Intelligent Extraterrestrials Exist

I will first say that wikipedia is not a reliable source as it is still easily editable. It is sometimes a decent place to start, however it isn"t a reasonable site to support an argument with.I will start each paragraph by reiterating your key points."The Requirements for Life are Way too Unlikely"The fact that the Earth is unique in that it meets the requirements needed for life, does not rule out the possibility that another planet it this vast universe might meet these requirements as well. When NASA made the prediction of their being at least 100 million planets with life, they DID actually take into account the special requirements you stated. NASA took the 17 billion Earth like planets that exist, and then narrowed down that number by taking into account the requirements you mentioned; that there would have to be a thin atmosphere, a moon, and the planet would have to be the right size. NASA, only after considering these variables, determined that of the 17 million Earth like planets, only .001% of these planets met such requirements and harbor existing life forms. Do you know what .001% of 17 billion is? It"s 100 million; still quite a large number. So despite the impossible requirements for there to be life, there are still roughly 100 million planets out there that do in fact meet these unlikely circumstances. So to say that the presence of life is nonexistent would simply be false. When you consider that there"s 17 billion Earth like planets in the universe, it is not farfetched to assume that .001% of these planets have life (a statistic which NASA stands by).For these reasons, your argument against the probability of there being life in the universe is invalid."Extreme Temperatures in Addition to Radiation Makes the Existence of Intelligent Life Impossible."Heres your exact quote: "Microbial life tends to be resilient to radiation, heat, cold, and other harsh conditions intelligent life is not resilient to." When NASA made this estimate, they chose only planets that would allow for the presence of liquid water, meaning that the planets in question do not have extreme climates. All of these 100 million habitable planets would not have any extreme temperatures that would make it impossible for intelligent life. Now to address the problem radiation poses life. Any planet with a sufficiently thick atmosphere (all of the planets in question do) blocks out any type of harmful radiation. So neither of these two problems (climate & radiation) are even applicable.Therefore you have not succeeded in bringing forth a valid argument.our atmosphere: http://littleshop.physics.colostate.edu...Even If Extraterrestrials had Advanced Technology, They would Still Probably Never Make it to EarthIf they had an understanding of how to travel close to or faster than the speed of light, wich we already theoretically know how to do, traveling to Earth would not be a complicated task. If they had a solid understanding of wormholes, and how to use them to travel anywhere in the universe, getting to Earth would be almost instantaneous. Because a civilization as young as ourselves is already beginning to understand such technologies, it is logical to assume that a species millions of years ahead of us has a very clear understanding of them."When a Species Becomes more Advanced, They also Become more Violent"When you make a claim such as this one, you only have a single basis for your reasoning; the human race. One can't make a statement about many diffirent things, when he only has one of such things to look at. You cannot look at a human behavior and then assume that every other intelligent race would act exactly the same. This is a logical fallacy. Lets say for the sake of illustration that there is in fact an intelligent race. This intelligent race has captured a single human being and he is being examined. In an experiment, they feed the man a peanut causing the man to have a fatal allergic reaction. The aliens, using your logic, come to the conclusion that all human beings are intolerant of peanuts. This proves that your statement is based on faulty logic and is therefore invalid. I will however, despite the logical error, still address your point. I do not believe that the discovery of dangerous technologies would result in the demise of an alien race. I believe that as their understanding of such technology as nuclear weaponry expands, so does their understanding of its dangerous and catastrophic potential it has on the planet. Consequently, they would plan accordingly. We as humans, after discovering its potential, rather than start a nuclear war, have instead begun to destroy all our nuclear warheads. Given that a race is intelligent, as its knowledge of dangerous weaponry increases, so would their level of caution. To conclude, I would like to again, state that due to this logical fallacy, the argument is null.1. "The Disclose Project Claims There"s a Cover Up But Contradicts there Evidence. "2. "If there was a Cover Up, Those Testifying Would be Arrested"You claim is that if there is a cover up, those testifying would be arrested, therefore there's no coverup. However, these government officials have gained quite a bit of attention from the public (like Robert dean, who has """ views on youtube) so for them to suddenly be arrested on the grounds of leaking classified information, that would just be a public affirmation that what they were saying is indeed authentic, classified information. This would expose that what the government has been saying about the sugject has been a lie, and they would loose credability. How do you think it would look for the government, who asserts that there is no government involvement with extraterrestrials, when suddenly a ufologist such as Robert Dean, were to be arrested on the grounds of having leaked information that the government claimed didn"t even exist! It would just expose to the public, that the governments statements regarding UFO"s have always been a lie.3. The CIA is likely not involved in any cover up, as nearly 0 official documents related to UFO"s were created since the 1950"s [8]. There is nothing to cover upThe fact the the government has not released information about UFO"s is not proof that there is none. Edward Snowden proved that there is information that the government is hiding from the public. We know for a fact that the government has a hole agency devoted to secrecy, how could you possibly know that there aren"t any documents regarding UFO"s? It is obvious that if the government knows of extraterrestrials, they would keep it a secret at all costs, just as they are doing with much other information. The difference with these government officials and Edward Snowden, is that the existence of the information released was not subject to debate between the government and the rest of society, as UFO"s are. If the existence of the secrets Snowden leaked was previously denied by the government, he would not be at risk of being arrested by the government, simply so the government could uphold their previous statement that the information doesn"t exist. If the government wants us to think that there is no information in the first place, how could they arrest someone for talking about it? Even if they could arrest such people, what benefit would it really serve?"The whitehouse Claims there are no Extraterrestrials"Given the fact that this is a GOVERNMENT conspiracy, the government should be the last source of information on the subject. I am arguing that the government is keeping this a secret, so why would a statement from the government, denying the existence of Aliens, be valid, given that they are the very ones keeping it a secret?Conclusion:In my rebuttal, I have pointed out the numerous logical fallacies in my opponets arguments which render most of what he says invalid. For this reason, my opponent has yet to present a sound argument against existence of extraterrestrials.