Unicorns Once Existed

My opponent has presented an interesting case for the existence of Unicorns, now let me shred it apart. My opponent has presented two philosophical arguments for the existence of unicorns, that can be used to posit any other fictional beast. As such if we are to believe these arguments then we also have to accept the evidence of a host of other ridiculous beast, characters etc. However, besides this obvious flaw the arguments themselves are flawed as I will demonstrate below. The Ontological argument is flawed. My opponent has presented two variations of the ontological arguments, so let me address premise one of both of these arguments and we will see that they are flawed. Please note, that if premise one is defeated then the argument that flows from it is defeated. In the arguments my opponent assumes that " It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that The Invisible Pink Unicorn is a being than which none greater can be imagined." This is an assumption which I reject and everyone reading the debate should reject as there is no evidence for The Invisible Pink Unicorn existing. A such this truth cannot be valid without tangible evidence, this is also important as this being is getting attributed characteristics which need to be shown to be true. Remember if you accept this argument you also have to accept that. " It is a conceptual truth that Superman is a being than which none greater can be imagined." Which is more valid as we have proof for Superman.(1) In the second version my opponent assumes " It is possible that a maximally great unicorn exists.' Sure its possible, but I reject this claim without further evidence. When I make a claim that starts "it is possible", this needs to be verified with some credible evidence. For example if I say it is possible that dinosaurs dies due to multiple volcanic eruptions making the Earth uninhabitable, I need to prove that during that period there were in fact multiple volcanic eruptions.(2) Only then can we accept this as a possibility and even then it is a possibility and not a fact. However, when you are presenting a possibility with no supporting evidence then you are not even close to presenting a valid argument. The Kalam argument is flawed. My opponent also uses the Kalam argument for the existence for the Invisible Pink Unicorn, however as with this ontological argument it fails in its basic premises. My opponent again assumes that "Everything that begins to exist has a cause". No, this is not true if this was true then the Casmir effect would not be happen yet it does.(3) As such the first premise is defeated and the Kalam argument is defeated. My opponent may bring up the contention of this not truly been nothing, then my opponent needs to provide proof for this nothing that is different to the nothing in which the Casmir effect occurs. The Other evidence Lastly, my opponent say Unicorns existed and there is not on physical evidence (fossils) but also mythological and biblical evidence. First lets look at the fossil record which my opponent asserts exist, "We have limited examples of this species in the fossil record, which indicates that Unicorns only sustained minor populations." Unfortunately, my opponent did not provide any reference to this evidence and my searches provided non. As such I have to assume that there is none. Could my opponent please verify this for me in the next round. Next If we are to believe my opponent that mythological and biblical accounts are to be true, then we also have to accept that the Egyptians chased the Israelites out of Egypt and that Zeus resides on Mount Olympus. These are both false statements that do hold up to scrutiny.(4,5) As such why should we accept Unicorns existed if they are mentioned in the Bible when there is no evidence that they existed other than the Bible. Finally, my opponent uses the declining numbers of elephants and rhinoceroses to prove that Unicorns once existed. The reason for this is that Unicorn horn has magical properties. However, again like many times in this argument this is an assumption for which there is no evidence. The only evidence my opponent has presented comes from a fantasy website! This is like me saying Harry Potter is real by linking to the Leaky Cauldron.(6) I hand the debate back to my opponent for closing arguments and final rebuttals. (1) http://www.dccomics.com... (2) http://www.livescience.com... (3) http://www.scientificamerican.com... (4) http://rationalwiki.org... (5) http://travel.nationalgeographic.com... (6) http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org...