It is possible that a flying pink unicorn exists (2)

By the end of this round the voters must ask themselves if my opponent has been able to effectively assert that an FPU is capable of existing, as well as his broader point that ‘everything is possible', as it is the foundation for all of his arguments. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Voters need to consider that even if accepting that ‘anything is possible', has my opponent asserted that an FPU is possible? Has he made a sufficient argument that an FPU specifically, can exist? While the arguments to consider the possibility of anything are not without merit, to ask someone to consider the existence of that which contradicts our understanding of basic science is not within the same realm as being open minded. To assert such a case requires some explanation of how such a being would manifest and why it would do so. Has my opponent even attempted any such explanation? Before returning to those questions, I will address my opponent's final assertions. "Macro evolution, while a very compelling theory, has not been near properly observed." While much is to be desired of any theory, on this level of science the observable facts are pretty basic. Animals can be grouped into categories based on similar traits and anatomy. Inferences can be made on behavior and genetic manifestation. That horses don't fly isn't something that requires delving into more dicey areas of science. One can easily observe why a horse is like the way it is. Other animals have characteristics that similarly reflect their environment and we classify them appropriately. From this we can observe that life conforms to parameters that maximize its potential for survival. Something horse-like fits into a very specific classification. A mammal that, as we know them as they are today- have been changed and formed through breeding by humans for very specific purposes. For it to be altered to another extreme would change its classification entirely. In other words, if life conforms to the simple facts we do know about, something that flies cannot be horse-like. Flying without wings Whether the unicorn has wings or not does nothing to effect whether or not it's possible. I argued in the previous round to the very definitions my opponent requested and assumed the FPU was wingless. My argument still stands that a wingless flying horse like thing is impossible. Conceded Point/Personal witness argument "It is possible that I am a credible witness." It's not. The statement ("An FPU exists", or "I have seen an FPU") has ‘Zero Credibility'. There is definitively, (as in, to define ‘zero credibility') as much reason to believe the statement, as there is to dismiss it. In this case less, because it's made with a verifiable intent to distort reality. This argument has been logically fallible since initially argued. I have not conceding anything, I have simply been pointing out ways in which this argument could potentially be reasonable in an effort to point out how illogical it is. Since these arguments were never made, (and couldn't be made, because they require impossible requisite conditions) the ‘personal witness argument' remains without merit and thoroughly negated in perpetuity throughout the universe. "First my opponent makes the completely false statement that hundreds of facts contradict my case. Having us believe that he has presented all these facts." I apologize to my opponent if he thought this was misleading. Character limits make it difficult for me to address all the ‘fact' problems with the FPU. "My opponent needs absolute hard facts for us to consider his case." Since my opponent insists, here are 10 (instead of hundreds) reiterated ‘facts' that don't jive with the FPU. I believe each one of these could be broken down further into multiple dozens each of other facts that contradict the FPU (thus giving us hundreds): 1) Horses generally aren't pink [1] 2) Unicorns don't exist. 3) No four legged animals can fly [3] 4) The bat is the only mammal that can fly 5) Horses are optimized to run fast on the ground 6) Horses can't fly 7) Horses have only been seen on Earth 8) All known flying animals have wings 9) The heaviest flying animals weigh around 40lbs [2] 10) Horses don't have horns [4] These facts, among others, contradict the existence of the FPU. When combined with my other arguments, and the dozens of other facts each can be broken down into, they prove it's impossible. In this last round I have made no new arguments, I have simply rebutted my opponent's final attacks, and reiterated my main two points; 1) The FPU is impossible because of simple scientific understanding of the animal kingdom, 2) The FPU is an illogical culmination and combination of characteristics. The burden of proof is upon my opponent and I equally. I believe I have shown why an FPU IS impossible, my opponent has failed to show why it isn't. His most focal argument is that nothing is impossible. Since it seems it's impossible to show how an FPU could exist, and possible to show why it cannot, the resolution is negated. Have a wonderful day, and vote Con. I would like to thank my opponent for a great debate and wish him well on all of his future debates and endeavors. [1] http://www.horsecolor.com... [2] http://www.victorialodging.com... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://animals.howstuffworks.com...