Bob the Magic Fairy Exists

1- ImpossibilityPro confuses interruption with redefinition; when I accepted the debate I had an interruption in mind. If anything, it is Pro's fault for not adding a restrictive clause or a comment that points at his interruption (oops, I mean redefinition!). He had the opportunity to compose his resolution and description at his leisure, he doesn't have the right to "clarify" what he meant after an argument was made especially since he had two rounds to do so, am I supposed to read his mind? He should have been prepared to defend all interruptions, it is bad conduct to try to modify the definitions in the middle of the debate.Where did Pro say that he is going to specify what he means in Round 3? The description was open to interruption, and now Pro is suddenly saying that it is something else. This is dreadful conduct that goes against the common sense interruption; who is going to investigate the rhetoric and use of omission when you are talking about a freaking magic fairy? Ain't nobody got time for that; you just fill in the blanks, and that I did automaticly with my common sense. Pro is reaching too hard.I am arguing that BTMF does not exist. Pro had the obligation to prove that he does, however he lost his ability to do so. The burden is shared.My opponent have not provided a rebuttal to my point regarding the impossibility of BTMF other than semantics three quarters through the debate and tongue twisters, therefore we have to assume that he concedes the point, and thus forfeits the debate. 2- Fairies do not existPro attempts to go all Saruman on me and craft an illusion that my argument is from ignorance. I have clearly used modus tollens or denying the consequence [If A then B, not B, therefore not A] which is the standard form of empirical falsification.The definition I have provided for fairies demonstrates that it is based on folklore. For example, the Sims, which is as realistic as your typical TV drama, makes a depiction of how life would be if fairies existed:http://www.youtube.com... A grumpy fairy scaring away folks suffering from heavy insomnia. The lads are presumably of Irish origin.Pro needs to provide a similar image from reality (No need for the Oirish paddies) for his counterargument to be of any value. The definition I stated clearly mention that fairies are creatures of folklore, now I have given you the gold standard for folklore.In folklore and media, a good chunk of fairies are not nearly as shy or powerful as BTMF. My argument on inductive falsification of fairies stands.Pro mentions that BTMF is not necessary. From this piece of knowledge, an argument can be made: 1- Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an outside source. 2- If a thing is contingent, then its explanation must be in an outside source. 3- BTMF is a thing. 4- Therefore, if BTMF exists then it has an explanation of its existence. 5- BTMF is contingent. 6- Therefore, the explanation of BTMF is in an outside source. From conceptual analysis and our knowledge of folklore, we learn that the nature of the direct cause is: bound by space, bound by time, physical, natural, biological, procreative, and personal.Don't believe me? All you have to refute me is to find a folklore story where fairies do not have reproductive organs (kinda an oxymoron). Furthermore, fairies in the Sims are capable of productive functions and female fairies are capable of getting pregnant.This means that we should expect to see fairies, their villages, waste, bones, pictures, lots of credible testimonies, etc. Our inductive knowledge points that the species of fairies as a whole does not exis, and thus BTMF does not exist. Arguing otherwise is akin to saying that you exist, and yet your grandfather never existed.Call me when you have a joyous gathering with fairies in order to dispute my argument (if it is not joyous, you should run away instead, and hide in case of grumpy fairies). 3- FalsifiedPro's attempt to modify the definition is a strong indication that his rebuttal is weak in mind, body, substance, and content (scratch the first two). The fact that one house, let alone dozens (judging by the lack rich old people having a heart attacks in front of security monitors), failed to display presence of BTMF falsifies the entity. My opponent concedes the success of the falsification, but attempts to shift the goalpost to save face.I shift his shift of goalpost back. And just in time for a touchdown (nvm, the QB buttfumbled).Based on the description, BTMF's magic erases all traces of his ever having been there, which is limited to the closet (hence the adverb "there"). Perhaps this can cause a forensic obstacle (But we all know CSI Miami and detective Conan will still figure it out somehow anyway), however the obstacle is irrelevant to the test proposed by me. The results are clear: BTMF is falsified. 4- Bob & implausibilityPro does not deny that there is statistically about a 99.9% chance(Nasty! Does this mean that Pro boycotts soaps and sanitizers because the ratio is not 100% too?) that the fairy is not named Bob. I'll leave it at that 5- Appeal to bibleIf you don't believe that the bible is a valid testimony, then that is your business. I have provided a perfectly valid argument, and it is up to the voters (Christian voters that is) to decide whether it is sound (No brainier for my fellow Christian members).Something that spits on our dignity, invades everyone's homes, and casts evil magic in our closets would not affect our lives? Not much pride displayed by Pro. It is bound that a supposedly mischievous species with so much potential power would be mentioned, and yet it is not.No fairies or anything matching their description was found in the bible.http://www.biblestudytools.com...Don't forget to vote Con *thumbs up* Conclusion:If you vote tie, the pseudoscientists win. You don't want the pseudoscientists to win, do you?Vote Con, and you might get an icecream cone*!*Finding an icecream vendor and deciding to buy an icecream are requirements to gain the bonus reward.