The world will end on December 21st 2012

First I would like to note my opponents large "lack of evidence" in supporting her contentions. My case My first contention will be a philosphical argument that proves my assertion true, due to the likelyhood of factual siliohism.P.1 If ontological inequencies exist, factual silliohism would be the most plausable explanation. P.2 Ontological inequencies exist. P.3 Therefore, factual silliohism is true. DefenceP.1Self evident, unless my opponent presumes disinvisiary planotaism to be true, which I am sure she doesn't.P.2The point of contention...The mere concept of this premise does not entail onto-illogical equivocation. While we may conceive of beings as having the property of being unkowing, contemplations and actions are not properties at all. More specifically, existence is not a perfection, thus it does not entail onto-illogical equivocation. So the second assertion is viable. This concerns whether our concept of the human mind corresponds to anything real, and pure reason can tell us that is valid. We can show that the classic onto-omnia argument fails by keeping the erroneous second premise and replacing the first one with: "Utopia is the most perfect ('the greatest') society conceivable." This parallel conclusion is clearly false. Only observation could determine that such things are natural. Logic cannot be a physical entity. As we can be demonstrated (x-~b^) there are no necessarily true propositions, for this would contradict all things that are evident in everything known about ontological inequency. They are essentially products of the mind. Thoughts are physical products of a physical mind. In order to uppose this you would have to believe [y,x,c~zy~-~x} as a form of logic is sound, whichwould clearly be absurd.To make it more simple. 1. (x) (Bx -> Cx)2. Bu3. CuWhere B = possible alternate places, c = logic, u = the human mind. Necessary existences entail maximal loga-logical plains of encompassments. To stray farther away from metaphysics into physics, the law of conservation of energy postulates a constant quantity of energy in the universe. Energy can not be created nor destroyed; only change form. This suggests a number of things, but most rellevant is the fact that this would suppose that equalified contingint incompatibilism neccesitates the LOC which therefore proves factual siliohism. If my opponent denies that the mind would need to create energy, then he suggests that a non-physical factor can affect already existing physical things which would clearly be absurd.If my opponent were to disagree with this, she would have to believe (tilogy assumed) that music, food and smell were all objective. P.3Universally quantified statements do not commit one to the existence of classes of alternate plains, whereas existential statements (Such as M-P1) do. Hence P1 and M-P1 are not logically equivalent. This Prima Facie concludes the fact that alternate utilities encompass all plains of existence.Not much to say on my opponents case, as my case refutes all her points, but I would like to note again, that she is very poor in supporting her assertions, and does not use evidence.Sources[1] http://www.csulb.edu......[2] http://www.informationphilosopher.com......[3] http://www.consciousentities.com......[4] http://plato.stanford.edu......[5] Melnyk, Andrew. A Physicalist Manifesto: Thoroughly Modern Materialism, pp. 298-304.