Intelligent Extraterrestrials Exist

== Sources == It is again ironic that Pro claims wikipedia is a weak source when he is citing forums. Forums are pretty much all of the bad edits you find on wikipedia…It is also a myth that wikipedia is inaccurate. In fact, wikipedia is as accurate as encyclopedia Britannica, and vandalizing edits are often fixed before anyone has a chance to see them [1]. To point to a few cases of vandalism does not mean wikipedia is inaccurate. it is like saying a peer-reviewed journal is inaccurate as they had a paper retracted. The fact is, if Pro wants to talk about sources, he would lose. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... == Statistical Probability == Pro essentially argues there are millions of planets, so one of them *must* be suitable for life. I gave scientific reasons as to why many planets we think are ‘earth like’ are likely not habitable for intelligent lifeforms. Most earth like planets are desert like, devoid of water, has variable climates, etc. Further, I even noted how the moon we had was unique and without it we would likely be a barren planet [2]. Again Pro merely offers conjecture, speculation. Speculation is not enough for him to win the debate as he has the BOP. He must prove *intelligent* aliens both exist and have visited earth. Further, he cherry picks what I say and offers a rebuttal. He essentially ignores the significant evidence I presented last round, and focuses on a small think I said about microbacterial life. I said it is extremely *likely* this life exists. I provide evidence that it is *unlikely* that intelligent life exists. Pro also seems to make up random statistics to support his claim. 0.001% of planets likely do have life. But the chances of the being intelligent is slim. And again, he has to prove they have (1) visited the earth, and (2) have the means to visit earth. 2. http://www.godandscience.org... == Means for earthly visitation == I do not doubt that it is *possible* to acquire interstellar travel. But we only now have *theoretical* models. These models occur only after we have invented things such as the nuclear bomb. The jet, for example, was created for military purposes [3]. Airplanes advanced extremely fast during WW1, and other military technologies blossomed, were refined, and invented [4]. Essentially, war is a driving force for technological advancement. Even long term conflict, like the cold war, essentially gave us the technology we are using to write about this topic [5]. Intelligent life is the most violent. Compare humans to Penguins. We kill each other all the time… They don’t… So, as we progress--war, too, progresses. The cold war is the best example, since technology grew at the fastest rate in recorded history. Yet, weapons of destruction was one of the *primary* advancements. It is very possible that the world could have been obliterated during those time periods. So, if we assume aliens have the technology Pro asserts, we can also assume that their chances of getting here decrease as their capability to destroy themselves also increases at the same rate. Pro offers conjecture. I offer historical facts as to what we know. Again, speculation is not enough for Pro to win the debate. 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://ncpedia.org... 5. http://mitpress.mit.edu... == Cover ups, authority == If there was a coverup, there would have been UFO’s in the USSR… There were none. The USSR did not cover up UFO’s because there were none. Only in the US did the UFO craze really take off. Much of the 1950s - 70s cover ups were not because they found aliens, but due to the fact they did not want to tell the world they were spying on the USSR and what they were finding (of course, everyone knew we were spying on the USSR, but to announce it would cause a huge amount of tension). The fact is, I am citing actual CIA documents [6]... My opponent is relying upon speculation. I have provided *significant* doubt there is a cover up. Pro cites a few crazy people who claim to see UFO’s as ‘solid’ proof that UFO’s exist. I already debunked his sources last round. This round he merely adds a few names. “how could you possibly know that there aren"t any documents regarding UFO"s?” Speculation. Not adequate in order to fulfill your BOP. You must provide documental rpoof that the CIA is covering up stuff. You are posing *doubt* to the CIA’s study, but you must *prove* aliens exist in order to win the debate. “Edward Snowden, is that the existence of the information released was not subject to debate between the government and the rest of society” -- Yeah, it’s not like everyone hated the Patriot act already. Everyone was ‘debating’ this, just like UFO’s. What are you even talking about. And even if it wasn’t ‘debated’... I don’t see how controversy really matters. “Given the fact that this is a GOVERNMENT conspiracy” -- Source? “the government should be the last source of information on the subject” -- Speculation. “so why would a statement from the government, denying the existence of Aliens, be valid, given that they are the very ones keeping it a secret?” -- You offer no proof they are keeping a secret. Not one shred of evidence. You cite witness testimony, which is considered inaccurate [7]. I cite actual documents. 6. https://www.cia.gov... 7. http://www.innocenceproject.org... == Robert Dean? == Dean has been called ‘head of NATO’, or my opponent calls him a CIA operative. He was neither of these. He was a medium ranking sergeant in the US military [8]. Dean’s evidence for a government conspiracy is a document called “the assessment”... Not something any official government body would name an official document… And he has not shown this document to people. Again, more conjecture, no proof. Pro has failed to offer any *hard* evidence for his claims. Resolution negated. 8. http://en.wikipedia.org...(ufologist)