There is not enough evidence to prove that I am not the easter Bunny.

INTRO ====================== Thank you for posting you next argument. I would like to say that I will be arguing a lot from your own source today. ARGUMENT ====================== So you claim that the original story is that a goddess gave the bunny the powers and that the bunny could only lay eggs once a year. You then claim that since the goddess did not give me...oops, I mean the bunny any special powers then it must be impossible. What you fail to realize is that you are going against your own definition! What we have been arguing this whole time is off of the original definition. Let me remind you what it is. "The Easter Bunny (or Easter Hare) is a character depicted as an anthropomorphic rabbit. In legend, the creature brings baskets filled with colored eggs, candy and toys to the homes of children on the night before Easter" You yourself listed that definition. There are many tales of the Easter Bunny; there is no way of telling which one is the real original. The story could have been changed or altered. Realizing that, we made it a point to tell which story we are talking about. That is the story that most Americans go by. That there is a bunny that goes around and delivers eggs to children. It is like saying that you want to argue about the sky, and then you go and argue about the ocean. You said in the first round: "So in order for Pro to be the Easter Bunny, he must be an animal (non-human) with human characteristics. Who gives eggs, candies, and toys to good children and is almost 400 years old." Nowhere did you say that I would also have to have been blessed by a goddess. Also, the resolution is not, "There is not enough evidence to prove that I am not the Eater Bunny from the original story." The source that you listed in round two even says that there are many different stories. Here is an article from the site you listed: "Many Asian cultures hail the rabbit as a sacred messenger to the divine. Even for Buddhists and Egyptians the rabbit has special meaning. And of course Western Europe has their strong beliefs in the rabbit as a symbol of fertility and new life. It is thought that the knowledge of the Eastern traditions to do with the rabbit must have spread to Europe as communication between these two groups increased. Also the fact that the two groups beliefs about the rabbit blended so well together must have helped keep these traditions alive. Even Native American peoples and the ancient Mayans had their beliefs about the mysticism of rabbits a.k.a. bunnies." Also, even if we were going by the story you listed you would have to prove that I do not get powers later on. Even if the story does not say I do, something else could have given me powers, since I already exist. One of my favorite quotes is, "Not everything is written down on paper. And not everything written down on paper is true. " One of the definitions that I used from the dictionary was, "A rabbit of folklore depicted as delivering baskets of colored eggs to children at Easter." Folklore can not be proved or unproved. Yes they are stories, but many times they are based on facts. Now on the subject of gravity, I shall not get heavily into it because it is not about the bunny. Yes, gravity is the word that we use to define the force. But I was not talking about the word; I was talking about it being real. There is still the possibility that the suction monster exist, but we just call him gravity. I could argue Santa Claus to, but it would be taking away from the essence of this debate. All I will say is that Santa Claus, like other stories, could exist. He could be invisible, or he could erase peoples memories, the roofs of the houses he lives in could be painted white so it would not be picked up by the satellites. I will stop here with the Santa Claus business. I again look forward to your response. Sources: (1). http://www.professorshouse.com...