God does not exist.

Thanks for that Pro.Pro nearly reached concession last round.Also Pro, like so many members on DDO, doesn't understand contingency.So here we go...*Superhuman*Wow, I never thought a debate would hinge on such a seemingly simple compound word (super + human).But here we are.Pro has now come full circle on his arbitrary exclusions for the nouns that can possess the quality of superhuman.Pro originally said:1. "Superhuman is clearly an adjective...the definition doesn't clearly specify...what types of nouns can possess this quality."2. "[We should] draw some reasonable conclusions regarding what types of nouns may possess this quality."Pro has set the bar at "reasonable."3. "Nouns being described as superhuman are all *intelligent beings* [and] attempting to extend this definition to non-living beings is largely non-sensical, as it produces surprising, unintuitive, and occasionally meaningless results."4. "It is valid to claim that "superhuman" only modifies nouns that also have the quality of "intelligent" because that's how humans use the word."From this, Pro has made his *only* case against the sun being superhuman and worshiped for its power over nature and human fortunes.His case is simply that the adjective "superhuman" can only modify nouns that are also intelligent beings, so the sun cannot possess the quality of being superhuman, simply because it lacks the intelligence quality.So I pointed out that abilities and features themselves are not intelligent beings and are nouns and are reasonably referred to as superhuman.What does Pro say on the matter?Pro from 3rd round:"One can refer to certain abilities or features as superhuman, [and] this is actually totally reasonable and I hadn't considered it."My response:Yeah, no crap, man.Had you considered it, you wouldn't have said #3 or #4 above.Pro has negated the core of their case with this concession.But Pro doesn't stop there...no, no, no.Pro pushes this even further in round 3.Pro from 3rd round:"It might be reasonable to claim that the sun has superhuman abilities."My response:THANK YOU!This is the near concession to which I was referring.Now you can see why saying that "a lighter would be superhuman because it can quickly produce fire by itself, whereas humans cannot" isn't that unreasonable.Your list of a lighter, a car, and tungsten are all like the sun in that they possess superhuman abilities, so me quoting this list isn't indicative of a lack of sportsmanship, rather it's indicative of your concession that #3 and #4 above are WRONG and you just admitted it.Let me get Pro's case very straight for the readers.Pro says:"My entire argument is that "superhuman" can only modify intelligent beings."My response:Except for the abilities and features that you just conceded are not intelligent, including the abilities the sun possesses.Did you see that readers?His ENTIRE argument is based on that assertion and he's already negated it.Pro, you should concede here.Pro continues:"Again, in my very first round I took issue with the term superhuman, demonstrating that it can only apply to intelligent beings."My response:Only to later in round 3 negate all of that by agreeing that non-intelligent beings can be reasonably described as superhuman; thanks again, Pro.Pro continues:"The opponent did present common sense definitions. The issue is that he is not using these words in common sense ways."My response:Except that Pro has already agreed that features and abilities, which PRO AGREES THAT THE SUN POSSESSES, can be REASONABLY described as superhuman, so even if it isn't a common sense way, both Pro and I agree that non-intelligent beings can possess the quality of superhuman.Then Pro writes the most baffling logic I may have every seen.Pro says:"It might be reasonable to claim that the sun has superhuman abilities, but it does not follow that, therefore, the sun is also superhuman."My response:WHAT?What the f*ck else makes something superhuman if not the superhuman features and abilities it has?Pro, your whole case on superhuman is an analysis of "what types of nouns can possess this quality."If a noun possesses superhuman abilities and features, that noun possess superhuman qualities...why doesn't this make it superhuman?Seriously.Pro do you understand, since you've agreed that features can be described as superhuman AND that the sun's features can reasonably be described as superhuman, that the sun possess superhuman qualities?That doesn't sound "non-sensical, surprising, unintuitive, or meaningless" as you claimed is the case AND we are both humans and have used the word in the very manner you claim is not used by people.Damn, Pro.*Contingency*Ah, the least understood concept on DDO.Contingent means that something CANNOT (present tense indicative) exist without something else.For example, a heart attack is contingent on a heart.If there are no hearts, there are no heart attacks.I pointed out that intelligence, as it has been used throughout this debate, is contingent on the sun, so the sun is necessarily superior to intelligence because the sun allows for its existence.Without the sun, there is no intelligence as we have described it in this debate.So Pro tries to think of an analogy that shows contingency but not superiority.Pro says:"If he created a wood chipper, turned it on and jumped inside, would he be justified in claiming superiority to that wood chipper?"My response:The wood chipper's origin may have been contingent on my existence, however, the wood chipper's continued existence is not contingent on my existence, in fact, I could die and the wood chipper could thrive.Therefore, the wood chipper is not contingent on my existence and this analogy kinda sucks.Intelligence however, could not continue to exist without the sun, which makes intelligence CONTINGENT on the sun; no sun. no intelligence.Understanding that the quality of intelligence is utterly contingent on the sun necessarily makes intelligence itself inferior to the sun, period.The sun could continue to shine even if there were no intelligent beings, but intelligence would perish without the sun.The sun's longevity and existence is superior to that of humans as well; a superhuman existence if you will, and I will.So, sorry Pro, a wood chipper's continued existence is NOT contingent on my existence; it's just not.*Various Rebuttals*Pro said I didn't touch on some things, so let's remedy that.Pro urges:"I urge the reader to do this; simply look up the word "superhuman" and note how it is used in every sentence you come across. You'll find that the overwhelming majority of "superhuman" use cases refer to intelligent beings."My response:That's because the overwhelming majority of those cases are using the term "superhuman" as a noun, and of course a superhuman (noun) would be human or at least human like, therefore some kind of intelligence.But Pro's agreed that the superhuman in this debate is most certainly an adjective.So readers, search away and come across all of those examples of superhuman (noun).They'll be irrelevant to this debate.Pro ad homs:"The unethical practices of the opponent warrants a loss for him."My response:Nope.I've challenged your position by showing you the very flaws that negate your position, so if anything, voters should view this as desperation by Pro.I say, vote on the merits of our arguments, not the perceived behavior of the debater; besides, I wasn't being unethical by directly quoting a bad argument; the argument is just so self refuting, I had to quote it.*Conclusion*Readers take these two quotes from Pro and decide what's happening here.1. "Superhuman is clearly an adjective. What types of nouns can possess this quality if we draw some reasonable conclusions?"2. "It might be reasonable to claim that the sun has superhuman abilities."There you go readers.The sun is superhuman because of the many superhuman qualities it has, and this is reasonable to claim.Check and mate.