It is rational to place faith in the invisible pink unicorn.

Introduction:Thanks to my opponent for foolishly challenging me to this debate. I will provide some background for the debate and add in some clarifications to account for the fact that Con doesn't have a clue what's going on.Con is challenging everyone who voted against him in this debate [1] to defend the argument that KRFournier used to demolish him. However, he is changing the details of it a bit, perhaps by mistake because he still doesn't understand anything, in a way that makes the debate unnecessarily stupid and confusing.The above argument, which I am to defend as valid, contends that it is necessary to use some degree of faith to believe anything. While this is not the argument I would have used from KRF's position and indeed I think there are some problems with it, izbo10 did not come remotely close to dealing with it in the previous debate. I'm not going to go into this debacle in much detail because we will shortly see that it does not matter for the purposes of this debate.Izbo10 attempts to change the rules in the middle of the game by asking me to defend this argument as a valid proof of the existence of an invisible pink unicorn. The original debate asked KRF to defend the idea that it is acceptable to use faith in your reasoning to believe in one specific god. These are different resolutions, so the same argument cannot be expected to defend both of them. I will still argue that it is a valid proof of the existence of an invisible pink unicorn, but I will add the conclusion on to the end to account for the fact that the original debate was not about that. This does not change KRF's argument at all, it just formally specifies what Con is asking me to defend.Definitions:Because Con doesn't know what words mean, I'll help him out a little bit:Valid – in logic, an argument is valid if the conclusion logically follows from the premises [2]Do not let Con weasel his way out of this. He has been trolling the forums insulting people for their alleged failure to understand philosophy [3]. If he doesn't understand philosophy well enough not to misuse use the jargon in a way that puts him at a serious disadvantage, he shouldn't have been running his mouth.Arguments:You can read KRF's entire opening argument above. It doesn't end with the conclusion “The invisible pink unicorn exists” because that was not the point of the debate. As I said before, I have to append the additional step needed to reach that conclusion, which does not change the argument, in order to adapt the original argument to this debate. Formally stated:Let the entire above argument by KRFournier be called KLet the invisible pink unicorn be called PP1. KP2. K → PC1. PThis is sufficient for me to win the debate. Remember, Con specifically said, “The rule is simple you must defend this being a valid argument for the Invisible Pink Unicorn. I will say it is not.” Remember voters: He did not say it had to be a sound argument; he said “valid.” He cannot take back the rules of the debate now in order to gain an advantage.The argument for the invisible pink unicorn that I made above is clearly valid. It is simply a case of modus ponens [4]. KRF's argument is true, KRF's argument implies the existence of an invisible pink unicorn, therefore an invisible pink unicorn exists. Validity in logic does not deal with whether or not any of this is true. KRF's argument may be false, his argument may not imply the existence of an invisible pink unicorn, and an invisible pink unicorn may not exist. None of this matters for the purpose of determining whether or not the argument is valid.Credit to J.Kenyon for pioneering the tactic of exploiting the incorrect usage of the word valid against a rude opponent [5].References:[1] http://www.debate.org...[2] http://www.wisegeek.com...[3] http://www.debate.org...[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...[5] http://www.debate.org...