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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

See comments:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1563/comment_links/23667

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Con broke debate structure and forfeited the final Round. Thus the breakage of agreed upon debate structure was never justified.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

I feel like Pro was appealing to humanities ignorance in arguing that extra terrestrial life is common. I agree with Con in that we have to rule based on what we do know and we do know we haven't found extraterrestrial life. Indeed, I haven't found a satisfactory argument yet that supports that there is any extraterrestrial life what so ever. Now you can understand how much it pains me to vote in Pro's favor. Indeed, he did deserve these points.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Conduct for the round ff and for the rule infraction mentioned within R3, to which there is no response.