Logically speaking, Nothing cannot exist.

Finally, a conclusion to what has been an utter waste of time. Lets look at a few things Con has said in his last response. 1. Referring to the resolution, "It starts off with, "logically speaking." A. Con argues that he has defeated the resolution because he wrote the word "nothing." B. The resolution contains the word nothing. C. Lets apply a little logic. D. If Con is correct, the resolution defeats itself since it contains the word nothing. E. In Con's round 1 clarification, Con himself defines logic, "a logical inference." F. What is the most likely correct logical inference? F1. The resolution is written in a way that the resolution defeats itself, being illogical, while containing the word logic? F2. Or, the word nothing, written in the resolution isn't pertaining to the word itself? G. The most reasonable logical inference (Con's definition) is F2. H. By Con's own definition of logic, a logical inference, Con would know that the word nothing is off topic, being it is contained in the premise, it is contained in the round 1 clarification. Con knows the topic of the debate isn't the word itself. I. Therefore, Con is willfully off topic. 2. "I'd like to say on DDO we take debates literally." A. Both Con and I use round 1 to clarify the premise. B. My first sentence in round 1 clarification of premise, "Why is there something rather than nothing." C. If Con takes this sentence literally, Con clearly would know the intent of the debate. D. Con has no excuse to claim the intent of the debate is related to typing the word that is in the premise. E. Con is willfully off topic. 3. "Pro losses conduct points for referring to me as "juvenile" and "childish." A. I didn't refer to Con as juvenile or childish. B. I referred to Con's one word argument as juvenile and childish. C. This one word argument by Con is juvenile and childish. D. This is just a accurate description of Con's single word argument. Accurate descriptions don't warrant a loss on conduct points. E. Tip for Con, if you don't wish to have your argument identified as juvenile or childish, don't make juvenile or childish arguments. Don't fault me for accurately describing it. You had the opportunity to debate the topic in a mature manner. You knew what type of nothing the premise was referring to. You had further clarification in round 1 on what the premise was pertaining to. You chose not to present any well reasoned, mature arguments. Instead, you chose the juvenile approach, typed the word nothing, and said, there is it. At DDO we behave in an adult manner. We make arguments. Quote from Debate.org general site conduct page, "Debate.org prides itself on intellectual and thought-provoking conversation." You simply didn't live up to a general standard of conduct in this debate. You provide no intellectual or thought-provoking arguments. You wasted my time and the reads. You also wasted an opportunity to do what debate.org prides itself on, "intellectual and thought-provoking conversation" on the topic of nothing. You willfully declined to take an adult approach. You willfully argued off topic. The criticism is an accurate description, not a personal attack. To the readers I began by stating that this exercise to work our way to nothing was going to require our imaginations to see if we could get there. Lets do one last, and due to Con's single word off topic argument, far to few exercise with our imagination. Imagine you are a college student, or live near a college. The college decides to hold a debate on the existence of God. Pro takes the position, No God exists. Con takes the position, God exist. Pro writes the premise, God doesn't exist. You decide to go to this debate. The subject interests you. You buy your ticket along with 200 other people. You arrange your schedule so you can attend the debate. You attend the debate, looking forward to and intellectual and thought-provoking debate. For the Pro side, he takes this debate serious. Pro creates his arguments and presents them to the audience. And then it is Con's turn. Con stands up, goes to the black board in the background, writes three letters, G O D. Con steps back, points to the word that the letters create, and smugly says, "God does exist. I've proved it. I've written the word on the blackboard." What do we think of this type of behavior? Do we think Con behaved in an honorable fashion? Do we think Con held up his end of the bargain? Do we think Con has just wasted all our time? Do we think Con has embraced the spirit of what a debate is? How would we grade Con and his "argument?" Do you feel ripped off? This is exactly what Con has done in this debate. Con has failed in a dramatic fashion in this debate. Reason 1. Con is willfully off topic. Reason 2. By Con being willfully off topic, Con has failed to embrace good conduct in debating. Reason 3. Con's single, one word argument is incredibly juvenile. Typing a word, point to it, is well below any reasonable standard of debating, in any venue. A junior high debater wouldn't stoop to this level. Finally, I would like to apologize to those who were looking forward to an interesting debate on this subject. If I had known my opponent had no intentions of arguing in good faith, I simply wouldn't have bothered. Our time has been wasted, for that I'm sorry.