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

1. Imagining/creating the logically incoherent.P1: Galileo once said the Earth is spherical, even though most other people believed it to be flat at the time.C: Therefore, my original argument that we could make a squircle if need be remains valid.Richard Dawkins comes to mind as the only other human being on the planet who might think this syllogism is sound. As already stated (I do hate repeating myself; thank goodness this is only a four-round debate), your original argument was unmistakably ill-founded in that it confused the categories of logical contingency with logical impossibility, an objection you never even once bothered acknowledging.It is possible to imagine a round earth or a flat or triangular one. It is not possible to imagine one being all three at the same time, however. You make no attempt to challenge the laws of modal logic, or the inherent paradox of a squircle, which I might have suggested because, Hell, even a position of philosophical skepticism would have been preferred to your Galileo bedtime story.I’m just going to go ahead and ignore all that bit about evolving fish and getting over breakups, because I fail to see how any of those don’t fit into the category of the logical contingent. (If modal logic, or logic itself, is not something of a métier to you, it would be beseeching to explore its principles before unwittingly skewing them.)This argument remains, by all facets, unscathed (and almost entirely unaddressed).2. Traveling slower than perfectly still.My opponent concedes on both accounts. Thanks, I guess.(A) He concedes death is not a speed. If death is not a speed, then it cannot be a speed slower than perfectly still. Apparently, though, he goes on to describe that the energy within a corpse causes that corpse to move slower than still as it decays. But the process of decaying is not a speed either.I’ve already rebutted this in the previous round, anyway, when I said it is entirely possible for a corpse (decaying or not) to have a non-zero velocity if acted upon by an outside force. Similarly, a corpse could be not moving (you know, like most of them are). Therefore, it can be said that neither biological death nor biological decay has any relation to a thing’s speed (necessarily speaking).(B) My opponent claims he “could” argue against that point I raised, but that I’d just accuse him of using semantics, so what the hell, we’ll just sit around thinking we’re superior instead of bothering to prove it. A wise strategy, indeed.If an argument can only be made with the use or support of semantics, then it is by all means a weak argument. Even weaker, though, is the altogether nonexistent argument. This is where my opponent essentially concedes the debate.I ask him “Then we should believe it’s most likely humanly impossible to travel slower than death” to which he responds “I might have a good rebuttal to that, but I won’t tell you what it is”.3. Traveling faster than the speed of light.My opponent had previously offered two ways humans could go faster than the speed of light: we build a machine, or we meditate. Fortunately, he’s dropped the meditation argument.As for the machine argument, well, he says we’d need the protection going that fast because we’d need have to have the same mass as light to travel as fast as it. This is perfectly correct, and what I’ve been trying to explain this whole time: in order to achieve light-speed, we’d need to have the same mass as a particle of light, which is to say none at all. But no machine can “protect” us when we have zero mass traveling at light-speed, because whatever machine it is, it will have a non-zero mass (making it impossible to ever reach that speed)!