The possibily of life existing somewhere else in the universe

Let it be known that this is a debate. My opponent wishes to argue over a topic that has no resolution. I merely stated one. In rebuttal of his claims: a) "I thought this was supposed to be a debate" It is, we are waiting for you to give your opening argument(s) on the topic: 'Sentient aliens exist.' If you are somehow dissatisfied, we can always change it to: 'Sentient aliens probably/might exist. I'll be willing to support the heavier case since this debate is going nowhere at the moment. b) "you said was there is not much proof" I never even hinted at that statement, I said that you had 'an easily support claim,' which means the opposite to what you claimed I said. Don't put words in my mouth please its rude. c) "The topic is the POSSIBILITY of life existing somewhere else in the universe" The topic is about that, but as I said, its unresolved and cannot be debated. Refer up to my first post for an alternate topic. d) "I hope that your argument is more thought out when you respond." I haven't posted my arguments yet, but despite that, Challenge accepted. My arguments: 1) Observation is indisputable and it tells us that there are no aliens in our immediant vicinity. Meaning, the likelihood of extraterrestrial sentients living elsewhere must also be identical to observations here. 2) The fermis paradox will remain unresolvable mainly due to its own existence. C1: Observation: We have been pouring copious funds into departments similar to NASA that are dedicated to the search for extraterrestrial life. When the search for off earth life began, Scientist were fully expecting to see something. The amount of Stars out there number 1000000000000000's and the amount of those stars that have planets number 10000000's, so they expected at least a few of them to be able to sustain life in earth like conditions. The question now, is where are they? Scientists that are faced with these sorts of dilemmas use a method to tackle it called the null hypothesis[1]. In a nutshell, the null hypothesis works by a statement being made, in this case, 'there are no aliens.' And all the scientist attempt to negate it. They do this by finding evidence against. Evidence against would include observation or contact with these sentients. Until then, the null hypothesis is considered true until proven elsewise. Or in other words, there are no aliens, until proven elsewise. C2: The Fermi paradox: The Fermi Paradox is the apparent contradiction between the high probability extraterrestrial civilizations' existence and the lack of contact with such civilizations.[2] The fact that there is an apparent paradox seeks to make the case for the existence of aliens VERY unlikely. If sentient aliens existed, we should be able to detect them, or vice versa. The notion that humanity is the most advanced race in the galaxy is assuming all the other races are out there. In which case, those chances are so slim they can be easily dismissed. The more probable theory is that there are no aliens out there, and if there were, humanity is definitely not the most advanced. Which means they would have found us already, and if they have the capability to find us on earth, then we have the ability to detect the source for fuelling a tier 2 civilisation; one that harvest the power of stars for energy. In concluding, I hope my opponent will be able to satisfy his BoP. I am very interested in this subject and I hope for an excellent last round. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://www.fermisparadox.com...