Instigator / Pro

Resolved: Two separate species of relatively equal intelligence, one humanoid, and one not, can cohabit a planet, maintaining peaceful, non-threatening cohabitation.


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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

After not so many votes...

It's a tie!
Publication date
Last updated date
Number of rounds
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Contender / Con

Oromagi posted a comment in Forum: “I don't know about a colony but I'd certainly like to see a continuous human presence on Mars by 2100 (assuming that no life forms presently exist there).” I am intrigued by this trailing conditional statement. Whether or not any given intelligent species inhabits a planet, why would it matter that another intelligent species would want to cohabit that planet? We already share Earth with some relatively intelligent species, none of which, however, to date, enjoy a truly collaborative association with us via intelligent conversation. If two humanoid species, or one humanoid, and another non-humanoid happened to have roughly equivalent intelligence, would one necessarily fear the other? It makes for a good debate topic in which I propose to take the Pro position.

First, some conditions need to set-up, so, here’s the background for this debate:

There are two planets in a solar system, both having conditions adequately matching the survival needs of two separate creatures, such as Star Trek’s “Class M Planet” designation. [1]

Both planets have intelligent populations, but, to date, neither species inhabits the other planet, though they are aware of one another. They both have adequate technology to travel to the other planet, but, to date, have not done so. Their respective languages are not identical, but able to be mutually learned to converse with one another after a period of time, such as a linguist’s speech using vowels and consonants would learn a linguist’s speech of tongue clicks and glottals, and vice-versa.

One species on one planet decides to go to the other planet with the intent of establishing contact with the potential goal of shared co-habitation of both planets.

Resolved: Two separate species of relatively equal intelligence, one humanoid, and one not, can cohabit a planet, maintaining peaceful, non-threatening cohabitation.


Species: [OED] Senses relating to outward appearance or form.

Intelligence: [OED] The faculty of understanding; intellect: That faculty or sum of faculties of the mind or soul by which [a species] knows and reasons; power of thought.

Humanoid: [OED] Having human form, with human characteristics.

Non-humanoid: May be bipedal, may be quadruped

Cohabit: [OED] To dwell or live together

Planet: [OED] Any of various rocky or gaseous bodies that revolve in approximately elliptical orbits around a [star] and are visible by its reflected light.

Peaceful: [OED] Inclined to or in favor of peace; amicable, pacific, placid. [This is descriptive of the populations of both species as a whole. There may be individual disagreement]

Non-threatening: Neither species’ natural condition represents a quantified factor harmful to the other species’ habitat. [This does not imply that technical development by one species would be of no harm to the other species]

Debate protocol:

Rounds 1, 2: Argument, rebuttal, defense

Round 3: No new argument, rebuttal, defense, conclusion

All argument, defense, rebuttal, and sourcing will be listed within the context of the debate argument rounds only, except sourcing may also be listed within comments within the debate file to conserve maximum space for argumentation, but only during the argumentation phase. No other external reference may be made within the context of the debate argument rounds.

No waived rounds. No more than one round may be forfeited, or forfeiture of entire debate will result. Concession in any round is a debate loss.

All argument rounds will contain arguments, rebuttals, and defenses, plus 4th round conclusion. No declaration of victory will be made but in the 4th round.

Arguments, rebuttals, defenses, or conclusions may not address voters directly for voting suggestions beyond statement of validity for arguments, et al, made in all rounds.


