Pink Unicorn (Pro) Vs Flying Spaghetti Monster (Con)

I'll go to R3 first. Pro claims that you can make anything tangible pink. This is true, though the spray can he links to includes black paint, so he has effectively invalidated his own argument. Also I ask the audience to consider this: even if you put lipstick on a pig, is it still a pig? If you put spray on a horse, is it stil a horse. Yes, and yes. However, he is playing games with definitions to assert that a unicorn is a “horse with a horn.” His own definition says that a unicorn is REPRESENTED by a horse with a horn, not that it IS a horse with a horn. We don’t know what an actual unicorn is because it is based on a fantasy. All we know is our perception of a representation of it. Mikal cannot uphold his burden because he cannot prove what an actual unicorn is. Pro deceptively asserts that all monsters are sentient. This is a flat-out distortion and he cannot PROVE that all monsters are sentient. He has not even contested my definition, which mandates subjectivity, nor has he sought to address my syllogism. He asserts that every definition of monster includes “creature,” but this isn’t true. His “on balance” claim is also fallacious, as he suggests that, because a monster CAN be sentient – which it can be – that we must consider this backwards: that only something sentient can be a monster, or that most monsters are sentient. But this isn’t true, and if what is monster is subjective, spaghetti can be a monster. Example: if I have an exam tomorrow on 20 chapters of stuff that only Pots or Sargon would understand, I’d say: crap, that exam tomorrow will be a monster. Why? Because it includes an abnormally large and frightening amount of material and scares the bejesus out of me. He then brings up an irrelevant list of things that could exist, but this is IRRELEVANT. I only must show that it is possible for this monster to exist, which is what I have done. I’m separating that from a pink unicorn entirely: I’ll refute that point separately. He concedes that it is POSSIBLE for a flying spaghetti to exist, so this debate is already over. Likelihood of existence is indeed our criterion, but I’ve already shown that it CAN and DOES exist, which means that my burden is fulfilled. At this point the debate can either end in two ways: a win for me or a tie. He claims that a monster must be capable of performing an action that qualifies it as a monster. However, his following syllogism and his argument boil down to a monster being sentient. Again, not all monsters are sentient – which he admits – and not all sentient beings are monsters, nor must all monsters be able to go to school. The criteria for determining whether something is a monster is entirely subjective and is based on a perspective of what you consider to be unusually large. If one person considers it a monster, it is a monster in some possible worlds. His next argument only addresses one type of monster but this doesn’t refute that spaghetti can be a monster. Thus, my burden is upheld. He then suggests that I cannot prove that something can concurrently fly AND be a monster. However, my opponent has dropped the definitions of fly that I listed. One of them suggests that being exploded by a drone is flying. Something could be considered a monster and be hit by a drone. Matter can not be created or destroyed according to the law of conservation of mass, so the monster still exists, is still a monster, and we will still deem it a monster even during the split second where it is being exploded – because the act of exploding is, to the naked eye, is instantaneous that we cannot make out its parts being dismembered. And even if we could, if even one person still deems it a monster – because my opponent has NOT effectively proved objectivity – my burden holds. And, if we deem a bowl of spaghetti a monster and it is taken up by an aircraft, it is STILL a monster. So I have achieved my BOP.He then deceptively appeals to objectivity again by asserting that “everyone would be overjoyed.” Untrue. Some people may not like that it was just exploded by a giant drone, or if they were violently hit by a spaghetti bomb and were injured, of course they’d probably yell “CURSE YOU!” And they could still find it to be abnormally large and ergo a monster. He cites Brenda Song. Who the heck is that? I’m talking about London Tipton from the Suite Life on Deck. Mikal has provided us with NO reason to doubt her word regarding unicorns. He completely dropped my argument that rich people know best and we should trust them. Who cares if she’s pregnant? Baby bumps are cute. When did I suggest that humans live in Australia? This isn’t true at all. He admits that not all humans live in Australia, so I have not committed genocide. I said Australia only exists in the mind: it’s a figment of your imagination. Australia doesn’t exist and MassiveDump said so. He has dropped the argument that what Massive says is prima facie. He suggests that the word of (x) may be questionable. This may be so. But Massive is not (x); Massive is Massive, and I trust Massive, and you should too. He’s provided NO reason as to why Massive would deliberately lie to us, or any defense of Australia. For all we know, Australia could be a figment of our imagination. A group of people could have gotten so drunk that they started saying nonsense like “Hey I'm from.” Let me ask you a question, voters: have you been to Australia? No, don’t lie, you haven’t, because Australia doesn’t exist. My interview with Jesus regarding camels, the color pink, and the traditional family have been dropped. As for his R2 argument: I’ve already addressed his definitions and why his first contention is a broad overstatement and a distortion. He brings up a skeleton which could be a unicorn and suggests that it doesn’t matter whether or not it is. This is false because I’ve already proven my end of the burden, so in order to win, he must prove that this is a skeleton of a unicorn, not a horse with a crappy haircut or a parsnip that fossilized over time and appears to be a horn. He can’t do this because he can’t prove what a unicorn actually is. Pro has proven a “could” statement, but has not provided any actual evidence that it “is,” which he needs at this point. He then suggests that a species could have evolved into a unicorn. This is a fine point, though to be consistent with his earlier suggestion that unicorns lived long ago, he would have to argue for devolution. Why exactly would this be so? He then suggests that it is viable for this to be so, but provides no explanation for why it would have happened other than changes in climate – he has not proven that a species of horses every existed who were impacted by something of this nature – or explanation for how a random genetic mutation to the extent of growing a horn could occur. Rubbing their head to form a horn? Matter cannot be created or destroyed. You can’t just sharpen your head and grow a horn. He then points to mutations and deformities. It’s interesting that none of his arguments are in sync. The problem with this argument is that he asserts that a horse with a mutation = a unicorn, but he hasn’t proven this because, as I pointed out, his definition of unicorn is jaded. His assertion about a flying spaghetti monster is just an assertion. He claims we can will stuff into existence. Can I will 5 billion dollars for myself. Of course not. For the third time, matter cannot be created or destroyed. No, the Bible is not a credible source. It’s been rewritten and retranslated so many times and holds so many contradictions that we can discard it as a credible source. Then he suggests that a pink unicorn is more desirable because people like horses. So? Unicorns aren’t horses. The points about horses are tangential and misguided. And tastes are subjective. For instance, I’m scared of riding, so I’d rather have a spaghetti bomb right now. And I’m fat, so there’s that My BOP is fulfilled, whereas Pro’s is not.