Intelligent life exists beyond Earth

Again let's review the resolution at hand. The resolution is "Intelligent life exists beyond Earth"I repeatIt is not "There is a high possibility that intelligent life exits beyond Earth"So lets get down to the rebuttals. Deductive Inference and probability. This is my adversary entire contention, so I can refute this all at once. My adversary builds an argument off chances and probability, and says that because (x) conditions are met, there is a high possibility life exists beyond earth. This type of logic does not affirm the resolution, and is better known as a theory.Theory - an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true [1]Note : His claims could make up a valid theory, but that is not supporting the resolution. He is making a positive claim that "Intelligent life does exists beyond Earth." To affirm the resolution he would have to provide empirical and direct evidence to support this, using deductive inference or assuming this is true due to a theory he developed is not affirming the resolution. Fact - a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true [2]When my adversary claims that something "does" exist, he is claiming that this is a fact. There is a fundamental difference between a working theory and factual evidence. When empirical evidence is provided to support a theory, this turns the theory into factual evidence and it is commonly accepted. Such as the theory of evolution and other related theories. The issue with my adversary's entire argument in his last round is that it is deductive reasoning, theories, assumption, and circumstantial evidence. None of these types of evidence are empirical and justifiable, they are merely my adversary's logical process of thought taking the form of an argumentHe is rationalizing in this way"Because earth has (x) attributes, and planet (y) also shares (x) attributes with earth. There is a high possibility that life exists on planet (y) ."If we were dealing in odds of probability and chance, this would be a valid argument. Sadly that is not the case. We are dealing in empirical and direct evidence. There is nothing that can affirm this logic at this present point in time. Not even Nasa has ever found anything to support this. We can only assume that there is a possibility, but we can not claim this is factual. ClosingThere is not much left to argue. My adversary addressed all of my contentions with his argument of probability, and I addressed all of his contentions in return with my last rebuttal. Again I just want to restate the resolution so that we know what we are debating. "Intelligent life exists beyond earth"My adversary tried to change the resolution and I called him out on it. " It is highly likely that there is intelligent life beyond Earth. I realize that the debate will end in one round if I use my previous position "He even notes himself, that he is taken an impossible position to defend. He tires to alter the resolution after stating the conditions prior to this. I would not allow him to do this and called him out on his initial claim, so he then results to arguments of probability and chance to affirm his resolution. 'The issue with this claim, is that probability and chance =/= factual or empirical evidence .Think of it as a mathematical possibility. If there are 10 marbles. 8 are red and 2 white. There is an 80 percent chance that you are going to pull a red one. Relate this to the argument at hand. If the red marbles are equal to the chance of life existing beyond earth, and white is equal to the chance of it not existing, there is still a fundamental problem with his argument. What happens if you draw the white? The way he laying out his argument, leaves room for error. There is a possibility that life does not exist beyond earth. Actually there is a pretty high possibility that it may not exist. As far as we know, there has never been any evidence to support life beyond earth. The only thing we can do is make deductive inference and arrive at that conclusion based on rational thinking. If the resolution was different, almost every argument he made would have stood. At least it would have been harder to refute. He made the mistake of making a positive claim that "it does exist", and has not been able to provide any evidence to support this. He has only provided theory's based off of his own personal inference. This does not affirm the resolution, therefore the resolution does not hold. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...