Instigator / Pro

User_2006

1470

rating

debates

40.0%

won

Topic

#1994

UFO(Unidentified flying objects) have existed in human history

Status

Finished

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 2 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...

User_2006

Tags

Miscellaneous

Parameters

Publication date: 05.09.2020 12:19AM
Last updated date: 05.26.2020 02:38PM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 2
Time for argument: Two days
Max argument characters: 10,000
Voting period: One week
Point system: Multiple criterions
Voting system: Open

Contender / Con

nmvarco

1536

rating

debates

55.26%

won

Description

No information

Round 1

User_2006

05.16.2020 03:00AM

Pro

I understand that the burden of proof may be on me.

However, things may not be the case.

By definition, An UFO is an unidentified object that can fly. Alien flying saucers are examples of UFOs, as it can fly, obviously, and no one knows what those really are.

By definition, "Unidentified" is different from "Unidentifiable", as that everything that is pre-identified has no extracted information defined yet, meaning that before this thing is identified, it is unidentified.

So in definition, anything that is flying that hasn't been recorded is a UFO.

Before you ask, human brains have no prior knowledge of whether what a plane is, or what a bird is. Before when humans could name and distinct things, everything that is flying is a UFO, until they could.

nmvarco

05.18.2020 03:00AM

Con

Forfeited

Round 2

User_2006

05.18.2020 03:20AM

Pro

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP79B00752A000300130001-1.pdf

This evidence already justifies my claim in a semantic sense, as there is something flying in the air and we don't know what that is(hence UNIDENTIFIED). If it is identified in any sense, it is identified as a UFO, which also supports my claim. However, pragmatically, I am not done yet.

This cannot be proven to be made in any place on Earth, so it is "extraterrestrial". I know the possibility that it could be made by some Russian agency, but come on, it is impossible to prove as even if Russia made it, it is a top-secret project. Russia would not admit that these things are made by them, nor any other nation will. That is enough evidence that this thing is not made on Earth. You could say that the government is incorrect and that it is made on Earth, however, how are you going to prove it? If you fail to prove that this thing is made on earth, then it is an ET UFO. Neither of us has evidence yet, but it is to be agreed upon that this thing is unidentified and it is flying.

https://www.space.com/topics/ufos-extraterrestrials

So we got:

1. These aircraft are not identified

2. These aircraft are claimed to be extraterrestrial

3. My claim is justified.

The argument above is from my other debate about this subject.

https://www.debateart.com/debates/1982/ufos-exist

Since These two are proving the same thing(which if I can prove that it exists now, it exists in history because it has been existent at one point), and I don't want to type everything all over again, I choose to copy-paste. There isn't a lot of new things I can do.

Also, Fellow debaters can award me conduct points because my opponent forfeited the last round.

I look forward to the debate being brought after this!

nmvarco

05.19.2020 02:38PM

Con

PRO= User_2006 = UFOs have existed in human history
CON = nmvarco = UFOs have not existed in human history
R# = Round #
A# = Argument #

R1: UFOs EXIST
OBJECTION: Ambiguous thesis. PRO’s thesis sentence is poorly constructed and does not seem to fully describe the debate. PRO’s R1 argument claimed that these aircraft are extraterrestrial in addition to being unidentified. PRO’s R1 argument claimed that these aircraft could not be produced by any government agency. CON offers the following reframe of thesis:
EXTRATERRESTRIAL UFOs not CREATED by any GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY HAVE EXISTED in HUMAN HISTORY

R1: Definitions
a UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT [UFO] is “a mysterious object seen in the sky for which, it is claimed, no orthodox scientific explanation can be found.” [1]
OBJECTION: This definition is not applicable to the debate. PRO’s R1 argument claimed that these aircraft are extraterrestrial in addition to being unidentified. PRO’s R1 argument also claimed that these aircraft could not be produced by any government agency. CON offers the following reframe of definition:
a UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT [UFO] is “a mysterious extraterrestrial object not produced by any governmental agency seen in the sky for which, it is claimed, no orthodox scientific explanation can be found.”
to EXIST is to “have objective reality or being.” [2]

GOVERNMENTAL describes something “related to or denoting the government of a country or state.” [3]

an AGENCY is “[often with adjective or noun modifier, in this case GOVERNMENTAL] a business or organization established to provide a particular service.” [4]

EXTRATERRESTRIAL [adj] describes something “of or from outside the earth or its atmosphere.” [5]

R1: Opening Statements
I thank PRO for a productive and civilized debate so far. Yet, I have an objection.

