There exist thing(s) that are most likely humanly impossible.

1. Imagining/creating the logically incoherent.Much to the shock of the audience, I’m sure, I must wholeheartedly disagree with my opponent’s reasoning here.He brings up the examples of airplanes and TVs in order to prove a point: that every invention was, at one time in history, unthinkable. And so every currently unthinkable thing now must therefore be able to be invented in the future.Unfortunately, though, my opponent’s inductive reasoning fails in the sense that it is not… well, inductive. To clarify once again, the existence of things such as airplanes and TVs are, by the standards of modal logic, contingent. This means it is possible for them to exist. They do not, by their own nature, contradict their own nature.A squircle, however, is in an entirely different category than mere machines. We can at least imagine grander machines than the ones we own today. We can imagine a water-powered android that can serve remarkably as a butler/crime fighter/sex slave, even though we can’t yet build one. (It’s not that it’s seen as logically incoherent, but merely beyond the scope of current technology and technological understanding, like airplanes and TVs once upon a time.)On the other hand, we can’t imagine something which is at the same time itself and not itself, a square and a circle. It is a paradox, and therefore logically impossible. In no possible world can such a thing exist (including, quite obviously, our own, be it in the present or the future). [1]Seeing as how he mistakenly concluded the logically impossible must actually be possible because the logically contingent has shown to be in the past, my opponent’s rebuttals are invalid.2. Traveling slower than perfectly still.“Death” is the speed which my opponent claims to be slower than still. The warrant for this seems to be some mysterious branch of science which states if something is not moving, it is decaying.My rebuttal to this is twofold:(A) Death is not a speed slower than zero miles per hour. It’s not a speed at all. It’s the condition of a once-living thing after its biology has ceased functioning.One can be dead and still have a non-zero velocity if his/her body were being acted upon by some outside force. Therefore, it can be clearly deduced that whether or not one is living or dead has no relevance at all to one’s speed. My opponent’s response is totally inapplicable.(B) Even if we were to agree that death is a speed slower than perfectly still (which, honestly, why would we?), then my opponent has only offered us something else we should think is most likely humanly impossible: to travel slower than death.3. Traveling faster than the speed of light.My opponent spits on the face of Einstein and of science itself with his response. A handsome face to spit on if one were obligated, for sure, but seeing as how we are men of reason, let’s keep our saliva to ourselves for now.There are two ways for us to do this, he tells us: (1) we build a machine that can do it, and (2) we sit around and meditate.(1) We build a machine. My God, why didn’t I think of that? It seems so obvious now that our physics maestro has kindly clued us in. Let’s start work on those blueprints straightaway. Oh, wait a minute. This completely ignores everything I just said in the last round: it is physically impossible for anything with rest mass to travel at the speed of light.I blame myself really for not expounding enough. I did mention human beings have rest mass but failed to also mention machines do too. He says we’ll be in this machine when it’s traveling at light-speed and we’ll be protected. But protected from what? It’s not that it’s dangerous for humans to travel at light-speed like it’s dangerous to land on the sun. It’s mathematically impossible (and math is brutally honest, I'm afraid). [2, 3](2) We meditate. By doing so, apparently, we “become light”. I’m guessing these great meditation masters my opponent refers to have studied far more poetry than they have physics. Not that there’s anything wrong with poetry, certainly, but it really has no place in this particular debate.In fact, it was clearly stated in the instigation (and agreed to by my opponent) that semantics is forbidden in this debate. So my opponent has either (A) used flowery language here to confuse the issue, a tactic which by all means could be reasonably seen as semantics, or (B) claimed that the minds and/or bodies of people in deep meditative states literally become photons.I shudder to think my opponent would ever knowingly use semantics. But if the reality truly is (B) then it should be easy enough to refute. I’ve seen a meditating man before and he certainly didn’t transmogrify into particles of light. He didn’t even glow in the dark a little.I must urge my opponent to prove, however minutely the universe can allow, that one can “become light” by meditating. Because as it stands, with absolutely no record of any such chemical/nuclear/magical reaction turning human beings into photons, my opponent’s rebuttal looks terribly ungrounded in reality.Sources:[1] http://plato.stanford.edu...[2] http://curiosity.discovery.com...[3] http://scienceline.ucsb.edu...