New Member Tournament: Aliens have visited Earth

Sorry for a late and likely sub-standard reply. Anyway, I know the BOP is on my opponent, but I will still present a few theories/arguments to support the Con side. Theory: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidenceExplantion:Looking to my Opponents first round of argumentation, most of her evidence is frivilous at best, and misinformed at worst. It is not necessarily my burden to disprove all of my Opponents arguments because it is not her burden to show you that aliens are an explanation, but that they are the most logical explanation. People see what they want to see, and a few artifacts vaguely resembling HUMAN spacecrafts/ideas of spacecrafts simply does not constitute close to the amount of evidence needed to affirm. Note that the resolution states likely not possible, so if at the end of this round my opponent hasn't convinced you that aliens are the best (51% or greater probability) explanation for the handful of oddities she's offered, you negate by default. I cannot emphasize this enough, a Con ballot is presumed.Argument: It is unlikely that intelligent extraterrestrials exist.On Earth, there are an estimated 8.7 million non-bacterial species[1]. How much life have we discovered outside of Earth? Absolutely none. I concede that we have only explored a tiny part of our Universe, but consider the following scenario. You are on a mountain that has 8 ponds on varying parts/heights of the mountain. You examine one and find fish. Is it more logical to assume that the other ponds have fish in them, or that they are devoid of fish? Clearly given the close vicinity it's more logical to assume that more ponds than just the one contain life. Now consider the solar system. Earth has life, so if life existed outside of Earth, wouldn't it be logical to assume that we would've found some in our own solar system considering the mountain pond scenario? Of course, it will be immediately objected that the differnece in the planets are too large to support this analogy, but in comparison to outer space, our planets are quite close together indeed and considering how life on Earth exists EVERYWHERE even the most extreme parts, life should exist on at least a few of our neighboring planets. Thus, since we haven't discovered any life where it most logically would be (near a planet known to contain life), we ought to assume it to be an Earth unique thing. Differences exist between our planets, significant ones; however from a cosmic view they are radically insignificant. Just like one pond might have a Ph level 1 higher than another--to the fish in the pond, such a difference would seem highly significant. To a perspective examining all of Earth it's highly insignificant.Now, let's consider another thing. Of the 8.7 non bacterial species, a whopping one has acheived spaceflight. That is .0000000114%. How many have achieved interstellar spaceflight? 0. Such things like that So using the only sample we have availible to us, we can conclude that intelligent life capable of inter-galactic/significant interplanetary travel can only occur if life exists at a practically infinite magnitude in the Universe. We know from exploration that this assertation is false. Consider Silentium Universi (Latin: "silence of the universe"), no extra terrestrial contact has been made. This is paradoxical to the multitude of arguments supporting the idea of extra terestrial life (including my opponents). Because of Silentium Universi we can conclude two probable scenarios. 1. The Earth is unique, which invalidates Drakes Equation and all of my Opponents argumentsor2. The Earth is non-unique, however extra-terrestrials for some reason do not visit us. (this brings up a whole new set of critiques against extra-terrestrial life which I will explain in further detail later). If we accept scenario 1, I win. If we accept scenario (which is less likely) 2, I still win. Here's why:Let's look that the only example we have availible to us, the example of Earth. Clearly any aliens capable of inter-steller travel are much more advanced than we are. We already have intelligent, but less advanced races on Earth today; our relatives the apes, and the whales and dolphins. Do we take them under our wing, teach them, communicate with them, and influence them? No. We make them our pets, we destroy and occupy their habitats, we force them to perform for our amusement, we test on them, in some places we eat them, and we sure as hell do not conceal our presence from them. We have to make estimate using the data availible to us. What do intelligent species do to lesser intelligent species? In short, they destroy them. Why should aliens be any different? For that matter, people even destroy THEMSELVES based off of race (which according to D. J. Witherspoon, S. Wooding, A. R. Rogers, E. E. Marchan, W. S. Watkins, M. A. Batzer, and L. B. Jorde[2] doesnt even have a biological difference: "data also show that any two individuals within a particular population are as different genetically as any two people selected from any two populations in the world") as evidenced by Hitlers destruction of the Jews, and the Europeans absolute and utter destruction of the Native Americans. The IBTimes argues[3]:"Researchers say extraterrestrials might behave the way we humans have behaved whenever we have discovered other previously unknown intelligent beings on Earth, like unfamiliar humans or chimpanzees and gorillas. Just as we did to those beings, the extraterrestrials might proceed to kill, infect, dissect, conquer, displace or enslave us, stuff us as specimens for their museums or pickle our skulls and use us for medical research," Even if we assume foolishly that the Aliens will not destroy us for their benefit (which violates all we know about Darwinism--individuals act in their own selfish best interest, even at great costs to others species or people. Don't believe me? Look around you at the planet we're destroying.), why would they visit us and then leave? We know from human history that when a population discovers new inhabitable territory it expands into that territory. If aliens existed who could be present on Earth long enough to affect the culture of the ancients, why did they not settle? Further, why do we no longer hear from them today? These are questions we need to consider. I also contend that it's not likely for a civilization to survive to the point of inter-stellar travel. It would be illogical to think a civilization could travel to other stars until it has at least mastered its own (and thus reached a level two civilization on the Kardashev scale). It's estimated that humanity could reach a level 2 civilization, at minimum, in a few thousand years[4]. At the way we're going, can we really be expected to last another couple thousand years? Tensions between the U.S. and China are rising (likely leading to a second cold war, one that will be settled in blood) that could likely lead to nuclear war and the extinction of us all. We've built a society over a finite resource (oil), that is rapidly disappearing. Absolutely no progress has been made on NASA's near earth object program, an asteroid or comet could strike at any time and wipe us all out. The OST prohibits the colonization or true development of space. We will not last much longer, and since humanity is the only example we have of an intelligent race, we have to judge based off that. It is unfortunately intrinsic to the nature of "intelligent" beings to destroy others. So I urge you to negate.(I realize I didnt refute my opponents statements..I'll do it in the next round. The temptation to write this argument was too great.)1. http://www.guardian.co.uk...2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...3. http://www.ibtimes.com...4. http://en.wikipedia.org...