A pink invisible unicorn is both pink and invisible.

Let's start with ========= Lack of evidence ========= The existence of an alleged invisible pink unicorn is put into question by the opposing side. As I had stated in round 2, I feel the invisible unicorn exists because of the bases of my religion, it fills the void of what had "preceded" the creation of everything. We followers of the IPU believe she is a divine being and creator of all that exists or will come to exist [1]. Though my opponent states it does nothing for my case because it makes no sense as to why because I believe in the pink invisible unicorn, that said unicorn would create everything, it is BECAUSE I believe in said unicorn and the basis of my religion that I can see only the unicorn, as a divine being, could have created everything. Science has yet to determine what came before, and, the unicorn as an all powerful being, would fill said void. ========= Paint argument ========= My opponent suggests that the unicorn is not both pink and invisible due to it being the paint which is pink, not the unicorn. First, let me change this argument from "paint" to "dye", because it would be ridiculous to paint a horses hide when dying it would be much more effective. Now let us consider hair. If one were brunette and were to dye his/her hair blonde, one would consider that hair blonde. Anyone on the street would consider it blonde, regardless if it just a layer of false blonde dye on top. Although it was not inherently blonde, it is considered blonde, the hair has then both colors, although one is not visible, kept under the blonde. The same works for a invisible unicorn that is dyed pink. Of course you argue now that making it pink makes it visible which no longer makes it invisible. I address that by asking you what is truly considered a visible color. Humans distinguish color using color vision. Color vision is the capacity of an organism or machine to distinguish objects based on the wavelengths or frequencies of the light they: reflect, emit, transmit. Although the invisible unicorn is pink, the frequency of the light spectrum that is viewed as invisible as well as the frequency of the light spectrum that reveals pink is still on the unicorn. Therefore, because both frequencies exist on the same unicorn, the unicorn can be considered both invisible and pink. ========= Cloak Argument ========= My opponent disregards the existence of a cloak that can cause invisibility. Science exists that shows, in theory, that materials exist that could have cloaking capabilities [2][3]. As said previously, the divine unicorn could in fact create such a wonder even though man has yet to discover exactly how to create an invisibility cloak. I prefer the word "faith" rather than "baseless conjecture" (man, one that hurt my feeling :'( ). Anyways, seeing as we have yet to define nature, I guess I will, because there may be some who don't already know it. Nature [4] : an inner force or the sum of such forces in an individual Now because nature is defined as such, and the powers, or "inner force", of the divine unicorn is what created the cloak, than we can say, by the unicorns "nature" he created said cloak. And last you argued that at some vantage point the the unicorn would be seen. Well sir, that is just baseless conjecture that someone would sit under a unicorn! : ) ==== 3. The blind man ==== You argued I did not meet the definition. Seeing as nature is how I defined previously, than I can argue that if the unicorn caused the blindness in the man, then it is by the unicorn's nature he caused the blindness, and thus his invisibility still stands. And in case you argue later that there are still others that can see, well the unicorn can blind them all. ========= CONCLUSION ========= Let me start by saying thanks for everyone's time today. Now the point came down to how I can only win if I could prove that a unicorn exists, it is pink while also being invisible. The first hurdle is to except my claim of the existence of a unicorn. I still feel I have claimed his existence undoubtedly, due to the only argument against it was a non-sequitur, which I carefully explained, making it completely plausibly that said unicorn exists, just as God, Allah, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster can exist. My opponent makes nothing but arguments on existence. Through my analysis of color vision, as well as what constitutes something as being colored, as well as my examples, explain without a doubt that a pink and invisible unicorn is both pink and invisible. Many of you probably will look at my arguments and think its nothing but trying to be funny, but it is logical when you think about it from the perspective I offer. Thanks for the debate, I hope y'all had fun! [1] . http://filer.case.edu... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] . http://www.merriam-webster.com... ========= Some final words (off the record) ========= "If he did not wish to respond, he should not have made the argument. I would wager he only made that argument so he could make needless references to outside material in order to win the "most reliable sources" points. " You expect the worse of me sir, and yet you don't even know me. .. that is just a blatant attack on my character.