Round 1
Thank you to seldoria for accepting this debate. I am pleased to return to the debate stage after a brief hiatus to attend to some personal writing business. That accomplished, I am happy to be back.
I Argument: Resolved: Two separate species of relatively equal intelligence, one humanoid, and one not, can cohabit a planet, maintaining peaceful, non-threatening cohabitation.
I.a First, I want to cover a couple of points that may not be that important, and I hesitated mention of them in the challenge, but they may come up and I trust my opponent will agree to delete or include them as a part of the set-up list in the resolution description. These two planets, one inhabited by an intelligent humanoid species, and one inhabited by a non-humanoid intelligent species, may, or may not be adjacent planets, such as Earth and Mars. However, in order to fit in the narrow window of a class M planet, I suppose the necessity of climate considerations might make a more distal acquaintance improbable. As I said, I don’t think it much matters. I also did not address that each planet could have other life forms “onboard,” but I don’t think that figures into the debate either. I am happy to include both matters, or ignore them. 
I.b For convenience, let’s call the humanoid species Aberians [I guess their planet is Aberia], and the non-humanoid species, Bedians [from Bedia?]
I.c The Aberians and Bedians have been observing one another for about one hundred years [the duration of “one year” varies on the two planets, but for the purposes of this debate, that is not a contributing issue] but never with direct contact. Each planet is of just one language worldwide, and these two species are the only creatures on their respective planets with a language. The aberian language is spoken with tongue clicks and glottal plosives, both voiced and voiceless, while the Bedians speak with consonants and vowels, both voiced and voiceless. Of the two, the Bedians are more outgoing, and determined one day to send a delegation of peaceful greeting to Aberia. They sent a message outlining their intent, both verbal and written, but no one on Aberia is fluent in Bedian. Aberia sent a reply with the same results, although Aberia accepts the Bedian invitation to come. 
I.d When the Bedians arrive, believing their arrival point to be within the aberian capital city, they can see from their ship a respectful crowd of Aberians. None look hostile, though they do appear hesitant. The Bedians share that hesitation, open the door to their ship, and walk out onto the ramp in a huddled, small group of five Bedians; appearing to the Aberians to be a non-hostile force. Of the crowd of hundreds of Aberians, an equivalent number of Aberians approach the ship. The five Bedians begin their descent. Both groups arrive at the base of the ramp simultaneously. As the Aberians are bipedal by nature, and the Bedians typically quadrupeds, the Bedians rise on their hind feet; apparently they can do so, but cannot hold that position indefinitely. All ten raise their hands/front feet to midlevel, palms/footpads exposed in an attitude of attempt of friendly greeting. 
I.e One Bedian begins to speak first, but the Aberians shake their heads; the Bedians, after some quiet discussion between them, interpret this gesture as one of misunderstanding. The Aberians, in turn, have one member speak. In response, though the Bedian misunderstanding gesture is to flap their longer ears back and forth, and some actually do this, the one who spoke shakes the head as observed done by the Aberians, hoping they interpret their own gesture correctly. The lead Aberian nods the head. It is a similar gesture by the Bedians as meaning agreement or understanding. They have just communicated their mutual misunderstanding, and all ten smile at one another in response, also apparently a universal gesture of friendliness.
I.f From this difficult, but well-intentioned beginning, the two delegations begin the long task of understanding one another.
II Argument: The Tower of Babel – unification in spite of differences
II.a We separate from this encounter to review a point in human history when, for reasons not entirely compatible with the resolution of this debate, a unified group of humanity, located at Babel, according to the Old Testament [Genesis 10: ] attempted to build a tower to reach heaven in order to conquer it. This location is believed to be in central Iraq, east of what is, today, Razazza Lake, south of Baghdad about 95km: Babel. The site, today, may be the city of Karbala. According to the story in Genesis 10,[1]  God intervened to stop construction of the tower by confounding the tongues of the builders. 
Up to then, roughly 1,000 years from Adam and Eve, all men spoke a singular tongue, or slight, but intelligible variations of the original tongue. By confounding their language, they could not continue to build. [Let it be noted that the last two sentences are of my conjecture; there is no scholarship I have found to confirm or deny the proposition. Never the less, the tower construction did cease, and the people separated and migrated away from this location in different directions, apparently according to their separate abilities to have shared communication.]
II.b While this confounding certainly had the effect of separating this unified people by disrupting their singular language, but more significant that that, a unified purpose to conquer heaven, it may have had the positive effect of proliferating the expansion of culture such that, today, we speak roughly 6,500 languages,[2] and have created nearly as many different cultures.[3] That means wide differences in food, clothing, dwellings, expression in the arts, political, economic, and professional practices, etc, etc.
II.c Certainly this has caused a challenge to our being able to get along with one another as a single species with not just cultural, but physical differences. On the other hand, we have dealt with this struggle for over 4,000 years since Babel, and we’re still here, so a lot of people are trying to get it right, in spite of the challenge of confounding tongues.  One need only look at our diversity, and that should be celebrated, not limited by forced attempts to unify us once again under one banner. That unification ought to still be a matter of choice, of individual free agency. The challenge from God may be interpreted as an attempt to regain a unified status despite our many differences; to discover that humanity, after all, is a worthy goal with all of our differences.
III Argument: Lessons learned from Babel
III.a Re-read the points made in II.b, and II.c.  Is it preferable to have never had the experience of diversification of language, and, therefore, culture, or are we benefitted by the expansion of our human interaction in spite of differences?
III.b The premise established by this debate’s resolution is that expansion of our body of knowledge, even about ourselves and our interaction with other creatures of our own Earth, let alone creatures of another planet, if they are ever encountered, will benefit that body of knowledge by its increase. The challenge, of course, even as could be learned by some from Babel, is that conflict is to be overcome, not merely accepted as a limitation. In ignorance, limitation breeds discrimination. “Stereotypes play an intriguing role in the human psyche. We all know that the targets of negative stereotypes can be hurt by them, and studies have shown that people who are the object of unfair bias can adopt the negative traits attributed to them.”[4]
IV Argument: Back to Aberia, and the struggle of mingling two cultures
IV.a Much time passes, and, in time, while the Bedian delegation continues with the Aberians, and much progress is made in learning their respective languages, they determine that a delegation from Aberia ought to be sent to Bedia, and they do so, resulting in much the same positive steps made on Aberia.
IV.b On both planets, over extended time, the progress continues, and more delegations are sent from each planet to the other. However, with these increases in foreign populations, there are individuals native to each planet who develop prejudices against their visitors. On Aberia, some Aberians observe that as quadrupeds, Bedians cannot sustain a bipedal position for an extended time, and conclude that this is a defect, and that Aberians must be a more advanced culture and species. 
IV.c Meanwhile, on Bedia, some Bedians observe that the Aberians take longer in raising their young, that learning to walk is an extended effort, whereas Bedians can learn to walk in a very short time after birth. The Bedians conclude that they are the master species, that Aberians are inferior to them.
IV.d However, many members of both species conclude that, in spite of the physical differences they observe in the other species, their intelligence cannot be denied, and determine that those differences, along with their respective cultures, present opportunities to expand their knowledge base because of those differences.
IV.e On the whole, then, I contend that considering the majority on both planets have concluded that their association with the other planet’s species has been a beneficial, peaceful sharing of their respective cultures, in spite of some developing deep prejudices, the experience is a positive result relative to the resolution. 
I pass the argument to Con.