BURDEN of PROOF
PRO has not specified the BoP, so it is assumed that the BoP is shared.
OBJECTION: BoP should be on PRO. Before the Roswell and Mount Rainier incidents in the 1940s, it was status quo that UFOs did not exist. To this day, large doubt is cast upon claims of UFOs, and numerous stories and pieces of footage have been debunked as false. Making a claim that extraterrestrials have interacted with us is quite extraordinary, and should be backed up with adequate information. Therefore:
BoP is on PRO

R1: A1
There is no evidence for existence of extraterrestrial life that is capable of building spacecraft.
No planets have been found to have evidence of extraterrestrial life.
No one has ever seen an extraterrestrial.
No one has ever seen a UFO.
People have claimed to see extraterrestrials and UFOs, but these claims have been debunked as false [6][7][8].

R1: A2
The assumption that no governmental agency could have created such a spacecraft is not backed up.
The SR-71, which currently holds the record for fastest aircraft, was designed in secrecy in the 1950s [9], and was only unveiled to the public almost ten years later in 1964 [10].
The SR-72 [11], a aircraft currently being developed by Lockheed Martin, has been kept relatively secretive and not a whole lot is known about its development or testing.
There are many other unknowns relating to aircraft development by governments around the world, especially secretive ones, like China or Russia, and any of these spacecraft could be the ones being labeled “UFOs.”

R1: A3
Objects that are labeled UFOs usually end up not being UFOs at all.
The supposed Roswell UFO was a weather balloon [12].
The supposed Tehran UFO was a couple of inexperienced pilots chasing “celestial bodies” (there was a meteor shower at the time) and one of them had a radio failure, a common incident in aircraft [13].
The supposed Mantell UFO was a secret weather balloon that ended up being chased by a pilot who was not aware of the secrecy and who blacked out of oxygen at high altitude [14].
The supposed Phoenix UFO was a series of flares dropped by an A-10 Warthog [15].
These are just a few sighting that have been debunked out of the thousands [6].

R1: Closing Statements
There are too many unknowns about these craft to claim that they are extraterrestrial. The number of possible objects they could be is countless and there is no evidence extraterrestrials exist or have the technology to build such craft.

R1: Sources
[1] https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/ufo
[2] https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/exist
[3] https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/governmental
[4] https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/agency?s=t
[5] https://www.lexico.com/en/ tim/extraterrestrial
[6] https://www.sciencealert.com/ufo-nasa-iss-sighting-debunked-fireballs-video-james-oberg-not-aliens
[7] https://www.space.com/9704-ten-alien-encounters-debunked.html
[8] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_reported_UFO_sightings (NOTE: This source is meant to show UFO sightings as a timeline and then individually unwrap them, with most being revealed as false or atmospheric happenings.)
[9] https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/how-did-air-force-keep-sr-71-spy-plane-secret-114781
[10] https://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/sr-71/#timeline
[11] https://www.stripes.com/news/us/does-the-hypersonic-sr-72-aircraft-son-of-blackbird-already-exist-1.506926
[12] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roswell_UFO_incident
[13] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Tehran_UFO_incident
[14] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantell_UFO_incident
[15] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Lights

CON passes the talking feather to PRO.

blamonkey

05.21.2020 02:24AM

#21

-->

@CaptainSceptic

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

>Points Awarded: 7 points to Pro.

>Reason for Decision: By the rules, this is a full forfeit. So I am voting it as such.

>Reason for Mod Action: As half or more of the rounds are forfeited, this is technically akin to an FF. However, the Voting Policy is clear on the following:
"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."
In other words, only conduct points can be awarded. I apologize if I said otherwise in the past. I forgot the caveat and was recently informed about it from another user. This was likely an old DDO rule.
************************************************************************

User_2006

05.21.2020 02:04AM

#20

-->

@nmvarco

"CON passes the talking feather to PRO."

