Twitter.com exists.

The following order will be, Resolutional analysis, followed by the subsequent perspectives, followed by voters. (All voter's will be potentially dropped arguments. ) Resolutional Analysis:Extend the definitions. My opponent strawmans and misinterpets my definition. To prove something physically exists, you must be able to prove it has actual matter, and life. Now let's look at Pro's counter,Now onto Points 1-4 (Readdressing Resolutional Analysis+ Points 2-4)" In addition no website could exist without physical servers: a website is not merely an idea, it does have to come from somewhere physical, on Earth. Electricity, which powers computers and gives them either an on/off signal (0 or 1) telling them what to do, is defined as "the physical phenomena arising from the behavior of electrons and protons that is caused by the attraction of particles with opposite charges and the repulsion of particles with the same charge". Notice that it is a "physical" phenomena, not an abstract concept or construction. We can feel the charges running these servers, and we can touch them. " My opponent has a few problems here, and this was ultimately his ONLY argument against my first four points, even though he clearly concedes to my definitions (He fails to give counter definitions or an actual resolutional analysis):1st- My opponent does not prove that the website EXISTS, only that the computer physically does. The same argument can be said about the human imagination, which is proven through my definition as lacking existence due to it's inability to be physically harnessed even though it is generated from within the human brain, which does exist. Thus, my opponents entire argument rests on the assertion that the website twitter. com IS the computer, which is clearly untrue. The Computer DOES Exist, but the website does not, according to our definition. Thus you can automatically negate. 2nd- EXTEND THE THIRD ARGUMENT- THE ONTOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE: Because Pro fails to directly attack this, rather grouping up all 4 arguments into one "physical" argument, my opponent has cold clean conceded, that existence is based off our IDENTITY. Identity is not just generated through a physical sense, but also through our being. This means argument 3 still stands.3rd- EXTEND THE FOURTH ARGUMENT- Camus' perspective clearly states, If i cannot touch and feel it, from MY knowledge, then constructive discourse is occurring, which ultimately lacks existence. Extend my claim that says twitter. com is a relative unknown, we cannot classify it as a being, and therefore it cannot have existence. These claims stand due to Pro's failure to actually address the argmentation within each point.4th- THE SECOND ARGUMENT WAS STRAWMANNED- My opponent tries to say that he only has to prove a physical existence. I clearly state, as the tagline of the second argument, that twitte. com is not a physical human being, and therefore it does not exist. EXTEND- The Strawmanned argument, and the word "It" which does quite a few things, including 1) Proves twitter. com does not exist as a physical being2) twitter. com does not have an identity, (the word "it")5th- Pro attempts to say no website can exist without a physical existence. This is untrue, a computer can exist, and generate a website that lacks existence just as a human mind that exists can generate an imagination that is non-existent.6th- Light and electricity- A) Pro only says that electricity exists and thus a website must. This is untrue, because my opponent's argument skips the computer's existence. The appliance may exist, and the electrical current may exist (such as lightning), however the website still is not shown to exist. Thus his argument falls. B) Light given off by a computer screen may exist, but the website within it does not necessarily. We cannot physically alter a website. The Computer screen may give off some existent light, but that does not constitute the existence of a website, only the computer, and the light. The website itself is in no way physically interactive with anything that exists. The Computer from which it is generated does not constitute it's existence, only the computer's. Thus this argument also falls. Arguments 5 and 6 1st- EXTEND Argument 6. My opponent doesn't prove how this resolution was debateable before I gave definitions and a resolutional analysis. On top of that, the altered resolution would be a 100% win for Pro, therefore it is a troll debate, and he has not justified how in any way shape or form this debate was legitimate until I posted definitions and analysis. Thus, if any person were to accept, even if they were to attempt to have a real debate, Pro could just draw out the resolution in his favor, due to con failing to actually give definitions. This was a troll debate, plain and simple, there's no denying it.2nd- EXTEND Argument 5. Pro attempts to attack argument 5 by saying that the very particles which make up machines and technology within the machines will not lead to an invasion, and that I am simply crazy. He once again STRAWMANS the argument, and asks for evidence/proof for the wrong argument. My argument was that by giving every single bit of nonexistent technology existence, Pro is leading to a faster rate of extinction, this argument is different from all other arguments because:A) This argument was created should a stalemate occur, and should the debate go off on a tangentB) His addressing and acknowledgement of this argument allows me to generate offense of it, Pro didn't simply say "this doesn't apply to existence", he said I am paranoid. If I prove I am not, I ultimately win the point and it still stands. SO, argument 5 is saying that we as human being's lose our being when every piece of nonexistence is given existence, and our technological dependency rises to the point where we cannot live without it. I am not saying robots will take over the world, only that if our technological resources were diminished, our mindsets would create mass chaos, war, or just lead to such a high dependency that without nonexistent websites, we would ultimately die off at a much faster rate, hence the faster rate of extinction. VOTERS (Quick Note- The Voters are Conceded Arguments, as per the rules of debate, the last round is for rebuttals only. Pro CANNOT bring up these points, because they go conceded due to his failure at attacking them in any way shape or form, or complete strawmanning. ) 1) Resolutional Analysis- concedes definitions, and terms of this debate wholeheartedly2) Argument 3- Ontology- Pro doesn't show twitter. com has identity, and therefore he hasn't proven existence.3) Argument 4- Camus perspective- Constructive Discourse claim, Untouched4) The Strawman on Argument 2 (This doesn't mean he can't attack it, it just means he strawmanned the argument)- Don't buy his argument against physical existence, as he strawmans the argument. 5) Argument 6- Even if my opponent isn't a troll, this debate was until I defined and analyzed the resolution as to create a real debate. Pro definitely should lose conduct from this.6) Argument 5- No real response, simply says I'm saying "Robot Invasion" Which con disproves (Scroll up to the extension).