We were created by Aliens, not a divine being

PRO states, "I have thrown the burden of proof on the con and he must disprove my claim that "there is no other logical answer to "who created us? "This merits a loss of conduct points, because PRO is shifting the burden of proof. The burden of proof NEVER falls on the negative to negate a claim, but on the person making a positive claim. The burden of proof establishes that which ought to be taken as true if not proven otherwise--for instance, because PRO has the BOP, if he were to fail to refute any of my arguments, and that argument, should it stand, prevented him from upholding his burden, you vote CON. That is *not* the case for anyone making a positive statement. Otherwise, we would assume asinine things, like, say, "the universe exists on the back" are true, but in reality, they completely lack truth value--i. e. , they cannot be proven true or false. I don't have to prove anything false, but only to prevent PRO from proving them true. If PRO manages to uphold his burden, which only he maintains because he has to affirm a positive statement, you vote CON. But he outright admits to committing a BOP fallacy [. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...].Further, PRO doesn't respond to my burden analysis of him needing to prove two independent claims, so I extend it. PRO then says, " i know we were created by extra terrestrials is because there is no other logical answer to "who created us? ". Was it a divine being? no, that is IMPOSSIBLE, it goes against everything of logical sense, there is literally no other answer. we could have been created by extra terrestrials, hell! for all we know the planet we walk on could be the being who created us. "First, PRO's burden is not to establish that we *could* have been created by extraterrestrials--read the resolution in the title of this debate: he needs to prove that we *were* created by extraterrestrials. If he doesn't do that, you vote CON. Second, he claims that it is impossible for us to have been created by a divine being. Why? Because it "goes against everything of logical sense. " This is a ludicrous assertion, because God by definition defies and transcends logic--in fact, he is the author of logic. Further, the entire idea of God lacks truth value, so you cannot possibly seek to refute or to affirm it. My burden is not to affirm it, but to prevent PRO from negating it--since he cannot negate it, you can, once more, vote CON. Third, even if it weren't a deity who created it, he falsely sets up the notion that it must've been aliens--an argument which does not logically follow, as there are a number of possibilities outside the real of our understanding which could've caused it. For instance, Dr. Michio Kaku provides a case that the universe could have been created from nothing [. http://www.sciencedump.com...]. Further, there is widespread scientific consensus for evolution, further invalidating PRO's claims--if he wants to win this debate, he has to disprove these claims. Otherwise, other plausible alternatives are on the table, and he instantly loses. ConclusionPRO makes a number of logical fallacies in his remarks, most notably arguing that the burden of proof is on me to disprove a positive claim, rather than for him to prove it to be true--the entirety of the burden lies with him. Then, he claims that there is "no logical" reason to believe in a deity, though it lacks truth value. Then he assets, if not a deity, then it must be aliens--which also ignores other plausible alternatives. Finally, he tries to pass a "could" statement off as an as an affirmation of this resolution, when in order to win, he needs to prove that we were created by aliens *beyond a reasonable doubt.