It is possible that a flying pink unicorn exists

Sorry for the delay. Other things pushed this to the back of my mind. My opponent completely drops much of my arguments, and the rest of what he says is either irrelevant or null. He also attempts to change definitions even after he already accepted them. Furthermore he acts as if those definitions have been in place the whole time, not even bothering to defend them, or show why they are better than mine. That's a clear conduct breach. Too sum it up, most of what my opponent endeavors to do is to prove the non-existence of the flying pink unicorn. The major flaw to this is that you cannot prove the nonexistence of something. It's logically impossible. That is the reason why in almost every debate, like the existence of God, the one who advocates for the existence of an object has the burden of proof. You cannot prove the flying pink unicorn does not exist, unless possibly if it has contradictory characteristics, which it does not. Thus it might exist. My opponent first starts out by attempting to change the definition of a unicorn. He said in the first round that he accepted my definitions thus I would like the viewers to consider this as a forfeit of the conduct point. The definition I presented was this "Unicorn - An animal generally depicted with the body and head of a horse, and a single horn in the middle of the forehead [2] (a few changes)" My opponents definition is this, "an animal, with a twisted horn, a deer's feet, a goat's beard, the rump of a deer, the head of a horse, and a lion's tail." I would like the viewers to drop my opponents definition as there is zero reason to accept it. Next my opponent says it must also possess the ability to fly without any form of wings or rockets or anything, saying that if it did it would not be a unicorn. He provides no reasoning for why wings, or rockets even for that matter, would not make it a unicorn. Certainly it would be a different type of unicorn but different type of unicorn does not equal different creature. Con then goes on to use some extremely faulty logic. This is basically his entire argument. He thinks that a flying pink unicorn has to have either the possibility of 0 or the possibility of 1. It's a bit hard to understand at first, but basically my opponent is saying if we don't know it exists, it doesn't exist. We have to be absolutely sure or we can't count it as any possibility. I would very much like my opponent to use this argument for a God exists debate. I'm sure it would be extremely laughed at. But let me seriously stress to the viewers that according to my opponents logic there is no possibility of God existing! Or aliens for that matter. I would like the viewers to drop my opponents ridiculous point. Moving on my opponent AGAIN tries to change the definition. This time saying the words "mythical animal" were used in the definition. Like seriously!? Whats up con? Please stop changing the definitions after you already explicitly stated you had excepted them! This is basically his argument against my contention that thett might have been telling the truth. He also used his first argument to refute this, but as we have already seen, my opponents first argument is complete bollocks. He also uses the analogy of him claiming to see Jesus. Saying it refutes his case, because he obviously didn't see Jesus. Well for one thett claimed a completely different thing, and did not say it was false like my opponent did. If my opponent were to make the claim that last night Jesus came to him in a dream and said the flying pink unicorn did not exist, then we would have to conclude my opponent was possibly telling the truth. //As I have pointed out, the FPU must either exist or not exist. Either way there is no possibility to the question, but instead cold iron fact of yes or no, possibility is out of the question.// This is ridiculous because this whole debate is about possibility. My opponent does not even give the slightest response to my most important point. This drop alone I think should count as a win for me, because none of my opponents points in the least bit refute it, and my argument logically proves the possibility of a flying pink unicorn. I will reassert a portion of it here for convenience. There are arguments that the universe is infinite. My opponent will I hope, concede the fact that the universe might be infinite. If the universe is infinite, as we will assume it is for now, that means there is an infinite amount of planets. An infinite amount of planets would mean an infinite possibility of life forms. An infinite possibility of life forms includes a flying pink unicorn. Syllogismised (yes I know that's not a proper word, but it should be!), it would be like this. 1. There is a possibility of the universe being infinite.2. An infinite universe would mean an infinite amount of planets.3. An infinite amount of planets would mean an infinite amount of possible lifeforms. 4. An infinite amount of possible life forms would include a flying pink unicorn.5. It is possible that a flying pink unicorn exists. If there is an infinite amount of possible life forms, and if a flying pink unicorn is a life form, than there is possibly a flying pink unicorn in existence. Defense of premises can be found in the previous round. Why did my opponent not respond to that? Because it's not attackable. None of my premises you can refute, and thus I have easily proved its possible existence.