The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Vexorator
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

enough credible evidence exists to believe in UFOs from extraterrestials

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...
Vexorator
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/12/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 479 times Debate No: 60374
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

enough credible evidence exists to believe in UFOs from extraterrestials

there are tons of credible people and even whole cities who claim to have seen UFOs. given so much evidence, it is reasonable to believe in UFOs coming from extraterrestrials

here is one example
http://en.wikipedia.org...

more info about a prominent UFO figure
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Vexorator

Con

Hello, Pro. I'll accept this debate. I am intrigued by the idea that exterresstrials exist.

Burden of proof
Since you claimed that enough credible evidence exists to believe in UFOs from exterrestrials, you must meet your burden of proof in proving that there is indeed evidence that sighted UFOs are from extraterrestrials.

Here is one example...
In that example on a wikipedia page, it shows that people claim to have spotted a UFO. On the page, it does not say anywhere or prove that the said UFO was from extraterrestrials. There is not even any mention of extraterrestrials at all.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

it was an unidentifed object. it didn't have any natural explanations that weren't grasping at straws. many people saw it. it looked like something not man made. this is just one example of this type of UFO phenomenon. whence, it is reasonable to believe in UFOs from extraterrestrials.
Vexorator

Con

It was an unidentifed object. it didn't have any natural explanations that weren't grasping at straws. many people saw it.
You've answered your own claim. If something is unidentified, it does not mean that the answer is extraterrestrial life, it means that we do not know what it is or who made it.
Definition of unidentified: not known[1].

It looked like something not man made.
This is not evidence that it was made by extraterrestrials. You still have to prove that there are UFOs from extraterrestrials.

Sources:
[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

you overlook the fact that i used the word 'whence'. 'whence' is a trump card, whence, i win this debate.
Vexorator

Con

Your initial argument and debate title was "enough credible evidence exists..." You cannot change that claim to "whence, it is reasonable to believe...."

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Vexorator 2 years ago
Vexorator
They are not the same. If you think they are the same, you should've stuck to one (the debate topic).

I wanted you to provide evidence because you said that there was evidence. If you say there's evidence, you need to give evidence. You failed to meet your burden of proof.

I don't understand what you wanted me to provide evidence for, because I didn't claim anything. All I did was reject your claims since you didn't fulfill your burden of proof.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 2 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
saying 'there is enough evidence' is about the same as 'it is reasonable to believe'

otherwise con did a great job acting as con but without doing any real leg work in factual arguments, not that he was required to so much given i had the burden, but still, it was pretty cheap. we were both dogs at wanting the other to provide evidences.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 2 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
dairygirl4u2cVexoratorTied
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: Easy decision in this debate to award Con argument points, as Pro said they would present credible evidence. That credible evidence was never presented and as Con pointed out there is no mention in the citations proving that these UFOs are really extraterrestrials or just unidentified.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
dairygirl4u2cVexoratorTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Whence, Con failed to show that UFOs from extraterrestrials have visited Earth.
Vote Placed by jackh4mm3r 2 years ago
jackh4mm3r
dairygirl4u2cVexoratorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: The use of the word whence is wrong. There was no fulfillment on Pro's part in fulfilling the burden of proof. Conduct for Con for Pro's terrible attempt at semantics.