The big problem of Pro is that he uses human with human interaction, localized to a specific area, different language or not. He has also only shown our successes when working together, but not our constant failures, and the insane amount of mutual understanding and trust to actually achieve Babel and other resolutions. The different species on the different planet may have completely and utterly different ideals or ways of survival, regardless of their intelligence. 

Even on planet Earth, humans have rival animals that are even superior in some tasks. Chimpanzees' memories are similar to that of savant geniuses. Goat similarly has excellent memory. Elephants have shown teamwork, and dolphins recognize themselves in the mirror. Despite their prowess in their intelligence, and the fact that our ancestor based on evolution was the very chimpanzee or ape (depending on interpretation), we still disrespect them, putting them inside zoos, swatting away the idea of rights. We have slaughtered countless animals with needless suffering and keeping them in horrible conditions in order to breed cows or used for our selfish nature. 

Not only so, our racism and sexism problems have stood for centuries before falling down. It took the American civil war to finally get rid of slavery, and even now we are still complaining about "Black Lives Matter" movement. Similarly, we have had a patriarchy since all the way back from Athens (Greek) and we have viewed women as weak and deserving to stay at home. From the fact that only men are mandatorily drafted for war, this clearly shows our bias towards male and antagonism towards even our "physically inferior" races and sexes.

