Aliens could quickly and easily invade Earth
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
We are of course assuming the aliens have a technological head start.
Victory condition: subdue human civilisation by taking control of Earth's surface
BoP is shared.
- to enter for conquest or plunder
- causing or involving little difficulty or discomfort
- requiring or indicating little effort, thought, or reflection
- fast in development or occurrence
- done or taking place with rapidity
- to have power over
- Distance in space ensures the invasion can't be quick.
- The aliens would face multiple extreme dangers. The aliens would fight humanity equipped with lethal weapons and with a massive defenders advantage.
- Human ingenuity and pre-knowledge ensure we make a proper battle plan and set up our defences -- preventing a quick and easy invasion from being possible.
- It might be impossible for aliens to even exist and travel in space. Nothing suggests aliens can form empires and reach us with heavily militarized spaceships. Especially not when the universe is expanding too quickly for even light to keep up.
- PRO's scenario is unfeasible and based on flawed assumptions. It also would require both effort and time in preparation and execution
- An alien invasion as described by PRO is not enough to beat humanity.
- Technological delay and pre-warning are still advantages of humanity. We would be preparing our defences while the alien fleet falls behind technologically.
- The resolution fails
Experience, technological superiority and quantity will lead to a quick and decisive victory.
It will be the red alert situation for both Earth Defense Forces and for Celestial forces. Both the forces will be on their high guard...Before invasion, aliens will scout the solar system.
- causing or involving little difficulty or discomfort
- requiring or indicating little effort, thought, or reflection
Aliens shouldn't be the default explanation for weird stuff in the sky. [space.com/ufos-real-but-not-alien-spaceships]
It will be quite ironic if alien invaders wont have defense system for their own weapons.
- Earth is the perfect planet for life and rapid evolution -- meaning alien millions of Head start is implausible
- Self-healing armour is neither sufficient armour nor possible in space without wasting tonnes of resources and manoeuvrability
- Alien first strike isn't possible -- the energy of even the sun isn't enough to hamstring humanity, and we will surely have defensive measures in no time
- UFO's aren't aliens not even in our scenario
- Human local experience is better than the dubious experience of alien invaders -- and even the experience of aliens is limited by the travel time of the fleet
- Technological delay is a fact -- developing technology in space is neither possible and especially not as efficient as on a planet
- Pre-warning is a fact -- the alien structures and radio signals will be detected, as well as their fast-moving ships (especially when they are close)
- Drones are useless because of space debris, nukes and misilles which destroy every single one of them before they can reach Earth
Half forfeited, leaving CON's case undisputed.
Argument - Con argues that distance in space ensures the invasion can't be quick. But where he got his information on what speed aliens can travel at is beyond me.
Con also argues that the aliens would face multiple extreme dangers. The aliens would fight humanity equipped with lethal weapons and with a massive defenders advantage. Though is it not easier to defend against missiles fly up at you rather than raining down on you?
Pro - Pro offers a rebuttal of Cons argument regarding distance, though how either can prove which is correct and which is incorrect is beyond me given the psuedo scientific nature of the debate.
I do kind of agree with this statement here: "We will be outnumbered and out of all the possibility, alien invasion is the least expected threat and merely a serious issue for humans which we will fail to detect.".. I mean, if black helicopters can fly under the radar in search of Osama Bin Laden, then perhaps Aliens that have the technology to travel light years in quick speed will also have the technology to remain invisible to radar.
I also agree that the military technology of Aliens capable of travelling light years would be a lot more powerful than weapons humans currently have.
R2 - Con opens up with talking sense and with rationality about how it might be impossible for aliens to even exist, though given that this is a psuedo scientific debate it is beyond me how he can support the accusation of Pro baing his argument on flawed assumptions, and I would have to agree with Pro that Aliens with advanced technology probably would be able to defeat humanity. But then is this enough for me to vote for Pro? Simply because I agree? Where is the evidence? I think not.
Pro - Pro makes a good rebuttal by reminding Con that this debate operates under the assumption that aliens do exist. I agree with everything else Pro says. However my simply agreeing is not what I am looking for. Evidence, proof et cetera
R3 - And here is a truism if I ever saw one "We are not sure that an alien invasion is even possible. However, we can know with absolute certainty that an alien invasion won't be quick and easy.". I completely agree and I would assume that this is general knowledge not even requiring a source. Humanity really is unsure if Alien invasion is possible.
Pro - And Pro forfeits, offering no rebuttal or argument
R4 - Con presents Pro with 8 arguments: "Earth is the perfect planet for life and rapid evolution -- meaning alien millions of Head start is implausible
Self-healing armour is neither sufficient armour nor possible in space without wasting tonnes of resources and manoeuvrability
Alien first strike isn't possible -- the energy of even the sun isn't enough to hamstring humanity, and we will surely have defensive measures in no time
UFO's aren't aliens not even in our scenario
Human local experience is better than the dubious experience of alien invaders -- and even the experience of aliens is limited by the travel time of the fleet
Technological delay is a fact -- developing technology in space is neither possible and especially not as efficient as on a planet
Pre-warning is a fact -- the alien structures and radio signals will be detected, as well as their fast-moving ships (especially when they are close)
Drones are useless because of space debris, nukes and misilles which destroy every single one of them before they can reach Earth".. I must admit that the facts come with a lot of presumptions. We are simply assuming, or imagining that this is the case. So perhaps not enough to defeat a Pro that went on to forfeit for a second time and leave a whole bunch of arguments unrebutted.
Argument - Tie
Sources - Con provides copious amounts of sources, yet his opponent appears from what I can see, to provide none - Con
S&G - Both are above average - Tie
Conduct - By the voting policy two forfeitures can result in an argument loss, let alone conduct - Con
The truth about UFOs to be exposed in US government report | 7NEWS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lxtwKB0Fuc
Thank you for voting.
Thank you for voting.
I think divide and conquer would not work. Nations don't need much coordination to fire their missiles.
So aliens could quickly and easily invade Earth so long as they are more technologically advanced and we make the assumption that they exist? How advanced, this is terribly slanted towards you.
Divide and conquer right?
Maybe they would see us as weak, disparate, competing nations without the ability to unify against the invasion threat with a world wide reaction force.
I think aliens have the ability to invade earth, but I don’t think they would want to. The concept of a nation would seem archaic to them.
Silly me
You accidentally spelled easily with 2 L's
Human civilisation considers itself more technologically advance than things that don't exist. By invertedly applying this logic to the description, we can deduce that aliens having a technological head start includes the notion of aliens existing. Aliens of course do not mean Mexicans or other humans but to extraterrestrial life.
are we assuming Aliens exist?