There is other intelligent life in the universe.

My opponent seems very confident with his ability to win this debate. I am not sure why, though. Con claims that the conditions on a planet must achieve certain parameters in order to sustain life. This is not entirely true. I believe intelligent life could survive on any planet if that life evolved in the conditions of that planet. Allow me to give an example of this from Earth. Deep sea fish have evolved to live in areas that experience pressures of up to 1000 atmospheres, temperatures as low as -1.8˚C, and low oxygen levels. These conditions may be considered ‘unearthly’ yet intelligent life exists. To condense my argument, a planet does not have to be able to sustain human life in order to be capable of sustaining any life. My opponent says that the comet theory is not very logical. He believes that scientists had no idea where life came from, so they said it came from comets. Thinking this is ill-considered because the comet theory is, like cell theory and the theory of relativity, a scientific theory. Paraphrasing, a scientific theory is an explanation for something using evidence of some kind. The evidence provided for the comet theory is as follows: The conditions in space are capable of creating organic molecules like amino acids, and the trip through the atmosphere that these amino acids took was not enough to destroy the amino acids and the heat and pressure of this trip was what triggered their transformation into a more complex form. Con believes that even if the comet theory was true, it would not be very significant even stating, “Even if the comet theory was true, it would only prove that there might be some bacteria floating on a rock out there.” I see two things wrong with this. One, “some bacteria floating on a rock” is not accurate. As I said, organic molecules are on the comets, not bacteria. Also, Con thinks that the comet theory isn’t significant. I believe that if the comet theory is true, then it is very significant to this debate and I will explain why using an analogy. Imagine the comets containing organic molecules are the ‘seeds of life’. These seeds are distributed by wind like dandelion seeds. Now imagine space is like the air, and planets are like soil. One of these ‘seeds’ has obviously reached the ground otherwise we would not be here, but when was the last time you saw one dandelion in a field? There are usually several at least. This is why I think that if the comet theory is true, and it has evidence to say that it is, then there would be many more planets with intelligent life. Con says that of the planets we have observed, none of them show any signs of life. This may be true, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that there is no life on those planets. If you looked at Earth from another planet during the Cambrian period, then you wouldn’t think that there was any life on Earth at all, but there was intelligent life. Perhaps these other planets are in a period like the Earth’s Cambrian period, or maybe they have some kind of below ground society that we will never be able to detect. My opponent states, “Lots of potential planets does not prove anything about the existence of life on them.” I completely agree that this does not prove that life exists on them. However, a lot of potential planets does make it more likely that life exists on at least one of them. With billions of galaxies and billions of stars per galaxy, there are a lot of potential planets. Con says that the possibility that God put life on Earth can’t be dismissed, but I believe it can. This is a scientific debate and there is no evidence of God. I have provided valid arguments based on logic and evidence. I will now leave my audience with a question to think about: Is it really illogical that we are not alone?