Logically speaking, Nothing cannot exist.

Thank you Con for your response. Having said that, I will confess to be greatly disappointed in it. I would much rather have an interesting debate, on what is a very interesting subject, then to try and find a way to just get a win. In other words, the interesting discussion is more important than the win for me. As I read your first argument, it seems to me you have opted to try and get a win, over trying to have an interesting debate. On an intellectual level, I find this to be disappointing. We had an opportunity to debate an interesting topic, you seem to have passed on that. Your round two argument is largely off point, and fails on the whole. The premise. 1. Logically speaking, Nothing cannot exist. 2. Notice the capitalization of the word nothing. We are speaking of a specific kind of nothing. Round 1. Further clarification of the premise. 1. "Why is there something rather than nothing?" 2. This phrase identifies the type of nothing we are talking about. 3. This is an age old question that has been ponder by human beings for thousands of years. It is a deep question and anyone reading the round 1 clarification should know the depths of the question, and be familiar what type of nothing we are about to debate. 4. The debate is in the Philosophy category. Philosophy is where we consider deep questions. 5. "I've spent 3 months thinking about nothing." Further clarify that we are discussing a deep subject. 6. "...because a pure nothing is most likely impossible." More clarification on the type of nothing that the debate will cover, notice the word PURE. 7. Round 1 clearly clarifies the nature of the premise. We are debating nothing in the deepest of ways. Evidence 1. Con uses round 1 to clarify how he defines Logic. Con is aware round 1 is to clarify the debate. Con should have a good understanding of what type of nothing we are about to debate. 2. There are two response in the comments section that speak to the topic of the debate. Both comments where posted before any arguments were made. C1. "How are you an Atheist but believe nothing cannot exist?" In general, this commenter understand the topic of the debate and the type of nothing that we will be discussing. This commenter understands the subject is a deep question. Far more deep then typing a word. C2. "The resolution is only tangentially related to atheism/theism." This commenter also understands the type of nothing that the debate will be focusing on. Both understand the topic is a type of Universe nothing. Both understand the topic is a deep question, not the typing of a word. Conclusion to this point. 1. Con should be well aware of what type of nothing is to be debated. 2. If Con was confused about the type of nothing we were going to discuss, Con could have asked for clarification in the comments section or in the round 1 acceptance portion. 3. Con has no reason not to understand what type of nothing we are debating. The commenters understand it. Con's opening argument fails completely because Con doesn't address nothing as described in the premise or the round 1 clarification of the premise. That being said, Con did make a few very light arguments. Since we have gone this far, I will continue the debate and address the failings of Con's argument in what is a larger failed response. I've identified 2 arguments (one isn't actually an argument) in Con's round 2 response. A1. "...go over my opponent's arguments extremely quickly." A2. "The form of nothing is the word nothing." A1. "...go over my opponent's arguments extremely quickly." In this section Con doesn't actually make an argument. non, not one, zero. Con makes a very superficial summary of my 8000 character opening argument. Three entire sentences was devoted to my opening argument. There is not one single contested point in this section. Effectively, I argue my house is yellow. Con effectively states that I argued that my house was yellow. This section is a complete failure. A2. "The form of nothing is the word nothing." This fails on two points. 1. It is off topic. Round 1 clarification, "Why is there something rather than nothing." The debate clearly isn't about something as simple as a word. This is an age old question, debated for thousands of years. It is illogical to think the significance of this question in any way relates to the word itself. It is unreasonable to think that this debate is about the word "nothing" when the instigator of the debate uses the word in the premise. The more logical conclusion is that we are discussing a type of nothing, and that is clarified in round 1. Typing the word "nothing" fails to address the actual type of nothing that is the topic of the debate. 2. It is a juvenile argument. It is equivalent to a premise "The Easter Bunny doesn't exist." Then the opponent writing the words "Easter Bunny" on a sheet of paper and saying "look the Easter Bunny does exist" pointing to the words. Childish. This website is Debate.org, "...an online community where intelligent minds from around the world come to debate..." To debate that something doesn't exist, for the rebuttal to be, "I wrote those very words, therefore it does exist" is below any reasonable standard on what should be expected from this type of site. This is an incredibly juvenile argument. I don't even think it deserves a zero. I think it deserves a minus 2. Summary to this point. Con's opening response fails in a dramatic way, frankly wasting my time and the readers. It is largely off topic. The type of nothing that is to be discussed is clarified to a very reasonable degree in round 1. With the greatest clarification coming from a many thousand year old question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" The topic is made reasonably clear, but Con argues off point. Con's A1 fails because it isn't an argument, it is a light summary with no contesting of points. Con's A2 fails because it is willfully off topic and juvenile to a fault. To this point, Con has made no serious attempt to address the true nature of the topic. This is very unfortunate. We could've had an interesting debate over an interesting subject, instead we are left with an off topic response, with a juvenile argument. Con the floor is yours. Are we going to debate the topic or wander around in uninteresting, off topic arguments?