Instigator / Pro
25
1634
rating
13
debates
80.77%
won
Topic
#1563

Extraterrestrial Intelligence is More Likely Common than Uncommon

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
9
9
Better sources
8
6
Better legibility
4
4
Better conduct
4
0

After 4 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

Jeff_Goldblum
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
2,500
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
19
1764
rating
43
debates
94.19%
won
Description

(this is my first debate on this site, so my apologies if my description does not fully conform to the usual expectations)

Pro will argue that, on balance, the commonality of extraterrestrial intelligence is more likely than not.

Con will argue that, on balance, the rarity of extraterrestrial intelligence is more likely than not.

R1 Introductory arguments
R2 Response to R1 arguments
R3 Response to R2 arguments and concluding statements (no new arguments may be introduced this round)

Definitions:

Extraterrestrial: Life forms that do not originate from Earth.

Intelligence is hard to define. I suggest my opponent and I refer to the following definition - "Intelligence is a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience." (http://www.vetta.org/documents/A-Collection-of-Definitions-of-Intelligence.pdf) However, I accept that my opponent may wish to offer a different interpretation. So long as doing so is germane to our arguments, I think that is fine. In that case, we may have to debate the reasonableness of our competing definitions of intelligence.

-->
@Barney

It cancels itself out by unjustifiable sources vote being allocated.

-->
@Jeff_Goldblum

Well done, sir! Making a name for yourself already.

-->
@Ramshutu
@Lazarous
@Jeff_Goldblum

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Lazarous // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3:3; 3 points to Pro, and 3 points to Con.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action: This is a tied vote (via wholly canceling itself out) which does indeed comment on the debate (and does so well, giving feedback to both sides). For more on tied votes: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1718/moderation-and-tied-votes
**************************************************

-->
@Ramshutu
@Jeff_Goldblum

---RFD (1 of 2)---
Interpreting the resolution:
This nearly left arguments a tie, without a standard for what would be common on these scales, I am having a tough time weighting what would be enough to be considered common or uncommon.

1. Drake
The Drake Equation is a fun part of this debate, which alternates between lending support for pro and con. N=1 was a great point against relying on this.

2. Syllogism
Credit for a well-played syllogism under the likely uncommon heading. Certainly not common enough to be detectable. Pro did well trying to mitigate this, but it is a strong piece against his case.

3. Fermi Paradox
Tied to the syllogism, but pro’s replies are standout enough to merit partly separate consideration. Things like different communication technologies than us, or intelligent without those technologies. Con of course counters with a play on numbers, one that I have no problem with, it’s fairly straight forward; but pro uses the speed of light and the limited time we’ve been broadcasting as a solid defense (even if it was vulnerable to a flip of tying things back to how that does not imply common, such did not occur).

4. Extinction
I think con could have easily won the debate here had he supported our own survival being a fluke, as the basis for everything else is human-centric. However, this was not done. Moreover, the absence of sources left this a bit lackluster, an assertion not tied to the available evidence.

---RFD (2 of 2)---
Arguments:
See above review of key points. This is very close to being a tie to me. Had the resolution contained less qualifiers, it might have even gone against pro. As is, I basically have to weight us having not noticed anything in our quiet corner, against the hypothetical likelihood of activity elsewhere (or even nearby using different communication technologies). Basically, pro better supported his end of the hypothetical.

Sources:
I do view these as being within the tied range. While pro certainly had more, con made good use of those too, but did not outright steal them to his side.

Conduct:
I am not overly concerned with the minor format slip-up (as much as I’ve encouraged people to vote against me on conduct when I’ve done likewise), however the forfeiture is a clear matter. This bites twice, as having seen con’s performance I suspect he would have bridged the gap to at least a tie with just a concluding statement to tie things back together.

-->
@Jeff_Goldblum

"I object to the air of authority given to these numbers pulled out of thin air. I generally feel that if you can’t use probabilistic tools to shape your feelings of []certainty, you ought not to dignify them by calling them probabilities."

Yudkowsky, Eliezer. Rationality: From AI to Zombies . Machine Intelligence Research Institute. Kindle Edition.

-->
@David

Re-voted if you wish to check.

I’ll get a vote on this, just finished a very intense bit of Mafia.

-->
@RationalMadman
@Zaradi

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Zardi and RM // Mod action: [Removed]

>Points Awarded: 1 point to pro for conduct (zardi) and 1 point for conduct to RM

>Reason for Decision: Conduct for the ff'd round. I'd vote on args but my eyes glazed over during the first round.

>Reason for Mod Action: RM's vote is removed because cvbs are removed. Zardi's vote doesn't meet the requirements for voting. In order to award conduct point, a user must:

Provide specific references to instances of poor conduct which occurred in the debate
Demonstrate how this poor conduct was either excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate
Compare each debater's conduct from the debate

Misconduct is excessive when it is extremely frequent and/or when it causes the debate to become incoherent or extremely toxic. In the case of awarding conduct points solely on the basis of forfeits, there is an exception to these steps: a debater may award conduct points solely for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds or if the voter also awards argument points (or explains their decision not to award argument points in a manner which meets the argument points voting standards).

