Extra Terrestrials

EDIT-- Mods, please spare yourselves the tumultuous reading as we slowly put together the mesh of this challenge. We’ll summarize at end.

I have spent my life in near utter contempt for the metaphysics crowd and the flunkies whom seem to want to lash back by attacking the whole of science as a sham and the knowledge of humanity as impossible. Of course, through epistemology, they get all that endless power to justify it just like nihilists so effortlessly justify humping your farm cow.

But now . . . I begin to regret some of my contempt. And feel the once so reliable (and often depressing) world around me shattering. I’m a lost little boy in a sea of bizarre claims. Perhaps a person to challenge me will reaffirm that I wasn’t so stupid after all. Or maybe it will be as far-fetched as I had thought, and that I’m right. If I am right, we’ll know in 4 years. That’s pretty messed up.

So whether I am trying to be a magician, that doesn’t hold water to the “miracle” of his own tricks, or whether I really seriously do believe this crazy shit, I want to see if you can tear me down.

Be afraid. In this episode of the Twilight Zone . . .


But I won’t pick the challenger this time. I want someone with the guts to step up to the plate.

After I find my challenger, we can chisel out the rules. This is also due to the fact that I’m sure moderators won’t let me take another challenge until a lot more have gone through.

Prepare your refutations well, and work hard at expecting my claims. Because with this one I intend on burying you in the dust!

Epistomology is among my favored topics… I might be interrested…

What is the position you wish to take exactly?

That aliens, and perhaps even ones so freaky looking as that one, exist . . . and visit us routinely.

HAHA! sounds like fun.
But I meant how do you wish to defend this position? from which general epitemic model would you operate?
Are you going to present emperical evidence? try to rationally justify it? what do you mean by “exist”? how does something qualify as belonging to the catagory of “existence”?

You know… give me the specifics…

My comment on epistemology was mainly just slander toward people whom refute all empirical evidence (or just empirical claims) by simply saying “how do you know that you know?” But that’s beside the point. Whomever wants to refute my claim may use whatever means the wish, epistemical or not.

I will grudgingly give you a sneak peak right now by saying that it’ll be a collection of empirical evidence bouillon with a dash of conspiracy speculation for colour.

I intend on making readers look at our debate on the screen, then stepping out on their front porch for a cigarette (even the non-smokers), stare at some random light emitting object in the sky and go “OH MY GOD HOLY FUCK! IT’S THEM, I KNOW IT!”

If I agree to this i’ll be going into it blindly. You get to kick this off from any angle you wished… my only tactic would be to discredit whatever you put farward.

Which means I can’t have an independent opening… But if that’s an acceptable format then I would agree to the challange.

I would encourage you to have an independant opening. For example, you could take a history of exampliary claims, with all sorts of weirdos whom say stupid things. And then position that these weirdo claims alll have a pretty similar feel to what you suspect I will bring to the table. In fact, we could PM our opening statements to someone we trust, in effect the “opening statement treasurer” would afterward simultaneously post the openings without either of us having a chance to react to the other.

I believe I’d also be talking more in factoids. Less than a speach and more like an FBI file “On blabla at blabla, Mr.blabla presented the blabla with this blabla.”

Perhaps we could have these terms . . .

“THEY ARE HERE! Presence of Extra Terrestrials on Earth?”

Argued by: Gaiaguerrilla

Refuted by: Mad Man P

Message Treasurer and Judge 1: Someone please volunteer.
(copies opening and closing statements by PM then posts them)

Judge 2: Someone please volunteer.
(EDIT-- responsable for disqualifying debater when rules are broken)

Judge 3: Someone please volunteer.

2 opening statements (in any order, placed by Judge 1)

3 argumentative statements (starting and ending with Mad Man P)

2 closing statements (in any order, placed by Judge 1)

And to make things more interesting . . .

Gaiaguerrilla is restricted from speculatory statements- Ie: I cannot suggest any of the sort “maybe they did this for that . . .” It all has to be quotes and references for facts.

So first we both PM our opening to a judge, with neither seeing what the other had in store. And those are posted.

Then you get to refute my opening.

Then I get one post to argue.

Then you get to refute my argument.

Then we both PM our closing to a judge, with neither seeing what the other had in store. These are posted.

And to top it off I don’t get to use prose for this one.


Also, I should be restricted from eyewitness accounts and psychic claims. If you can’t physically measure it, it’s unmentionable.

I didn’t quite catch this:

Is that a “me, you, me” thing?

How about a “you. me” order from begining to end, 6 posts total, with the opening and closing statements written prior to the debate and sent to the treasurer?

You open as the challanger… I close.

How’s that?

Also no more than 1000 words per post…

I’ll be a skeptical judge for this debate since when it comes to the existence of UFO and aliens I practically remain on the fence in neutrality as to whether they exist or not.


I decided that the debate is better lopsided toward the sceptic. My claim sounds incredibly far-fetched. Grand claims require grand proof.