There are too many problems that prevent us from working together.
1) They might view us as intruder. 
If an alien landed on our planet, wandering around, establishing a base and consuming resources, we ourselves would be high on guard, ready to detain and stop the alien force. If it just thought we were another prey like rabbits and mice, this could be very misleading and cause war. The other way around would also be very dangerous, and even plantation of crops or building a base might be considered an equivalent of declaration of war.
2) Communication is near impossible.
Being on a foreign planet would no doubt cause a completely different language. We have yet to even decipher the barks of dogs or the sonic communication of dolphins. How can we hope to communicate with these aliens to let loose of our true intentions? In the tower of babel story, at least humans are able to understand body language, and are linked by a common cause. Unless we already knew we both want to colonize Mars, for example, this Tower of Babel is bound to fall short and defeat itself.
3) Personal biases from humans.
It is well known that Mars, or other planets, have countless problems that prevent humans from going there. Microgravity, radiation, so on and so forth. Whichever aliens adopt there are bound to have some immunity at the cost of a strange look. We would find them disgusting, as species that are adapted towards Mars don't stand a chance on Earth. Perhaps hardened skin, strange stomach, priority of getting rid of space dust, and other specific cultural ideas that Martians adopt would conflict on a basic level and make it near impossible for us to cooperate with them. We can't even cooperate with ourselves any more. 
4) Selfish and Greed
We know that we ourselves are incredibly selfish and greedy as humans. Business man would want to gain as much resources as possible. Even if we fix all the problems above, the nuances of human communication would still take centuries to learn. They may not know we lie. They may not know how we find loopholes and secretly betray each other. It is incredibly difficult to even handle Martians; but throw malicious people in the mix, and the Martians would be definitively confused to adopt to all the ways we try to extract resources and trick the Martians into fulfilling our need for resources and land.
5) No obligation
Not even the constitution has given other animals rights, only humans. We have viewed ourselves as the superior kind on top of planet Earth for a long time now. We are only obligated to protect ourselves, and giving Martian rights would be questionable, as they themselves may set different standards that are difficult to swallow or understand. Our fear of their superior technology, or even their own society corruption, would make our own survival instinct set in. As such, war is practically waiting to happen if we were to discover actual Martians near our level of intelligence.
Round 2
I Rebuttal: a number of misreads from the resolution/description
I.a.Con said the argument was a matter of human to human. This interpretation is incorrect in both cases. A “human” is understood to be a member of the species, Homo sapiens.All humans are “humanoid,” and all humanoids share some human characteristics [bipedal, upright body] but not all humanoids are human, such as Star Trek’sVulcans, and Klingons, or Avatar’sNa’vi. Yes, the resolution description did allow for two humanoid species, but the subsequent descriptions in the set-up featured one humanoid, and one non-humanoid species, just to add challenge to the debate. 
I.b Con claimed that my argument “…has only shown our successes when working together, but not our constant failures.”  I rebut the claim. My R1, IV.b and IV.c arguments clearly show examples of social failures of discrimination in both species.
I.c Con calls the Babel experience a success. “…the insane amount of mutual understanding and trust to actually achieve Babel and other resolutions.”As noted in the source, Genesis 10, nothing about the actions and consequences of Babel were successful. Need I mention that, to this debate, there is but one resolution? My subsequent description of a successful consequence of cultural flourishing was entire conjecture. It may be true, but I have no proof, other than it is obvious today by my sourcing in R1, [2], [3]. Granted, this conjecture was used to demonstrate the initial success of the first encounter of Bedians with Aberians, but that was followed by instances of mistrust and discrimination among some members of both species. “The insane amount of mutual understanding”is accompanied by instances of discrimination. That is not an insane success.
I.d Con argued we treat lower life forms poorly. My argument does not discuss lower life forms, although I allowed that they could be discussed in the description. However, Con offers that we only treat lower life forms on Earth poorly. However, note the following, “At least in the United States, animal protection laws can be enacted and enforced at every level of government.”[1]  Examples include:  the Animal Welfare Act [1966], the 28 Hour Law [1873], the Humane Methods of Livestock Slaughter Act [1958], the Endangered Species Act [1973], and the Preventing Animal Cruelty and Torture) Act [2019][2]  These examples are sufficient to refute Con’s argument.
II. Rebuttal: Communication is near impossible
II.a I refute “near-impossibility”of communication is read as absolutely impossible. If near-impossible, allowance of a window of opportunity to succeed exists. Con argued we do not understand dogs and dolphins, but neither dogs nor dolphins present intelligence at human level. “In fact, according to panelist Lori Marino, an expert on cetacean neuroanatomy at Emory University in Atlanta, they may be Earth's second smartest creature (next to humans, of course).”[3]. Second-best is not the equivalent of first-best. The resolution declares, “Two separate species of relatively equal intelligence… cancohabit a planet…”  Well, then, even if we consider humans and dolphins to have “relatively equal intelligence,” Con requires proof that we, humans and dolphins, do not cohabit Earth. It is clear that we do. Humans have successfully trained dolphins, even for serious performed tasks, and not just performance for a crowd. We likewise successfully train dogs, and these successes demonstrate that communication is successful at least from human to animal, if not in return. One-way communication is still communication when understood and acted upon.[4]
