God does not exist.

I am grateful that the opponent's response wasn't entirely cherry-picked. Unfortunately, it is not enough to: 1. Prove that the sun is superhuman. 2. Rebut the ethical argument. Given that those are my only two arguments, no argument stands from the round. I will first collect a few key points which I will make reference to later, then move through the opponent's response. Key Points 1. If a thing A possesses a feature which can be described as B, it cannot be assumed that the entire A can be described as B. For example, the United States has a few desert regions, which can be described as hot. It does not follow that the United States is hot. Similarly, the sun has a few features which can be described as superhuman. It does not follow that the sun is superhuman. This logical fallacy is known as the "Fallacy of Composition". What is true for a part is not necessarily true for the whole. 2. Superhuman is used in two different ways. As I mentioned last round, there are two distinct use cases for superhuman. One described physical nouns, the other describes immaterial nouns. (E.g. abilities.) The use case we are concerned with is the first. The opponent claims that the sun is a "superhuman being". Clearly, "being" here is a physical noun. (The sun.) Ethical Argument I didn't give this as much attention last round as in prior ones, so I'm going to lead with it. My first argument, the ethical argument, claimed that the opponent's argumentation strategy is heinous because it forces the debate away from what was originally and obviously intended into a realm of triviality. I argued that this deserves a loss for the following reasons: 1. It is unethical. 2. It goes against the most fundamental principles of debate. 3. It results in a meaningless, trivial debate. 4. It wastes everyone's time. We are far enough into the debate to confirm that, indeed, (3) and (4) are true. Because of the opponent's purely semantic argument, we are forced to debate whether a particular adjective can modify a particular noun. If this doesn't represent the essence of trivial and meaningless, then nothing does. We can further confirm that we've learned very little from this debate. The opponent has claimed that the sun is powerful and useful to humans, but this is not new information. I've argued that words have certain meanings in certain contexts but, again, this is not new information. If nothing useful is to be gained from this debate by any party, debaters or voters, then it is clearly a waste of time. It becomes clear, then, why (1) and (2) are true. The purpose of debate is to spread and refine new and old ideas, to encourage discourse which is useful and meaningful. The opponent's behavior, argument, and quality of argument do nothing to this end. It is characteristically useless and trivial. It follows that such an argument and accompanying behavior is unethical. ----------- Does this warrant a loss? Yes. The opponent had an obligation to present a meaningful case which encourages useful discourse. He has utterly failed in this respect. In this alone a loss is more than deserved. Beyond this, failing to punish such a debate strategy only encourages more people to use it. After all, if it works -- why change? If such a strategy became more common, it's abundantly clear that the quality of debate, as a whole, would be diminished. Fewer debates would be educational and less would be learned. Ideas wouldn't be refined; they would be ignored and replaced with 10,000 words of "technically correct" truisms. The opponent's only response to this argument is that voters should "vote on the merits of our arguments, not the perceived behavior of the debater." And he's absolutely correct. His argument has no merit. Meritorious arguments are insightful, useful, meaningful, educational and topical. His argument has none of these qualities. Superhuman, again The opponent perceives my admission that "superhuman" can also modify immaterial nouns as a sort of "checkmate". He neglects the fact which was mentioned above in Key Point 2: Superhuman has multiple use cases. My argument entirely concerned the first use case, where "superhuman" modifies a physical noun. The opponent believes that, because I failed to note that superhuman also modifies immaterial nouns, my original argument was contradicted. We can clearly see that my original argument holds because a) it concerned how superhuman modifies physical nouns and b) the sun is a physical object. My original argument had nothing to do with immaterial nouns and the sun is not an immaterial object. My failure to recognize this secondary use case of superhuman does not affect my original arguments. The only thing relevant accomplished in my admission of this use case is that it further implied that the sun does have a few superhuman qualities. The opponent mistakes this as a sort of concession, believing that if the sun has some superhuman qualities, the sun can be described entirely as superhuman. We can refer to Key Point A to see that this is a fallacy of composition. The sun having a few superhuman qualities doesn't mean we can say the sun is a "superhuman being". As to whether the sun actually is a superhuman being, my original argument still stands. Restated, I argued that no use case has "superhuman" modifying non-intelligent physical nouns. This is easily confirmed. The opponent apparently assumed that all use cases online use "superhuman" as a noun, when in fact all examples I provided from common usage all had "superhuman" as an adjective. Again, the voter is encouraged to go look up examples of "superhuman" being used -- when it modifies a physical noun, that noun is always intelligent. It is still useful to look at the examples I provided as to why using superhuman in the way the opponent does leads to meaningless results. "That is some superhuman Gatorade because it has the ability to restore electrolytic imbalances when drunk and humans do not." "That is one superhuman rubber band because it can stretch to 10 times its normal length, whereas humans cannot." "That is a superhuman sun, because it can emit a large amount of UV radiation, whereas a human cannot." All of these are evidently nonsensical. It is clear that the opponent's use of "superhuman" is still invalid. People do not use the word in that way. This is confirmed by a) looking up how people use the word and b) attempting to use the word in the way provided and seeing whether it makes sense. Contingency The opponent's superiority argument still makes little sense. He argues that because human intelligence is contingent upon the sun, the sun is superior to human intelligence. Nowhere does he demonstrate why B being contingent upon A makes A somehow superior to B in any sense except a chronological one. The purpose of this argument now seems clear though. The opponent seems to want to make the following argument: If the sun is superior to human, it is, therefore, superhuman by some etymological wordplay. If we assume that the opponent's argument is correct and the sun is superior to human intelligence, can we say the sun is super intelligent? No. Therefore even if there is a meaningful way to say the sun is superior to humans, we cannot claim that this means the sun is superhuman. Because of this, this argument is out of place. It is irrelevant to this conversation. Summary My "superhuman" argument is not my main argument. It is a result of my instinct to try and salvage some meaningful discourse from the situation the opponent intentionally put us in. The primary voting issue here is my ethical argument. What the opponent has done is egregious and unethical. What's worse, he didn't even do this by accident. One can refer to his debate history and see that this argument has been used by him before. He is using it now because, apparently, it worked in the past. Allowing him to win says that this argument is "ok". It says that this is an acceptable form of discourse and it implicitly grants him and every other debater the right to ignore the resolution and debate a truism which is only related to the original resolution in a tangential, technical sense. Semantic arguments this heinous rarely happen in real life, but they are commonplace on sites like these. There comes a point when some people want to "win" so badly that they will throw away all of the principles that make debate useful, meaningful, and fun. This behavior is destructive to debate and is representative of the decline of online debate. I urge the voters to see this and give the opponent the reward he deserves: a loss. I urge the opponent to use future debates in the way they were meant: to meaningfully debate important issues. This strategy will grant you a few wins against opponent's who don't fundamentally understand why what you're doing is wrong. However, it isn't worth throwing away your dignity and it isn't worth losing the respect of people who use debate for its intended purpose.