given the sheer size of the universe, the most reasonable view is expecting that alien life exists

Not Enough Information:Why did pro completely ignore this segment in my original argument? Not enough information is, by far, the most important point I've made.Even though pro did not address this issue, I will expand my argument...Pro related the universe to various things in round 1, so I'll do the same, to make things clear.Say we are told there is an extremely large, but still finite box (the universe). Then, someone argues, with only that information, that the most reasonable view is to expect a banana (alien life) to exist in it.It is clear to any reasonable person that there is nowhere near enough information given to come to that conclusion, let alone declare it to be the most reasonable view. Primarily, because we know nothing about what is in the box or how long it has been around.A More Reasonable View:Instead of just arguing that expecting alien life to exist is the most reasonable view, I'm going to provide a more reasonable view. By doing so, it proves pro's argument is incorrect.The alternative view is as follows:We do not have enough information to definitively determine that there is or is not alien life in existence.This, by definition, is more reasonable, as it is more agreeable because it is a fact; we do not have definitive proof that there is or is not alien life in existence.Calculations:Pro claims that I found that alien life probably exists, but I clearly did not. I made it very, very clear that the results were statistically insignificant, and completely useless.If pro is so certain, then why were no actual significance tests done? It would be a simple and straightforward way to refute the argument that the numbers are not statistically significant...I will not perform a significance test first, because any reasonable person can see that the numbers I arrived at do not provide any evidence. Just take a look at how wide the numbers vary for the number of stars in our galaxy... Using multiple sources, you get anywhere from 200 billion to 400 billion. (7) Another example is the number of stars in the universe; pro found that it was 49 sextillion, while I found that it was 60 sextillion. There are several other sources that widen the range from 30 sextillion to 1 septillion. (8) Also, don't forget the completely arbitrary factor of 1 quadrillion...Significance tests aside, an easy way to show there is no significance is by using significant figures... 1 quadrillion has no significant figures, as it was not measured and completely arbitrary, therefore our result has no significant figures. (9) Therefore, the results are not significant.Furthermore, these calculations have nothing to do with the initial statement, because we were given only the size of the universe.Fermi's Paradox:Pro's refutation is that, "it's not much of a paradox." It is, by definition, a paradox. (10) Also, it is unresolved, so I don't see how pro can dismiss it so easily. (2)Anyway, pro goes on to talk about alien intelligence and the ability for them to communicate with us, but pro is just restating what she already said, rather than addressing the objections I raised.Conclusion:Pro has ignored crucial objections and parts of my argument, so I began to expand my argument in an attempt to salvage this round. More specifically, I've expanded on my not enough information argument, provided a more reasonable view, proven the calculations yield numbers that are statistically insignificant, and refuted pro's attempt at refuting Fermi's paradox.(7) http://en.wikipedia.org...(8) http://en.wikipedia.org...(9) http://en.wikipedia.org...(10) Definition: 1. A self-contradictory proposition. 2. An opinion or statement contrary to the commonly accepted opinion.