III Rebuttal: Human biases
III.a Con claims that we impose human biases, and then launches an unrelated-to-this-debate argument pointing to conditions such as “microgravity and radiation,” and noted difficulties we face with colonization of Mars. But our two debate planets are not Earth and Mars, the latter of which is not a “Class M planet”; they are Aberia and Bedia, and they are both Star Trek-defined “Class M planets,” suitable for both species of these planets. Therefore, this alleged problem is not relevant.
IV Rebuttal: Selfishness and greed
IV.a Yes, selfishness and greed are possible issues facing both Aberians and Bedians, but this is part of the challenge of cohabitation of a planet by species of “roughly equivalent intelligence,” and I refer Con to the resolution qualifier, “…cancohabit a planet…” I refer Con to the experience of Earth, on which humans have co-existed as separate families, tribes, and nations, often in conflict, and with the growth of technology, potential of mutual annihilation, yet, after thousands, maybe tens of thousands of years, we’re still here. “Now, perhaps the most successful story of something spreading all over the world is us - humans.”[5]  This comment from a radio interview from NPR demonstrates the truth of the previous claim, “we’re still here.”
V Rebuttal: Lack of obligation
V.a Con argues that one intelligent species is not obligated to accommodate another, and points to our problem raised in Con’s animal rights argument, refuted in my R2, Id. I accept that some individuals may regard other species with cruelty, but it is obvious that our leaders are setting proper examples by legislation that show respect, and even protection for other species cohabiting Earth. I contend that we can also show respect and protection to visiting species from another planet, and that I argued this very point in my introduction in Round 1, and R2, I – V rebuttals.
VI Argument: Aberian and Bedian communication issues
Vi.a The resolution description defined the conflicting language styles of the two species attempting to correlate their two languages in mutual understanding. The passage of time is non-specific, following their initial contact on Aberia. At least within the period of time, assumed to have occurred within that afternoon, they understood two or three non-verbal and non-written communication syntaxes. Our ability to learn language is a proven capability from a very early age. While that facility is difficult, and is one exemplar of our relative superior intelligence compared to other Earth-bound creatures, there is no question it is a difficult, laborious, necessity-laden task of patience and long-suffering before real, intelligent conversation begins. There are numerous examples of humans of differing languages succeeding in teaching one another.[6]  Intelligent, non-human humanoids ought to have similar capability since it is demonstrated that some non-human species on Earth are capable of understanding commands and acting according to them. See source [4].
VII Argument: The sequence of events leading to peaceful, non-threatening cohabitation
VII.a In order to achieve the goal of the resolution, “…peaceful, non-threatening cohabitation,” there are certain steps that must be followed, without which failure to achieve the objective may result.[7]
VII.a.1 Establish mutual respect
One of the first signs of respect that can be achieved with trust is to learn a foreigner’s language, and they, yours. This is why the Aberians and Bedians begin on this effort.
VII.b.1 Become acquainted
Understanding one another’s language is a good approach to learn mutual respect, and to practice using it. By doing so, one being can learn many things about another being in a friendly environment of cooperation.
VII.c.1 Learn about differences
The Aberians and Bedians recognize differences immediately, both in appearance, behavior, and language. By seeking mutual knowledge, prejudices may be eliminated before they begin to cause suspicion, doubt, and intolerance.
VII.d.1 Promote good manners
This is a difficult prospect, because a simple gesture in one culture may be bitterly opposed in another culture. Done so in ignorance must not, itself, prolong ignorance. We must trust one another that we have the other’s best interests in mind. If we are offended by another’s remark, or gesture, simply telling them so, patiently and tenderly will go further in encouraging trust than by climbing down their throat.
VII.e1 Allow creativity in association
While understanding that points VII.a.1 through VII.g.1 must be carefully and consistently practiced, we may find that similar actions to achieve the same purposes may have been developed to a higher degree by one community. Sharing that ability will encourage respect and trust.
VII.f.1 Maintain boundaries
Learning that some comments and behaviors are objectionable to another, avoiding those presentations of objection will help trust, and respect for one another will grow. We must understand and respect these boundaries, and seek to avoid crossing them.
VII.g.1 Be respect role models
Our learning from a few who differ from us will help our thoughts, words and actions toward others of that same foreign community and encourage our respect for all of them, and theirs for us. Thus the two communities, then cities, countries, and worlds will learn cohabitation can be not only peaceful, but beneficial to both.  
Thank you. I pass the discussion to Con.

