Pink Unicorn (Pro) Vs Flying Spaghetti Monster (Con)

I will rebut my opponent's arguments in the next round. What constitutes a monster is subjective. A monster can be "something that is extremely or unusually large." [1] When we say "exist," we mean that something can exist in some possible world - and Mikal himself has agreed to it. [2]So the question that arises is what is "unusually large?" Well, what is usual? This is entirely subjective, and thus we can say that, in some conceivable world, a "monster" may exist. Now, I"d like to draw your attention to a "Red! Recipe" blog for what they call a "giant spaghetti bomb" -- and I don"t know about you, but "bomb" sounds pretty darn monstrous. Here is a picture of it [3]: Now, that looks pretty darn large and is certainly more spaghetti than I've ever seen before in my life -- and I"m Italian, so I know about spaghetti. Is it a monster? Well, let's consider the logic:P1: If the definition of "monster" mandates subjectivity, the fact that subjective opinion, in principle, could classify this "spaghetti bomb" or a variation of it as a "monster," means that we can call it a monster that exists in some possible world. P2: Subjective opinion, in principle, could classify this "spaghetti bomb" or a variation of it as a "monster."C1: Therefore, we can call it a monster that exists in some possible world.Since this is the case, we have our monster and our spaghetti. But can it fly? What does "fly" mean? Let"s consult the text of a dictionary. "Fly" can take on many definitions, including the following [4]:(1) To rise in or be carried through the air by the wind(2) To travel by air(3) To move with great speed; rush or dart(4) To be dissipated; vanish(5) To undergo an explosion; burstI'm going to show how this "spaghetti bomb" thing-a-ma-bob can fulfill all 5 of these definitions.For it to "rise" in the air, it could be picked up. Someone of exceptional strength, perhaps the incredible hulk or Airmax1227, could pick this spaghetti bomb thing up. I mean, it"s about the size of a cake, so clearly it can be picked up, right? Someone had to make it, transport it, serve it, etc. Could it travel by air? Of course it could. If you placed the cake on a plane, then of course it would travel by air in the same way as a person. Could it move with great speed? Note that this definition does not mandate autonomy. Of course it could. The plane could move at an exceptional speed. And what is "great?" "Great" is subjective, so this is the same appeal as my last argument regarding a "monster."Can it be dissipated? Of course. If the CIA (or now the Pentagon) dropped a drone hellfire missile on it, it would blow up. It is prima facie that things that get hit by drones blow up. Ask a civilian in Pakistan and they will tell you. And the same logic applies to the last definition: it can indeed explode. So I have proven to you that, in this world, we can have a contraption made of spaghetti, which some consider a monster, which can fly. My end of the burden of proof is fulfilled. Now, to address a pink unicorn: Note that my adversary has NOT addressed comparatively why he believes a pink unicorn is more likely than a spaghetti bomb, whereas I am providing my own case providing a pink unicorn. He has not fulfilled his end of the BOP. Again, this will not be a rebuttal. First, what on God's green earth is a unicorn? [5]: "an imaginary animal that looks like a horse and has a straight horn growing from the middle of its forehead." Well, Merriam-Webster says that it's imaginary, and everyone knows that Merriam-Webster is omniscient, so because it's imaginary, it doesn't exist in any possible world, meaning that it is a concept, meaning that it is less likely to actually exist than a spaghetti bomb doo-hickey thing-a-magig, which I have already proven to you can exist IN THIS WORLD. But let's take this a bit further. On an episode of The Suite Life on Deck that aired a while ago, Heiress London Tipton had this to say [6]:"Oh. Please! Everybody knows Unicorns live in Australia."Now, why should we trust London? It"s simple: she's an heiress, her father owns the ship, she clearly has ins with the DDO Elite, and she's so darn cute. And, as a red-hearted conservative AMERICAN, I"ve been taught to trust rich people because they are the smartest, most enlightened, most productive members of society who would never ever ever ever ever do something stupid like, say, crash the global economy by bundling together toxic subprime mortgages and then betting against them on the derivatives markets. Never. That was CLEARLY the workings of the [Censored by DDO lluminati]. So here is the argument:P1: If London Tipton says it is so, it is so.P2: London Tipton says it is so.C1: So, it is so.P3: If London Tipton says it is prima facie that unicorns live in Australia, it is prima facie that unicorns live in Australia. P4: London Tipton says it is prima facie that unicorns live in Australia.C2: It is prima facie that unicorns live in Australia. But what or where is Australia? Let's ask MassiveDump, another expert on this subject. I caught up with MassiveDump earlier today [6]:ProgressiveDem, Ace Reporter: So, Massive, what are your thoughts on London Tipton"s comments?MassiveDump: AUSTRALIA DOESN'T EXIST! Also, thett3 isn"t gorgeous. And it is prima facie that Mikal is a meanie bovenie slovenie who set the character limit at 8,000 instead of 10,000. Heck, I bet he made a disgusting assertion about a very prominent member doing naughty things to kittens. ProgressiveDem, Ace Reporter: Thank you for your thoughts, Massive. When will the next Weekly Stupid be up?MassiveDump: Watch yourself, or you"ll be on it.Yes, I know what you"re thinking: "Progressive, you idiot, why didn't you find out when the Weekly Stupid is coming on?" Sorry, I panicked. He's much hotter in person.Anyway, let's put this argument into another polysyllogism! Cuber would be proud!P1: If MassiveDump says it is so, it is so.P2: MassiveDump says it is so.C1: So, it is so.P3: If MassiveDump says that Australia doesn't exist, it is prima facie that Australia doesn"t exist. P4: MassiveDump says that Australia doesn"t exist. C2: It is prima facie that Australia doesn't exist.So if Australia doesn't exist, it doesn't exist in any possible world. It is merely a figment of our imagination. Let's examine the final syllogism:P1: If unicorns live in Australia, they live in the imagination. P2: Unicorns live in Australia.C1: Unicorns live in the imagination.P3: If unicorns live in the imagination, they do not exist in any possible world.P4: Unicorns live in the imagination.C2: Unicorns do not exist in any possible world.I have disproven my opponent's case.And I shouldn't even need to address pink! For goodness' sake, why would they be pink? What an abnormally repugnant color that would completely redefine gender roles and threaten the NATURAL, TRADITIONAL FAMILY. How you could ever think that these morally depraved creatures could ever exist is beyond logic. Next you"ll be telling me that the bloody things engage in coitus for pleasure -- or that airmax and bladerunner AREN'T the same person. Or that Kim Kardashian harvested an IQ point. Let's ask Jesus H. Christ what he thinks about the color "pink" [7]:ProgressiveDem, Ace Reporter: Jesus, what do you think about pink?Jesus: Pfft, can a camel enter into the eye of a needle?ProgressiveDem, Ace Reporter: Camels don't exist. They're the spawn of unicorns which means they have their roots in Australia.Jesus: Well done, my son. Now, about your sins--ProgressiveDem, Ace Reporter: AND we're out of time. Thank you, Jesus! Sources:1. http://tinyurl.com...2. Mikal in a Google+ chat3. http://tinyurl.com...4. http://tinyurl.com...5. http://tinyurl.com...6. http://tinyurl.com...7. Interview with MassiveDump8. Interview with Jesus