When you die, your sole makes like a Frisbee and gets stuck up on the roof of a house.

I will refute your arguments by quoting what you say, and then answering with my own arguments, i apologize for any difficulty in reading this. "My claim is that a person's soul gets stuck up on a house, not necessarily their own." My argument is that in underdeveloped areas of poverty where people do not have houses, as in nobody in the entire region has a house, or in a nomadic population where people don't have roofs to their houses where frisbees can effectively get stuck. If the nearest roof for a frisbee to get stuck on is hundreds of miles away, and a soul is compared to a frisbee, it is impossible for the soul to get stuck. At the point that I prove that even one soul would not get stuck on a roof for all eternity, his entire argument is nullified and he loses the debate. And I prove this in several ways; first, in areas without houses for tens of miles, souls cannot get stuck. Second, in nomadic groups, the roofs of houses are generally not possible for frisbees or souls to get stuck on, and in addition, the houses are packed away after sometime, making it so that the soul isn't trapped for all eternity. "Just because a soul could end up in the same place as a Frisbee doesn't mean that the same forces brought it to that place, or apply to a soul at all. Also, a person wouldn't necessarily have to be in a house at the time of death in order for their soul to end up on a roof." You specifically say in the title of your debate, as well as the first speech, that "your soul makes like a frisbee". What can I, and the voters, possibly assume other than that you say a soul is subject to the exact same everything as a frisbee would be, therefore you must stick by your original interpretation. My argument is that a non material object cannot be subject to material laws of physics, your argument contradicts itself. Next when you say that a person wouldn't necessarily have to be in a house at the time of death, you effectively attack yourself. What if a person died in a plane, the soul would then by your interpretation float gently down as would a frisbee, and say that the plane was flying over a desert. The soul would then simply land on the ground, proving that not all souls would get stuck on roofs. "My claim is that "I believe that when you die, your sole makes like a Frisbee and gets stuck up on the roof of a house and remains in that spot for all of eternity." Just because a house with a soul on top eventually will be demolished doesn't mean that the sole won't still occupy the same spot for eternity. Perhaps once a soul becomes stuck on a roof, it remains suspended in that spot for all of eternity, whether the house is there or not." This argument makes absolutely no sense, when something is demolished, its spatial location is changed and therefore it is not in the same place for all eternity. In addition, when you say that a soul might remain suspended in that spot for all eternity despite the house being there, you radically skew from your original interpretation of a soul's movement, which you say is like a frisbee's. A frisbee simply cannot float in one spot for eternity, and at the point that you say a soul will make like a frisbee, the soul is subject to all laws that a frisbee is. "Your claim that it isn't possible for my theory to exist if your spaghetti monster theory exists is false. Just because a theory regarding the same subject exists doesn't mean that the other cannot. It just means that at least one of those theories is wrong." You admit that at least one of the theories is wrong, therefore if i present to you an alternative solution to what happens to souls, and you fail to refute it, it means that my theory has more standing than yours since i have refuted yours. At this point, it means that my theory has a greater chance of being true, and then you lose since your original argument has a greater chance of being incorrect, and at the point that there is a chance of you being wrong, you lose because you have the burden of proof. Everything you said about the seriousness of the debate i assume is directed towards voters, as i have taken you seriously. It's your right to say this, but it shouldn't be regarded as an argument. Now, please remember, if i win a single one of my arguments, it means he has failed his duty of the burden of proof and you should vote him down immediately. Thanks for commenting, debating and voting, everyone.