atomic butterflies exist on mars

From the top: -The video is only good for making you lose the conduct point. -If the atoms of a butterfly were unbonded, chemically separate, etc., they'd be highly reactive dust, not a butterfly. -Under the definition of "exist", which I provided in the first round, and which is the only definition presented in the round, to exist is to have life or the functions of vitality. It is not insanity but the definition of exist provided by the Merriam-Webster's Dictionary. -"So based on what your saying here.. Atoms.. and anything that is not alive.. do not exist? That is just insanity." No, it's not insanity. It is using the definition provided by the Merriam-Webster's Dictionary. Plus, it's the only valid definition in the debate, since my opponent has failed to provide a counter-definition. What I am saying is that, according to biochemistry, anything that is alive is made up of organic, bonded molecules. You can't have atomic (chemically unbonded) life. A helium atom is not alive; nor is a pile of carbon-hydrogen-oxygen goo that you get when you atomize a living thing. To clarify: atoms are, but they do not exist. Non-living things may be, but they do not exist under the legitimate and accepted definition of "exist". -In the next point, my opponent seems to take issue with the definitions of "on", "exist", but these definitions still stand as he failed to provide definitions from a more legitimate source than Merriam-Webster's Dictionary or even any alternative definitions! Therefore, my definitions and thus my point stand. -I concede that the resolution may indeed refer to the planet Mars, not the Roman deity. My definition is preferred, as it is the first entry in the Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, whereas his definition is unsourced. Even if Mars refers to the planet, my opponent has failed to provide evidence that self-contradictory, chemically unbonded life forms are there. My opponent claims that I changed the definitions of the words in the resolution. I have done no such thing; every definition is straight out of the Merriam-Webster's Dictionary. My opponent has not even attempted to provide alternate definitions to any word in the resolution, so the valid definitions I provided are the only definitions suitable for the debate. -I am not ridiculous; subjective claims about breakfast cereal that appeal to magic a hardly relevant to the debate. -An insulting, ad-hominem video does not address any of my arguments, nor does it prove the existence of atomic butterflies on Mars. -My opponent says that I have not proved the resolution false. Sadly for him, I don't have to prove it false. I just have to show that he hasn't proven it true. The burden of proof is always on the instigator, and especially on an instigator arguing the affirmative. -I concede that atomic bombs to not exist. I will revise my statement to "The Pro has been destroyed by clear, rational argumentation." Regardless of whose definitions, validly sourced or implied, are accepted, my opponent has still failed to provide evidence for his claim. Additionally, my arguments have clearly negated the possibility of the resolution. As did my opponent/ally, I urge a vote for the negative.