So con tries to swipe away my entire argument with "can", however, this fails. Dolphins alone have had countless problems which are definitely not "peaceful" or "non-threatening". Despite efforts to prevent such occurrence, they are still occurring in the world. Con establishes a plan, but makes no effort to give evidence that malicious humans won't take advantage and try to stop the problem. 

The famous philosopher Thomas Hobbes himself has purported this problem on a basic level that makes it impossible for us to peacefully live with the Martians. He says that naturally, men are at a state of war. Everyone is equal and wants to have access to a resource. As words it, " In such a state, Hobbes contends that individuals have a “natural right” to do whatever they believe is necessary to preserve their lives. In other words, individuals in the state of nature are not constrained by moral or legal obligations as neither could exist prior to the establishment of a commonwealth. In the state of nature “nothing can be Unjust’ since the ‘notions of Right and Wrong, Justice and Injustice have there no place” (L 188). Human liberty, for Hobbes, is simply the freedom of bodily action and is not limited by any moral or legal notions. A person is free, in other words, when not physically confined or imprisoned. Because the state of nature is a state of continuous and comprehensive war, Hobbes claims it is necessary and rational for individuals to seek peace to satisfy their desires, including the natural desire for self-preservation. The human power of reason, Hobbes says, reveal the “laws of nature” that enable humans to establish a state of peace and escape the horrors of the state of nature." 

Hobbes' idea is easily backed up:
- We have never had even 50 years without a major war among ourselves, for the last millennium
- We have never managed to visit an environment with animals, and not polluted it (non-threatening)
- We have never had a significant group of large number so successful that there were no frauds, no betrayals, no major fights (peaceful among groups)
- We have never managed to achieve true equality except our Cavemen state (and perhaps Greece/Athens, but that was 1,500 years ago)

