Living things on other earth like planets.

I'm proud of Pro; he never gave up, even though he admits this is difficult. With this, let's get into my final rebuttal.Rebuttal:Pro's photosynthesis theory:During this debate, Pro has suggested some species of alien life could do a kind of photosynthesis to survive. He's suggesting the planet would convert sunlight into a kind of energy. How? Let's hear his response: "In Earth, plants use photosynthesis to convert sun light into sugar and oxygen. The planet, which is like a solar panel, could do something like photosynthesis." I agree this is a logical conclusion, and possibly the most simplistic theory for how alien life could exist. But... looking at what Pro said... he suggests the planet itself is doing photosynthesis for the alien life. The planet itself is alive?Pro also has a theory of how the edible matter is actually eaten. He came up with two theories."Firstly, the cells can eat the food like us" This suggests that the matter is tangible. How would sunlight be converted into like an apple, or water? You can't eat sunlight.Unless the sunlight is converted into a gas which the life inhale? But this is a planet's doing. How does the planet convert? Pro should've gone into more detail as to how the sunlight is converted, and what exactly it's converting into."Secondly, lets think the planet itself is a living thing. Then, the planets can "bring" the food to the cells. For an example, in the planet can control its air, (some kind of gas) it can use its air like hands." 1) If the planet is alive, what does it feed off of? 2) Are we bringing some deity into this, that deity being the planet? We have a (small) possibility! Now all you gotta do is turn theory into fact! Prove it!Theory into fiction:Pro created a theory. Did he find any source that shows a godly planet does exist? Answer: One probably doesn't exist. Most people probably wouldn't come up with this theory, and would find water first and foremost. Pro proves my water assertion later."So, studies have said that Mars had water is the past." Why is water relevant? "By human common sense, living things need water." So there goes Pro's theory! He never said these life forms needed water, in fact, he said they didn't need it! I guess he was proven wrong by his own source.Judging Alien's existence based off of the source:So now that Pro's theory fell, what do we have to go off of? Water, Atmosphere, edible matter, and life itself. The source tries to say that life did exist before on Mars, but it said that people did find it shaky, myself included.Writing on the wall? What writing? Mayan Statue? I dont think they're aliens [Not certain, though]. Crashed UFO? Do I trust this? The source says it looks like a rock. A building on Mars? Must've been a small, simplistic house, because it could very well just be stones."Now Con is likely to say that these pictures are fake." Of course I did. "Well we don't know. But one thing I want to ask is. When did these alien/UFO sightings start?" Since the belief that little green men on Mars came about. That's when the saucers started flying!"But someone, started to tell lies. This made it very hard for people to tell the difference between a lie and truth." We'll find the truth in time, not soon, though.The question is "Do aliens actually exist?" I think it is plausible aliens exist, but practically impossible to actually prove they do. The closest we can get is gods and goddesses in religions, and those are impossible to prove as well. Thus, the entire burden is on Pro, which he couldn't really get to. Since it's difficult to prove aliens exist, and even more difficult to disprove their existence, the default position was my own. Thank you for this debate. Voters, who do you think won?