It is rational to place faith in the invisible pink unicorn.

You start the debate: You can not add anything in the last round. The rule is simple you must defend this being a valid argument for the Invisible Pink Unicorn. I will say it is not. Since you agreed with this fo god, you should have no problem with this for the invisible pink unicorn.My opponent declares that appealing to faith when committing to the reality of Invisible Pink Unicorn, regardless of religious affiliation, is irrational and fallacious. I intend to show that, quite to the contrary, reasoning from faith is far from special pleading. First, I will present some definitions Faith: 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.1 Reasoning: 1. Use of reason, especially to form conclusions, inferences, or judgments. 2. Evidence or arguments used in thinking or argumentation.2 Argument How do we know something is indeed true? We back it up with another known truth. Furthermore, that other known truth must also be backed up with yet another known truth, and so on. This is what philosophers call the infinite regression problem, and here it is in syllogism form: Suppose that P is some piece of knowledge. Then P is a justified true belief. The only thing that can justify P is another statement – let's call it P1; so P1 justifies P. But if P1 is to be a satisfactory justification for P, then we must know that P1. But for P1 to be known, it must also be a justified true belief. That justification will be another statement - let's call it P2; so P2 justifies P1. But if P2 is to be a satisfactory justification for P1, then we must know that P2 But for P2 to count as knowledge, it must itself be a justified true belief. That justification will in turn be another statement - let's call it P3; so P3 justifies P2. and so on, ad infinitum. Being that humans are finite in their capacity to do anything, which includes reasoning, the only way to resolve the regression is to allow it to come to a stopping point. That is to say, at some point, we choose to believe in a truth without justifying. That is, we take it on faith. Let's look at several approaches to resolving the regress problem to see if they can avoid the problem of faith. 1. Foundationalism3 Foundationalism is perhaps the most straight forward solution. It simply asserts that all justified true beliefs will ultimately be justified by basic beliefs, or presuppositions. These basic beliefs are not justified, but assumed, without logical proof or material evidence, i.e., faith. Thus, foundationalism solves the problem by explicitly relying on faith. 2. Coherentism3 Coherentism attempts to solve the problem by allowing justified true beliefs to ultimately be justified by themselves. At first glance, this appears to be begging the question, and indeed, circular reasoning is the whole point. Coherentists would say that so long as a system of belief is internally consistent, then the beliefs therein constitute knowledge. However, the problem of faith remains. Coherentism replaces a foundation of unproven beliefs with an unproven system of belief. It is quite possible to have a set of beliefs that all cohere quite well together but are all untrue. Therefore, acceptance of any coherent system implies faith in that system as a whole, so Coherentism relies on faith as well. 3. Reliabilism4 Reliabilism attempts to solve the problem by changing the mode of justification altogether. Instead of a belief being justified by another justified true belief, the reliabilist argues that a belief is justified if it is formed using a reliable belief-formation mechanism. The obvious problem is: how do we know what is reliable and what is not reliable. In short, the reliability of belief-formation mechanisms themselves are beliefs and must be themselves justified. In short, reliabilism does not solve the problem as much as dress it different clothes. The same regress problem presents itself albeit with different wording. Each reliability mechanism must be justified by another reliability mechanism ad infinitum. The only solution is to accept one's reliability measurements on faith. 4. Infinitism3 Infinitism simply acknowledges the regress problem and makes no effort to resolve it, arguing instead that there will never be adequate justification for knowledge. The problem with infinitism is that it has no practical application. If employed in debate, it will either lead to skepticism or be subconsciously abandoned. Either way, the infinitist will turn to faith. In the case of skepticism, the infinitist will insist that nothing can be known. But how can the skeptic know that nothing can be known. Skeptcism is ultimately self-refuting, since it can only be true if it is false. Therefore, commitment to skepticism requires faith. The infinist who rejects skepticism is in a philosophical bind also, since simultaneously rejecting skepticism and acknowledging the regress problem is logically incompatible. Therefore, the infinist will have to rely, consciously or subconsciously, on one of the other solutions to the regress problem. Since I have already shown the other solutions to rely on faith, skepticism-free infinitism relies on faith also. Conclusion All this is to say, humans rely on faith in all their reasoning. So, whether one is committed to IPUism or atheism, they are reasoning from faith. To put it succinctly, to use faith as one's reasoning for one specific Invisible Pink Unicorn is not irrational. It's inevitable. Thank you.