NO U DIDNT

User_2006

05.21.2020 02:01AM

#19

-->

@PressF4Respect

"Could see this from a mile away"

No you can't, unless you are at least 1,609 meters from a display screen that can connect to internet.

User_2006

05.21.2020 02:01AM

#18

-->

@CaptainSceptic

"Don't skip rounds especially the first. Don't eat yellow snow, and if a stranger comes into your room and night and says they are the tooth fairy, scream for mamma."

Is the latter part an old saying back in the good old days?

CaptainSceptic

05.21.2020 01:49AM

#17

-->

@nmvarco

You forfeit 50% of the arguments including the first one.

Thats the rule. Kinda sucks in a 2 rounds debate, but that is the rule. Others can vote on the merits. I have opted to vote purely on the rule.

A lesson for all you kids out there. Don't skip rounds especially the first. Don't eat yellow snow, and if a stranger comes into your room and night and says they are the tooth fairy, scream for mamma.

nmvarco

05.21.2020 01:31AM

#16

-->

@CaptainSceptic

How is this a full forfeit?

PressF4Respect

05.19.2020 10:43PM

#15

mmm mmmm yummy semantics

Could see this from a mile away

K_Michael

05.19.2020 10:35PM

#14

One time I thought I saw a bird flying, but it moved pretty fast, so I'm not sure. To this day, that flying object remains unidentified.

CaptainSceptic

05.10.2020 03:41PM

#13

-->

@User_2006

That is. not proof. Thats the point.

User_2006

05.10.2020 03:39PM

#12

-->

@CaptainSceptic

Remember, if you can see this message, it means that I typed on a computer which means that I exist. Being in a simulation doesn't mean I don't exist.

CaptainSceptic

05.10.2020 03:09PM

#11

-->

@User_2006

This is not about what I can prove.

You said:

"You literally can't disprove me."

And I said, well can you prove you exist. If you cant prove you exist, then there is no one to disprove. Solipsism is an individual justification of your existence. It does not prove you exist. You could be part of a big simulation. You could be an entity of someone else's dream.

The point is don't be so obnoxious and say something like you did above.

User_2006

05.10.2020 03:02PM

#10

-->

@CaptainSceptic

Can you prove that none of us exist?

User_2006

05.10.2020 03:02PM

-->

@CaptainSceptic

In an altruistic and objective world, all of us exist. In solipsism, I exist.

CaptainSceptic

05.10.2020 02:55PM

-->

@Singularity

@User_2006

But can you prove that you exist? If you cant prove you exist then you cant prove your perception.

User_2006

05.10.2020 02:50PM

-->

@Singularity

You literally can't disprove me.

User_2006

05.10.2020 02:47PM

-->

@Singularity

First, I will accept your claim of being "below average" since I am just 14 and I am not that experienced yet. Second, even if I am in solipsism, then I could define UFO from my point of view, meaning that if I see something that I don't know what it is but it is flying, it is a UFO with no doubt.

Singularity

05.10.2020 02:01PM

-->

@User_2006

I refuse accept debates I would win all the time. I'd beat you by arguing for solipsism. An average debater I would lose to with the solipsism argument. You are below average though

User_2006

05.10.2020 01:15PM

-->

@Singularity

Nope, you aren't accepting this debate if you aren't going to win, Wylted.

Singularity

05.09.2020 02:22PM

Actually pro made this unwinnable for con, but I could still beat him

zedvictor4

05.09.2020 07:01AM

-->

@User_2006

Of course they have.

They are things that fly that cannot or have not been identified.

This is a no win debate for the contender.

CaptainSceptic

05.09.2020 03:08AM

I just finished a debate about UFO's existing. Of course, there are things it the skies that have Unidentified. Flying things. Objects really.

Are you talking about aliens?

VonKlempter

05.21.2020 10:37AM

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:

Arguments and conduct to Pro because Con failed to provide a reasonable argument where the Instigator could respond. He also forfeited one round more than Pro.

David

05.21.2020 03:19AM

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 forfeits the first round and only argues in the final round, where the opponent cannot respond. Thus, I award the vote to Pro.