Instigator / Pro
10
1523
rating
5
debates
60.0%
won
Topic
#1972

The Newly Released Pentagon Videos Are Not Proof That UFOs Exist

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
9
Better sources
4
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
3
3

After 3 votes and with 11 points ahead, the winner is...

CaptainSceptic
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
21
1527
rating
8
debates
62.5%
won
Description

The Pentagon has recently released three videos supposedly showing UFOs. The definition for a UFO is "any aerial phenomenon that cannot immediately be identified " However, I do not believe so. Today, we shall be debating on the fact that these videos are actual proof of Unidentified Flying Objects.

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:

Pro conceded several times that the objects were not identified. Con points out that if the videos have something that is not identified that is proof that something unidentified exists.

If the debate was "The Newly Released Pentagon Videos Are Not Proof That Extraterrestrials Have Visited Earth" that would be a different case. That is not the rest, however. The debate was about unidentified objects. The debate was not about extraterrestrials. "That thing isn't an alien" is not an identification.

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:

Argument: Con provides adequate argument that while UFOs [or UAPs] may not be evidence of alien visitations, which is a common interpretation, he argues successfully that UFO's, as per definition, merely indicate inability to identify what the UFOs actually are. Pro is never able to prove otherwise. Points to Con

Sourcing: While Pro offers more referenced sourcing, it is difficult to track which source belongs with which statement in argument because there is no linkage of source to commentary; hence, Pro's sourcing is virtually worthless. Point to Con, who has direct linkage.

S&G: tie

Conduct: tie

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:

This debate is on the subject of if the videos contain "any aerial phenomenon that cannot immediately be identified"

I'd be open to a middle ground area of /should have been immediately identified/ or even /identified shortly thereafter./ But pro attempts to move the goalposts to the near truism of them being hypothetically identifiable thus somehow already identified; which con easily defends this as it's been years without a positive identification.

Of course if pro was merely trying to say not alien visitors, he's wholly right on that, but nothing in the clarified resolution implies that to be the agreed intent of the debate.