Unicorns Once Existed

I would never have thought it would be too difficult to debunk unicorn mythology. but you have done an excellent job. I would like to think I have done a better job on the Con side, but thats for the voters to decide. I will now proceed with some rebuttals and then make some concluding remarks. My opponent has claimed pink does not exist in the visible spectrum. If we use this same reasoning then there are a multitude of colors which do not exist as they are combinations of colors in the visible spectrum, such as white, magenta and black. This is used as proof for the existence of the invisible pink unicorn as light can interact with matter and according to my opponent "The creator of the universe is purely mental". Well yes, the creator is mental as this creator exists in my opponents mind, but that does not mean the creator exists anywhere else but my opponents mind. For this reason we can reject this argument until further evidence is provided that this deity lives outside of my opponents mind. Where are the fossils my opponent said existed? This proof is still missing. My opponent has tried to skirt the issue by saying there should be fossils according to his theory. However, this theory should have more than just assumptions to be valid. Was the Universe designed for us, or are we adapted for the universe? As evolution, and natural adaptation, is an established scientific theory there is no doubt that we certainly adapted to the universe. For this reason fine tuning arguments are void, they can only be valid when there is evidence that we were created and do not adapt to our surroundings. With respect to my opponents multiverse explanation for unicorns, I have to say prove the multiverese theory. The multiverse theory is an untested theory. If the multiverse theory is correct, then all arguments for unicorns my opponent presented can follow from that, however we need to establish first that the multiverse theory is true. I will accept this argument at the same time my opponent receives his Nobel prize in physics when he proves the multiverse. My opponents arguments for the Kalam and ontological arguments for the existence of the Pink Invisible Unicorn still rely on assumptions. The fact that I, and everyone else should, reject these claims as these assumptions are weak still holds. My opponent has very craftily sowed confusion into these arguments when responding to my rebuttals by playing on words, however word play is not going to make the arguments correct. The only thing that will make these arguments valid is scientific validation of the premises which is not forthcoming. With regard to the Casmir effect, I previously stated "My opponent may bring up the contention of this not truly been nothing, then my opponent needs to provide proof for this nothing that is different to the nothing in which the Casmir effect occurs. " My opponent never provided this evidence, instead my opponent showed that the only "nothing" we know is in fact the quantum vacuum thereby defeating his argument. In conclusion I will say the following. Mostly my opponent arguments (i. e. invisibility of the pink unicorn, lifespan of unicorns, Kalam, ontological etc. ) rely on assumptions. The one argument that was meant supply real scientific evidence, i. e. fossils, was never presented. For this reason we should reject all my opponents arguments as they are assumptions with no proof to back up the claims. As I showed in my opening statements, there is no possible way unicorns existed before. My opponent even agreed with me that these false unicorns are not the unicorn in question, yet no evidence has been provided to show other beasts/animals could have been the mythical unicorn. I need to commend my opponent again, as by following the line of reasoning in this debate I have been forced to touch on subjects which may illicit an emotional response by voters. However, I have also shown that there is no scientific rational proof for the existence of unicorns and as such I should win this debate. I now hand the debate over to the voters.