We are not alone.

Here we goLets review the resolution at hand. My adversary is claiming"We(humans) are not alone"and clearly is directing this at aliens and other sorts of human like creatures. We can tell this during his R1 and R2 statements"We are not alone. Humans are most certainly not the only intelligent species in the Universe"In addition to this I am calling Pro out right away on his resolution. In R2 he is assuming what we are debating is is highly likely. We are not dealing in odds of probability, we are dealing in odds of certainty per the resolution.The resolution is not"We are probably not alone"The resolution is however"We are not alone "There is a fundamental difference in saying something "does exist" and "possibly exists", and per the resolution we are debating "there is intelligent life". I will not allow him to alter his own resolution in R2. Empirical EvidenceThis is the heart of the debate. Remember we are not dealing in odds of chance or probability, we are dealing in certainty. This is very similar to arguing "There is a God", except we are arguing "There are aliens and other intelligent life". What my adversary is attempting to do is rationalize how and why this life could exist. We could similarly do the same thing with God. Why does he exist? Because it makes sense and it explains how the universe could exist. In this instance we are looking at aliens. Do Aliens exist? His next line of logic follows this. Yes they probably do exist, there are thousands of galaxies that we have not explored, and due to us forming from evolution there is a chance at least one planet has produced intelligent life similar to earth. This line of logic is flawed by itself. I could say there is (x) that exist on other planets. That gigantic bugs possibly exist or that creatures like dinosaurs still exist on other planets because we have seem similar things on earth. So at least one on these planets, there is a high probability that one satisfies the needs to meet this criteria.While if we looked at his logic formally, there is nothing to flawed about it. It is flawed, but not as flawed as we would think. He is just reasoning, it happening on earth so it could happen somewhere else. He could even break down numbers and probability as to the variety and chances of it occurring.The issue is that this does not support his premise and resolution. Again we are not weighing in odds of probability but certainty. We are dealing with empirical evidence, not theories. When we say (x) exists there has to be empirical evidence to support that claim. We have no seen no evidence to support intelligent life beyond earth. At least anything that is empirical. All the circumstances where people have witnessed something or thought they have saw something, almost all of it has been or easily can be debunked by science. Here are just a few that can be explained logically [1]No empirical evidence to support intelligent life.Let us review two thinks real quickEmpirical Evidence - provable or verifiable by experience or experiment. [2]Circumstantial Evidence - indirect evidence that tends to establish a conclusion by inference [2]Direct Evidence - real, tangible, or clear evidence of a fact, happening, or thing that requires no thinking or consideration to prove its existence, as compared to circumstantial evidence [2]Here is a breakdown on how to tell direct and indirect (circumstantial) apart." The following examples illustrate the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence: If John testifies that he saw Tom raise a gun and fire it at Ann and that Ann then fell to the ground, John's testimony is direct evidence that Tom shot Ann. If the jury believes John's testimony, then it must conclude that Tom did in fact shoot Ann. If, however, John testifies that he saw Tom and Ann go into another room and that he heard Tom say to Ann that he was going to shoot her, heard a shot, and saw Tom leave the room with a smoking gun, then John's testimony is circumstantial evidence from which it can be inferred that Tom shot Ann. The jury must determine whether John's testimony is credible. " [3]So essentially most of the cases are like this"Ann walked outside and she saw a bright light in the sky, she looked up and saw something similar to UFO soar through the sky. Therefore Ann believes there is a UFO"Situations like this are entirely circumstantial and can be debunked easily. Anywhere from a lighting storm happening and a plane flying through the sky, or even someone playing a practical joke. In a majority of these situations you can go back and almost create the same type or even the same exact situation that happened.You never see stuff like this" Ann walked out side and saw her neighbor being abducted by alien. Jill also saw the same thing"This is direct evidence, and most situations that do come out like this are instantly shot down as hoaxs and rightfully so. Either the people are mentally unstable or a variety of other reasons. In all the years on earth we have never once seen or heard any type of empirical evidence to support the fact that there is life on other planets.Almost everything we see is indirect evidence or assumption. Nothing like an alien being caught on tape or the news, has ever came out.Nasa FindingsAlmost everything we see in space exploration correlates to possibility. It has never been reported that carbon, oxygen, and the other essentials that we need for life have ever been found on other planets. They have acknowledged there may be different types of life but again this is an assumption. The most that has ever been reported is that NASA has found different structures of life that use arsenic as a DNA base. Again this is a possibility that life at the bacterial level could exist, but is still miles from being proven [4]. There could possibly be life at microscopic level existing on other planets, but nothing iron clad has ever been found yet. All of the evidence is circumstantial and assumption. Granted there is a high possibility that it could exist, and that life on other planets may have a different base structure than what we are use to such as oxygen and carbon, but no such life has ever been recorded or brought back. This is speculation based off of findings on earth.In ClosingMy adversary has adopted a nearly impossibly conclusion. He has chosen to defend there is intelligent life beyond earth.He would have been better off trying to defend the possibility of life beyond earth and deal in odds of probability. That is not the case in this debate though. He has made the positive claim "there is"There has never been on empirical tests or direct evidence to confirm this, so for the time being the most logical conclusion is to assume it is a possibility but not a fact.We are probably not alone, but my adversary has presented nothing to show that we are. Nor will he be able to. We are not operating under odds of probability, but empirical and direct evidence.There is no way he can uphold this[1] http://www.space.com...[2] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...[3] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...[4] http://www.foxnews.com...