A pink invisible unicorn is both pink and invisible.

==== Lack of Evidence ==== My opponent brings u again that he "feels" the IPU exists because of his religion, but that is not an argument - and neither is his testimony valid in this debate, as he has a perfect motive to lie. Again, it's even noted on the very source my opponent gave for his "religion" that the IPU is a symbol of atheism and is a parody religion. He uses a site that continues this parody as a source. [http://filer.case.edu... - it's a student's site] But even if the source was not a parody, all I would have to do is explain that this person's belief in the IPU is not evidence for the IPU actually existing. My opponent testifies that he knows, because of his faith, that only the IPU can be the cause of the universe. First, his testimony is unsubstantiated and of no demonstrable value to us. Second, premises do not lead to conclusions that are any more certain than the premises themselves. If one of the premises is based completely on faith and has no real reason behind it, then the conclusion will be just as worthless. An example should suitably illuminate this fact. 1. If Santa is real, he brings presents to good boys and girls. 2. Santa is real. 3. Therefore, Santa brings presents to good boys and girls. Note that the conclusion does not hold when #2 is wrong. So if such a premise is based off nothing but faith rather than reason, we really haven't given a good reason to believe the conclusion is true. In fact, the conclusion is even less likely than #2 is, since it would still be false if #2 was right and #1 was not. And thus, allow me to provide a syllogism: 1. As instigator of this debate and as PRO, it is my opponent's task to give us reason to believe that the resolution is true. 2. For the resolution to be true, IPU must exist. 3. As evidence for "IPU exists," my opponent has used solely faith rather than reason. 4. Therefore, my opponent has not given us reason to believe the resolution is true. [2, 3] 5. Therefore, my opponent has failed in his task in this debate. [1,4] That may only be enough to tie it alone, but my other argument places the likelihood of the resolution firmly in the "(very) unlikely" area. See it below. ==== Unlikelihood of the IPU ==== Again, by my opponent's source's own admission, the IPU is a paradox, and those who pretend to believe in it are actually by and large atheists parodying religion. [http://en.wikipedia.org...] True paradoxes cannot exist, since they violate the law of non-contradiction. Thus, if an IPU is a paradox, it cannot exist - it's likelihood is a firm 0%. However, my opponent has attempted to argue that it is not a true paradox, it only seems like one. He has argued for a few cases where perhaps "pink" and "invisible" could potentially correctly describe a unicorn simultaneously. ==== Paint argument ==== My opponent abandons the paint argument, instead opting for an argument about dye. He claims that red hair dyed blonde is both blonde and red. This is false. If the red truly still exists under the blonde dye, then it is merely the dye that is blonde, just as it was with the paint. If the hair itself is truly now blonde, then there is no red underneath it, since it's not just covered up as it was with paint. It's not red anymore. But allow me to take a slightly different approach. Invisible is not a color. Even if dying hair from one color to another made the hair have both colors, it is still impossible for the hair to be both pink and invisible. If you can see the hair (which you must for it to actually be pink) then it is not invisible, since invisible simply means that something is incapable by nature of being seen. The hair might be invisible once more when you remove the pink dye, but it is not invisible while it is pink as is required by the resolution. Despite the fact that I've shown this argument to be nonsensical, note that my opponent never gave any evidence at all, nor even claimed to have faith that there exists an invisible unicorn which has been dyed pink. Even disregarding the impossibility of his claim, this is conjecture of the wildest sort. ==== Cloak Argument ==== My opponent first provides the Wikipedia page for "metamaterial cloaking," claiming that "Science exists that shows, in theory, that materials exist that could have cloaking capabilities." Unfortunately, such a claim is not made on the page he refers to. Science has not shown true invisibility to be possible. Further, it is not my job to look through an entire page of stuff looking for something that even slightly resembles support for PRO's assertion. He should have provided us with that. My opponent also provides the link to "Philadelphia Experiment," which is widely believed to be a hoax. My opponent's source admits it's widely believed to be a hoax. I don't know why he thinks this provides support for his case. But even ignoring that - even if such a cloak were even POSSIBLE: My opponent's case then relies on the IPU being divine and having created the cloak himself, since otherwise he wouldn't be invisible "by nature." But there's one more problem that even this preposterously unlikely scenario doesn't cover - from inside the cloak, the unicorn can still be seen. My opponent mentions that it's unlikely that someone is sitting under the unicorn and thus inside the cloak, but this is wholly irrelevant. From inside a steel box, I can't be seen by someone who's outside of it. That doesn't mean I'm invisible, it simply means people outside of it aren't in line of sight with me. To be incapable by nature of being seen, one's incapability of being seen must rely solely on their nature - not on the positioning of other people. I'm not even disagreeing with my opponent's last-round definition of "nature" here. ==== The Blind Man ==== My opponent argues that with his definition of nature, the resolution would be met if there is an IPU and that IPU caused blindness in a guy. This is false. To be invisible, one must be "incapable by nature of being seen" in general, not just "incapable by nature of being seen by that blind guy over there on the side of the road." Just because a blind man cannot see me does not mean I cannot be seen. We know for sure that there are indeed people who are not blind and who are able to see colors in the visible spectrum such as pink, so the mere existence of some people and things which cannot see does not mean that anything is invisible. ==== Conclusion ==== My opponent claims that he has met his burden. He says he has shown you that the existence of an invisible pink unicorn is "plausible." If we accept his examples and call them all plausible, then he is correct (though I have dispelled all his examples in reality). He fails to realize that he needs do much more than show that the resolution is plausible. He must give evidence that the resolution is actually true. For example, if I started a debate "I have over a million dollars in my bank account," while that may be plausible (much moreso than this resolution), I can't just say "IT'S POSSIBLE" and expect people to vote for me. I would have to persuade people that I'm actually correct, not just that I _could_ be. It is the same with my opponent. He is the guy claiming to have a million dollars and failing to provide evidence, merely arguing that we don't KNOW he's lying. Except worse, my opponent is in reality claiming something that is more than improbable and baseless, it is also impossible. Thanks to my opponent for the debate, and thanks for reading and voting.