Extraterrestrial Life Must Exist in an Infinite Universe

--REBUTTAL-- As my opponent spent the last round refuting my refutations, I will refute his rebuttals to my refutations in this round. -- "Think about it this way. 5=5. 10=10. Infinity=infinity. Go ahead and imagine a person picking candy an infinite number of times. Keep in mind though that there is an infinite amount of candy as well. In addition, the "candy" is replaced after every pick! Just because one planet picks the water candy does not mean that that candy is gone forever. " My opponent appears to have missed a key part of my argument. He assumes that there are infinite possibilities for what can exist on a given planet; unfortunately, he is mistaken. Clearly, these possibilities are limited by the laws of reality. For example, a planet on which perpetual motion occurs could not exist. This is significant because it completely disproves my opponent's logic, which is at the heart of his argument. -- "…flip a coin a couple times. Isn't it possible that the coin will land on heads both times? Of course. Now, imagine flipping that coin an infinite number of times. Was it not possible for the coin to land on the same side twice? Why then would it not be possible to flip the coin on heads an infinite number of times? Is it possible that the coin would eventually land on tails? Absolutely. Is it even probable that it would eventually land on tails? Yes. Can it be PROVEN that the coin will eventually land on tails? If it could land on the same side twice in a row, why could it not do the same for all of eternity? " My opponent's logic is entirely fallacious. It is impossible to flip a coin an infinite number of times and not have it come up tails. This can be shown to be true through simple probability. The probability of getting tails is 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 … 1/n, which is equal to 1. This means that the likelihood of flipping tails once is 100% on a balanced coin flipped an infinite number of times. This, again, disproves his fundamental logic. -- "How can my opponent prove that life exists elsewhere in the universe? He can't! The world's leading scientists still cannot prove that. " My opponent seems to forget that we are debating about an infinite universe. The fact that scientists cannot logically prove the existence of extraterrestrial life in our finite universe has no bearing on this debate whatsoever. Please, at least make an effort to adhere to the guidelines to which you yourself agreed. -- "What you must realize is that my opponent has NO WAY to PROVE that life exists elsewhere in the universe. For all he knows, and for all anyone knows, the coin flipped the exact number of times necessary for the rest of the expanding universe to be made out of swiss cheese. It is possible, isn't it? Therefore, under my opponent's ideology, it MUST happen, since live in an expanding universe. Would that not then cancel out the possibility and reality of life elsewhere? His own reasoning contradicts itself. Not all possibilities are realities! " The main issue with my opponent's logic is that he *again* neglects the fact that, in Round 1, he agreed that for the purposes of this debate, the universe is considered to be infinite. -- "Until my opponent provides solid, testable evidence that life exists somewhere in the universe besides Earth, I have won the debate … Opponent, I eagerly await your cold, hard evidence. " This again contradicts the guidelines I laid out at the beginning of the debate. This was to be a debate of logic, not evidence. Nevertheless, what my opponent is asking is impossibly unreasonable. He is demanding that I show conclusive evidence about a specific extraterrestrial society or life form, which need not be done in order for me to win the debate. I have shown logically that in an infinite universe the probability of extraterrestrial life is 100%. --SUMMARY-- My opponents argument can be summarized in three key points: (1) Possibility is not the same as certainty, or even probability, (2) I have not shown conclusive evidence of a specific extraterrestrial civilization, (3) The remaining arguments he makes are irrelevant because they rely on a premise that is extraneous to this debate, that the universe is not infinite. I have proven throughout the debate that in an infinite universe, possibility is the same as certainty. I have also explained that I have no obligation to show specific evidence; this debate is a debate of logic, and my opponent's logic has been disproven whereas mine still stands. I hope that my opponent will respect the parameters to which he agreed in Round 1 in his next and final argument. -- Because I have proven without a doubt that the logic supporting the certainty of extraterrestrial life in an infinite universe is quite robust, I hope that the voters will join me in voting for the affirmative.