God does not exist.

Thanks for your response Pro.Also thanks for asking voters to look outside of the debate and vote me down.An even bigger thanks for threatening me with a loss.But most of all, thanks for conceding.*Pro's Idea of Superhuman*Pro, what makes something superhuman?I had actually asked this in a slightly different way and Pro dodged it.I believe last round I said something to the effect of "What the f*ck makes something superhuman?"All of Pro's examples of something Pro considers to be reasonably described as superhuman only have "a few features which can be described as superhuman" or as Pro's own source puts it,"Superhuman can also mean something that is not human, but considered to be "superior" to humans in *some way*."https://en.wikipedia.org...Did you forget about this Pro, or did you purposefully neglect it?This is Pro's source from round 1, and, while he didn't link it properly (hopefully I did), it clearly shows the reasonable use of "superhuman" as an adjective that describes something superior to humans IN SOME WAY.Not in *all ways* or *entirely* as his attempt at showing a fallacy of composition on my part claims.Pro considers "superior to humans in some way" a reasonable use of "superhuman" as he cited this exact source in his first round, source 1, to demonstrate how the adjective is used.Pro enjoyed my syllogism before so let's try again.P1 Pro's own source uses the adjective "superhuman" to reasonably modify something superior to humans in SOME WAY.P2 Pro agrees that the sun is superior to humans in SOME WAY.C1 Pro agrees that the sun is reasonably referred to as superhuman.C2 Pro should concede.Come on Pro, there's no more conceptual gymnastics that you can attempt to ignore your obvious concession.Man up and concede.*Dictionaries*I urge readers to find any credible dictionary that restricts the adjective "superhuman" to only intelligent beings.Pro basically concedes that dictionaries do not restrict the adjective, which is linguistically sound, and that's ok with Pro because Pro doesn't think the dictionary should be considered when talking about common word usage or meaning.Pro adamantly stated in round 1:"The important takeaway is that a word's meaning is based on how people use the word, not what a dictionary says the word means. Humans are the primary reference, a dictionary is not."My response:Got it.But then Pro attempts to show the two use cases for "superhuman."Pro says:"Dictionaries have at least two definitions for superhuman, one which describes a physical object (that I proved must be intelligent) and the other which describes features or abilities...Oxford Dictionary's definition of superhuman has a sole example use case, in which a pilot is called "superhuman" ...Merriam Webster's "superhuman" example use cases both refer to living beings."My response:Pro, do we accept your important takeaway that meaning is not based on dictionaries, or do we accept that a word's meaning is based on dictionaries?If the former, why is your dictionary-based argument of the two use cases for superhuman valid?If the latter, why do you think it is that no dictionaries restrict the use of the adjective "superhuman?"Pro has put himself in a double bind.If we accept dictionaries, then they never restrict the adjective "superhuman" thereby invalidating Pro's whole case.If we reject dictionaries, Pro's use cases of superhuman can be dismissed.Now that's a double bind!*Pro's Case*Pro said:"My entire argument is that "superhuman" can only modify intelligent beings, logically implying that "being" must be intelligent..."superhuman" only modifies nouns that also have the quality of "intelligent."My response:Entire argument, got it.Then Pro said:"My "superhuman" argument is not my main argument."My response:Hey Pro, can you tell us what a contradiction is?I would say that this is a pretty good example of one.While you might be able to claim that "main" and "entire" are not exactly the same, saying that your entire argument is not your main argument is a contradiction or, at the least, very dishonest. Boo Pro.*Meritorious Arguments*Pro said:"The opponent's definitions seem reasonable and are certainly commonly understood terms...the opponent makes his argument that has a logical, coherent basis...[it] is actually totally reasonable."But then last round, Pro got all angry so,Pro said:"His argument has no merit."My response:The best part about this is that those very arguments will ultimately lead to his demise and he thinks they have no merit.Thanks again Pro.*Ethics*I was alarmed that Pro basically called for my head because I pointed out all of the holes in Pro's case, and his reasoning is that I'm violating debate ethics.So I decided to actually see what this very site, DDO, says about debate ethics.According to DDO's vote moderation policy:"The voter must assess the content of the debate and *only* the debate, any reasoning based on arguments made or information given outside of the debate rounds is unacceptable. If this is evident in your vote, the vote will be removed."http://www.debate.org...But do you know what Pro urges voters to do?Pro tells voters:"One can refer to his debate history and see that this argument has been used by him before...I urge the voters to see this and give the opponent the reward he deserves: a loss."My response:So Pro wants voters to sacrifice their voter integrity and likely have their vote removed by looking at my debate history, clearly outside of this debate, to inform their RFD. Really lame Pro, even for you.But that's not all.DDO's personal attack policy goes even further:"Accusing a member of misconduct is serious. It should be noted that, even with a justified accusation, stating what consequences will result would be a threat. Which brings us to threats. Threats are, for the purposes of this policy, personal attacks. They are not tolerated."http://www.debate.org...Pro threatens:"The argument presented by my opponent...should receive a reward that corresponds to its quality -- a loss...a loss is more than deserved...the opponent should receive a loss...[this all] warrants a loss for him..."My response:I think Pro's clear concession next round will remedy all of this, but I also think it's funny that the guy calling for my head is the very guy violating debate policy; I believe the term is hypocrisy, in every usage of that word.I have not threatened or asked anyone to look at info outside of this debate...just sayin'.*Conclusion*Pro's source 1 from round 1 was used by Pro to show the usage of the word superhuman, and this particular source says that it can be used to describe "something superior to humans in some way," which was conceded by Pro within this debate.Pro said:"It might be reasonable to claim that the sun has superhuman abilities...the sun does have a few superhuman qualities."My response:This doesn't get any clearer.This is the concession I had mentioned and given Pro's own source, it's confirmed.The very entities that Pro thinks are reasonably described as superhuman all only have some superhuman qulities.As for the fallacy of composition, it might help Pro to understand that the "whole" in this composition is "superior to humans in SOME way."Having some superhuman qualities satisfies the whole of being superhuman...just click on Pro's first source and see for yourself.https://en.wikipedia.org...I await a clear concession from Pro next round, and maybe an apology to voters for asking them to ignore voting policy.I don't need an apology for the threats from Pro, because I understand when you know you're going to lose something you act desperately.Sorry Pro, you kinda dropped the ball here.