Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

He should also know that it is not my confusion he should concern himself with, but his. Since the majority of all my points have not been refuted, I will use this final round to respond directly to a few of my opponent's final-round assertions and then list a few of prior unrefuted points that still stand in strong negation to the resolution. ================== A. "However once an extraordinary claim is established, the same kind of claim in the future would be more ordinary(or less extraordinary), this again is by definition. " This is so egregiously preposterous and nonsensical. This necessarily means that all current ordinary claims were once extraordinary claims. I previously asked my opponent to furnish the necessarily existent extraordinary evidence for dog, alligator, and skull – he, of course, did no such thing. If all ordinary claims do indeed posses extraordinary evidence (by virtue of once being extraordinary claims), why is it labeled extraordinary, If it is actually rather ordinary? ================== B. "For example if I claim that aliens visited earth in the past, that is an extraordinary claim for the reasons stated above. However if I establish this claim by providing extraordinary evidence, such as an alien spaceship relic, then I can cash in my claim. " How is it that one can prove an extraordinary claim with another extraordinary claim (i. e. alien spaceship)? Furthermore, NASA uses many planetary observation devices to determine new things about our solar system all the time (new things in which no prior evidence existed for them), previously unknown entities are made known and so on. So if NASA found extraterrestrial life, it would be just another discovery using the same method of evidence used to confirm all past planetary discoveries. How is this evidence any more extraordinary then all other discoveries? Indeed, it is not! NASA could confirm extraterrestrial life using the same method of evidence gathering used to determine the surface appearance of planets. The ordinary evidence used to determine the surface of planets could be used to determine extraterrestrial life. ================== C. "Hence what Carl Sagan's phrase practically means is that when you wish to establish an extraordinary claim you must work harder than someone making an ordinary claim, this is because prior knowledge supporting the ordinary claim already exists. " Using the example of my neighbor says he has a dog and my neighbor says he has a dragon: it is epistemic imperialism to say that the former is true because it is ordinary. We have no idea of the verity of either claim; it would only be an acceptance of the testimonial in regards to the former claim. In order to actually prove the statement "my neighbor possesses a dog," it would require the exact same method of proof to prove the dragon (dragon being a fire-breathing, reptile with wings). You may believe the claim more easily if it is said to be a dog, but that is still an acceptance of the mere testimonial. To prove as actual truth or fact, dog or dragon, the same scientific methodology for evidence is required. The only sentiment I agree with is that some things we accept (from honest people) by merely their testimony and others, if the claim is extraordinary (or the person is dishonest. I would believe an extraordinary claim made by one of my honest friends over most ordinary claims made by liars), we wish to see something beyond the testimony. But this does not mean that the simple claim is actually true - it simply means that we believe it to be true. ================== Points That Still Stand: ================== 1. My opponent's definition relegates all ordinary claims to once being extraordinary. It is rather ordinary then, for even ordinary claims to posses extraordinary evidence. 2. My opponent would had to seriously contend that scientific evidence itself extraordinary in order for any remnant of his points to stand. 3. Whether an individual claims to have a dog or dragon, he cannot prove it without demonstrating it to us, regardless of how reasonable we might feel his claim to be. ================== Conclusion: ================== As it has known become abundantly clear, I have sufficiently negated the resolution and have, quite clearly, won this debate with ammo left. Thank you for reading. Inquiretruth