ours, and it's year (270 days) is even close to our year as well. The planet is mostly ocean though so life on surfaces is probably not likely, however life in the ocean is more than probable, even if only single celled organisms.

My opponents definition of alien

"alien= extra terrestrial being coming from outer space."

Being is defined as conscious life, but single celled organisms don't have consciousness as far as we know, but we do know that micro-organisms evolve into macro-organisms with consciousness because natural selection takes effect and these organisms develop brains to store more information and become aware of themselves and the world for survival.

With 1.093117e 20 planets with potential inhabitants I have calculated (even though it's possible that this number is extremely inaccurate, it still has not been refuted by any counter math), it's more than likely that at least a few of the organisms developed a consciousness if not entire civilizations, and therefore counts as "beings." This means that until it goes refuted, I have provided a solid case that extra-terrestrial beings most likely exist.

What about "coming from outer space" though? This was not specified entirely in a specific manner, and could mean a variety of different things which could easily fit with any of my arguments.

Why I believe I have the upper hand in this debate:

Even though I have not provided evidence that alien life exists, I have provided evidence that alien life most likely exists, somewhere in the vastness of space, even if only simple non intelligent life. With enough time and survival, these simple organisms will evolve, adapt, and grow brains to store information and gain consciousness to continue it's survival. This means that I have shown, that extra-terrestrial beings coming from outer space (however you chose to give meaning to "coming from outer space) is more than likely.

Why I believe my opponent does not have the upper hand in this debate:

My opponent has not provided any evidence that even simple organisms existing somewhere in this large universe is not probable, or that they would not have enough time to develop consciousness. He also has not provided evidence that these alien beings could not "come from outer space".

My opponent forfeited a round

Conclusion:

So far in this debate, I have provided a more solid case than my opponent regarding the existence of alien life.

Sources:

http://www.nasa.gov...
http://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://articles.nydailynews.com...
Debate Round No. 4
xxx200

Con

xxx200 forfeited this round.
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

Due to the fact that my opponent forfeited another round, I will not post an argument for this last round in the name of fairnness.
I thank pro for the debate.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 2 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
In my last round, I meant I thank Con for the debate.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 2 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
Also, the definition can not be "coming from outer space" because that implies that all aliens should have the ability to travel the vast distances of space. There could be aliens who are primitive like apes and will never have the ability to develop space ships, as long as we are clear on this we are good..
Posted by rogue 2 years ago
rogue
change the resolution to 'aliens to not exist' and I will take this. You need to have the bop.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 2 years ago
1Historygenius
xxx200Rational_Thinker9119Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't think it would even make a difference if xxx200 stayed in the debate anyway.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
xxx200Rational_Thinker9119Tied
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: FF poor arguments