My assumption is that E.T. wanted their messages to be discovered and left irrefutable. If this is true, then it should hold up against a great deal of scepticism rather than depend on people to continually defend its position. I want this attempt to either fail miserably or succeed with flying colours. No in between. With that said, I want the sceptic to have strong power in refuting these claims. As a strong sceptic myself, often, I always felt that these weeds of pseudoscience sprout too easily. If this is indeed pseudoscience, I want a good weed killer.

I felt it only fair that the far-fetched sounding claimant have only a sliver of response between refutations. And again, my response isn’t allowed speculation. Only facts that might imply a counter to the refutation. If I write any words that aren’t of a source or a fact, I want to be immediately disqualified. If you feel it only fair that the less far-fetched sounding claim have more opportunity for rebuttal, then I will start formalizing the rules. If you feel that this just won’t do, maybe I can change it.

If you agree, Joker could act as Judge 1. The person that receives and posts PMs. Joker . . . you would be trusted to post PMs exactly as you receive them. You would be placed under a moral code of honour. How do you feel about that! :laughing:

EDIT-- I would also suggest that we can post pictures, but I cannot post anything other than what is accepted as a real picture under an authoritative institute (something with government funding). I could also post diagrams of a scientiffic catologuing or a statistical function. I would be disqualified immediately if there seem to be only an artistic motive for the picture.

I’m not sure that I want nor need the advantage of an extra post. I’d think it would be a rather simple matter to cast doubt on whatever you have to say.

I’d have Faust be the holder of the PMs (being the moderator, helps his credibility along),
Also we can each pick a judge and agree on one.

Also to be perfectly honest with you, I have little time in the coming days, since I’m in the process of training my replacement and begining a new job, for which I need training… :stuck_out_tongue:

So, knowing that, if you would rather have another as your oponent, I would understand.

This is your challange after all… You can debate whomever you think you would have the most fun with.

You’re more than welcome as Challenger, but if you feel it might be an inconvenience, then someone else please step up to take the challenge. I’d still hope for MMP to be judge.

Whatever the roles chosen, I’ll assume that 2 people are on board so far. Need 2 more. Who’s next?

What exactly would all my duties entail?

If MMP remains challenger, I assume he’d insist on a moderator for Judge 1 (for fair reason). Judge 1 has no extra duties that take special skill. Judge 1 will receive 2 opening PMs, and 2 closing PMs. When either 2 arrive, Judge 1 must post these PMs on the forum exactly as they were received. (Just put name of the competitor whom sent you the PM at the top when posting).

For example: Jill and Bob are the challengers. Jim is Judge 1. Jill sends Jim a PM saying “My opening is that I’m right!”, Bob sends Jim a PM saying “My opening is that Jill is wrong.” Then Jim posts on the forum: “Jill-- ‘My opening is that I’m right!’” and Jim posts again on the forum: “Bob-- 'My opening is that Jill is wrong.”

This way, neither Jill nor Bob can prepare for a counter-argument based on whomever posted first.

Whose post does Jim post first? or rather, is it random, or predetermined?


Is this still a live debate? Joker’s gone, it seems, so you will at least need another judge. When you’ve got it decided, give me a concise write up of the rules. And, since we learned our lesson in the last debate, be sure to include a time limit, preferably on the order of hours (24/48).

What does it matter if they do or do not exist?

What I mean, do you think you could learn from them, or are you simply paranoid?

And if you thought you could learn from them, learn what? Technology or psychology?

And if you think that they are out to destroy humanity, do you think we need the help?

I think your questions spur a large and tumultuous span of debates. The whole reason we resist entering that kind of discussion I think is that we would first have to accept this basic proposition that their presence is probable, otherwise we feel we’re wasting our time debating the rammifications of what might not be there.

Far-fetched claims are held in simultaneously such high and low regard. High because if any of them are true- then convention would tell us that denying them could be costly (cataclysmic, or perhaps just being left out from grand opportunities). Low because indeed if they’re false: they incite only paranoia and misgivings about our understanding.

I think I’m in a good position to invite this kind of debate. Mainly because many far-fetched claims have rushed in from all corners, and skeptics have guffawed them to no ends. Each one in their own right to exercise freedom of speach. But it is rare that we see a direct debate between “believer” and “disbeliever.” Fact is, I don’t care who wins. I want to see the battle for the sake of everyone’s better understanding. I would absolutely be appalled to see a generation of people who believe ridiculous things, and spur us back into the dark ages, because they haven’t seen the heart of the debate and have not been centered enough to make an educated decision.

In summary- My aim here is like any debater on any debate. I don’t really care about the result, and I wouldn’t begin to debate the rammifications yet. I just want a more educated decision through the process over one proposition. Anyhow, this might take a while. I won’t have much internet access lately.

If you can drag Dan~ back here you would have the debate you want. Check over at ILO, he just might show up here for such a debate.