In this case, one forfeited round is not enough to award just a conduct point as the debater didn't forfeit more than 1/2 the rounds.
************************************************************************

Almost gave conduct to the wrong side. #whoops

-->
@blamonkey

Ah, okay.

So be more specific?

-->
@DynamicSquid

Finally, as far as conduct points are concerned, the voter must explain why misconduct is excessive, which is defined as follows:

"Misconduct is excessive when it is extremely frequent and/or when it causes the debate to become incoherent or extremely toxic"

If you honestly think that the non-standardized structure made the debate inscrutable, please include that in the RFD. That said, I appreciate the attempt at fixing your vote. I don't mean to admonish you harshly.
************************************************************************

-->
@DynamicSquid

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: DynamicSquid // Mod action: [Removed]

>Points Awarded: 6 points awarded to Pro

>Reason for Decision: Interesting debate. Well done both of you!
Here's my break down.
ROUND ONE
Pro - States the probability of life appearing in our universe
Con - States how life cannot exists due to no contacts, and poorly clashes with Pro
ROUND TWO
Pro - Cements previous arguments sufficiently
Con - Poorly clashes with Pro by overusing assumptions, but sufficiently cements previous arguments
ROUND THREE
Omitted.
REASONING
Arguments - Pro ; Pro provided more factual arguments, cemented it, and Con poorly clashed with them
Sources - Pro ; Pro outnumbers Con 10:3 on sources
S&G - Tie ; No major negatives were found in both
Conduct - Pro ; Not following format and forfeiting a round negatively impacted Con

>Reason for Mod Action: I hate to remove this vote. Unfortunately, I have to. First, arguments need to be explained. I get the the voter feels that Con's refutations were weak, but the Voting Guidelines demands that it also be explained why one argument is superior to another.
"Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed"
Also, according to the Voting Guidelines:
"In order to award sources points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:

Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate

Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support

Must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's

Mere appeals to quantity are not sufficient to justify awarding sources points."

None of this is done either.

I thought I knew how I was voting, but in writing the vote I saw a point which I had not giving enough consideration... If nothing else, I'll get a conduct only vote in for the forfeit (the rule slip is also noted).

bump

-->
@David
@Barney

I hate to be a nag, but I'm curious if you plan to vote on this? I ask because I think Dynamic's vote is going to be removed again, and I'm worried about the clock running out with no votes as a result.

bump

-->
@DynamicSquid

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: DynamicSquid // Mod action: [Removed]

>Points Awarded: 6 points to Pro.

>Reason for Decision: "This debate was actually really interesting to read.
Both sides provided decent arguments, and while Con attempted to disprove Pro's case, Pro sufficiently concreted his side.
Both sides also provided good sources, by Pro outweighed Con just a bit on this.
Con didn't follow the specified format, and while I wouldn't take that as a major Pro vote, Con did forfeit his last round."

>Reason for Mod Action: The points awarded for arguments, conduct, and sources need to be explained better. Why is it that Pro sufficiently "concreted" his side? What made Pro's sources better than Con's? Why is the non-specific format severe enough to award Pro the conduct point? Until these questions are answered, the RFD unfortunately violates the Voting Policy.
************************************************************************

bump

-->
@David

This is your requested ping

Before reading this...

Common and Uncommon in the spam of galaxies should be pre-defined to avoid Kritiks about that.

2,500 seems like a fun challenge. The thing is, you'll always wish you had just 500 more to respond to all those points, but if there's more, there is more to which you need to to respond; so same problem.

I regret setting the character limit at 2,500.

-->
@Jeff_Goldblum

What I did in rebuttal 1, is use a similar approach to the Drake equation; assigning odds to the events and scenarios you listed, then starting with your 6.4m intelligent life forms, wiggling these planets down to how many of them we should have observed. The number at the end of each sentence is the number of planets that have evolved intelligent life that pass the filter you added; even with tiny numbers; there would be a enough close by species that could potentially have either made contact or have been observed.

i am so sick of this planet, and its taking forever to repair the warp drive, thank god for vodka

-->
@Ramshutu

Ramshutu, I'm surprised you disagree. Water is the foundation of life, and many planets have water on them. You should know this. You are after all a glass of water xD

-->
@Ramshutu

I'm having trouble understanding your numbers in your "R1)." reply. Maybe I'm just being dense. But would you mind breaking down what you're saying there?

-->
@Jeff_Goldblum

This looks like an interesting debate so far! Please ping me when the debate is over and I'll vote on it.

show me a little green man then

If readers are interested in the Fermi Paradox mentioned here, I recommend Stephen Webb's "Where is Everybody?" (https://www.amazon.com/Universe-Teeming-Aliens-WHERE-EVERYBODY/dp/0387955011)

It offers 50 explanations to the Fermi Paradox. Since it is obviously behind a paywall, I didn't think it would be fair to use it as a source. But it is still very interesting and I highly recommend if anyone wants reading on the subject that is fun yet scientifically valid.

Is it considered poor form to hyperlink one's sources, instead of using the in-text citation method?

Even though I did not specify how to cite sources in the description, could a judge legitimately award sources to my opponent on the basis that I'm hyperlinking?