Con must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that we will be able to bypass all these problems and miraculously not threaten Planet B, despite our desires to exploit resources and colonize the location. And vice versa. There is little known about Planet B's beings, but if they are similar as humans, the prisoner's dilemma is real. There is no obligation for us to protect the other species. They will either end up as our pet, and we will still pollute and threaten them, or we will end up their pet, if they are the more powerful species than us.
Round 3
May I remind Con that seldiora = Con; fauxlaw = Pro. 
I Rebuttal: Countless problems, yet dolphins and humans endure in cohabitation
I.a Con proposes that the relationship between dolphin and human is “definitely not ‘peaceful’ or ‘non-threatening.’”[1]  Con claims an artificial state of totality when, in fact, the worldwide population of bottlenose dolphins, one of approximately 40 species, is estimated to be 600,000.[2]  Con’s source of the “definitely not…” quoted above, contains a graph indicating the number of dolphins [all species combined? – the source does not stipulate] killed annually since 1986 until 2007 [the presumed date of the source article], which totals 19,250 killed in the 21 years; an average of 900 per year, or 0.15% of just the population of bottlenose; let alone the other 39 species. I conclude that the qualifier, “definitely not ‘peaceful’” is incorrect, considering that over 98% of just the bottlenose dolphin population continues existence, let alone the other unquantified 39 species. 
I.b However, this entire argument by Con is off-topic since the dolphin is an Earth creature while the debate considers neither dolphins orHomo sapiens as debate subject creatures. This same I.b argument rebuttal addresses Con’s arguments re: Martians, who are also non-seqitur.
II Rebuttal: Thomas Hobbes
II.a Thomas Hobbes, a human, fits into the same non sequitur argument of rebuttal I.b, above. However, lets discuss Hobbes, from Con’s own source:
II.a.1 Thomas Hobbes [1588 – 1679], according to Con’s source,[3]  was According to his own estimation, [Hobbes] was probably the most important philosopher of his time, if not of history, since he believed himself to be the first to discover a genuine ‘science of politics.’”  So, Hobbes is his own source for citation of his credibility? I refute this source out of hand as unsupportable, since Hobbes can no longer speak for himself.
II.b The term, politics, pre-dates Hobbes by 180 years, according to the OED,[4]  thus, Hobbes’ self-assessment of being its first discoverer is the classic argument of a scholastic braggart.
II.a.3 Nevertheless, let’s look at one example of the soundness of reasoning behind Hobbes “science of politics:”  “It should be noted that Hobbes is not always consistent or rigorous in applying a scientific method to political matters. In the Introduction to Leviathan, for example, Hobbes claims that self-inspection is the primary method for understanding his political ideas. In this case, the foundational principles of his political science are not derived from physics, but are known simply by reflecting on one’s experiences.”[5]  Please note that this statement originates in Con’s own source; it is not just my contention. If we cannot depend on Hobbes’ consistency, I declare Con’s entire argument based on Hobbes is defeated as untrustworthy, including the four statements of “We have never...”  This entire discussion of four “we have nevers” entirely misses the thrust of this debate resolution, which is restricted to successful cohabitation of two humanoid populations, or a humanoid and non-humanoid populations. Every single point declared by Con re: these “nevers” does not successfully negate that in our Earth environment, intelligent species [let’s include humanoids, dolphins, and dogs] still cohabit Earth, in spite of the “nevers.” Therefore, all four “nevers” fail to be cogent. That any one of these “nevers” has future potential to be catastrophic, notwithstanding, in the present, provable condition, none of them exist beyond conjecture. Not even probability can be predicted with an accurate margin of error.
III Rebuttal: Prove beyond reasonable doubt we will be able to bypass these problems
III.a Since the measuring bar of Con’s challenge in “beyond reasonable doubt,” I will guarantee the entire challenge is a non sequitur.  To wit:
III.a.1 “We,” Homo sapiens, are not party to the elements of this debate resolution, nor is Earth, nor Mars. In fact, this resolution does not have any relation to this Solar System. I have clarified these exclusions in the resolution, the description, and in Rounds 1 & 2. Con must pay attention to the parameters of the debate. His R1 and R2 have been out of bounds. I remind: R3 can have no new arguments.
III.b “The prisoner’s dilemma” appears to have no basis in this debate because Con’s “if” statement re: Planet B [does Con refer to Bedia?], if they [Planet B beings?] are similar as humans, the prisoner's dilemma is real.”  Since the conditional statement of the logic, “if they are similar as humans…” is false, it follows the result is also false.  Neither Aberians nor Bedians are human, not to mention that Bedians are not even humanoid, ergo the result of failure is not proven. The difference between humans and humanoids has been clearly defined, as has the condition of non-humanoids. If Con refuses to adhere to the definitions, the time to argue them passed with Con’s acceptance of the debate.
III.c Therefore, I have proven beyond reasonable doubt that Con’s R2 argument, that problems as outlined in Con’s R2, and R1, can be overcome, not just bypassed, and it will require no miracle to accomplish it. I laid out the clear definition of 7 points by which successful cohabitation is achieved, accomplished in the order given in my R2, VII.a.1 through VII.g.1 Note that all seven points are sourced for credibility. As Con has dropped rebuttal of all seven points, specifically, in R3, Con cannot now make argument points against them. He may try to rebut them, but they stand as a logical progression of steps that have proven successful by my source, R2, [7]. Con must be able to deny the success of following each and every point in his rebuttal.
IV Conclusion
IV.a I remind readers / voters that in both prior rounds, Con has argued outside the parameters of this debate, arguing elements not relevant to it, nor demonstrated sufficient rebuttal to my arguments of both rounds, whereas, I have addressed by rebuttal every argument point Con raised, including arguments outside of the debate parameters while successfully defending my own arguments. I therefore request votes in favor of Pro. Thank you.
I pass round 3 to Con.

[4]From the OED: “1427   in H. Nicolas Proc. & Ordinances Privy Council (1834) III. 233 (MED)   Þexecucion of þe Kinges..auctoritee as toward þat þat belongeth unto þe pollitique rule & governaille of his land..belongeth unto þe lordes spirituel and temporel of his land.

There is just not enough information available to ensure pro can win. The severe doubt with effort of survival and unlikely nature to cooperate make it impossible that A and B will cohabit the planet without threatening each other or even their own species. Competition and survival for fittest has been a scientific standard since beginning of time, and threatening ideals have always existed; this resonates with Hobbes theory. Vote for con.