A pink invisible unicorn is both pink and invisible.

I didn't think I needed a source for the fact that "A" is the definite article, meaning it refers to one unspecified unit of an object. Common knowledge, such as the definitions of "pink," "invisible," or "a," need no sources - unless there is for some reason disagreement on their meaning. My arguments are my own, as this is not a topic that is discussed on a scholarly level. RE: Lack of Evidence My opponent points out that a lack of evidence is not evidence of absence. This is certainly true, but there is no reason to think things without evidence exist. With evidence, beliefs can be justified. Without evidence, there is no justification for holding a belief, such as that there exists an invisible pink unicorn. Assuming that one exists without evidence is even worse when we realize the logical impossibility of the thing - not that one would be likely to exist if it was possible. My opponent decides to argue that the Invisible Pink Unicorn is the goddess of his religion, and that the Kalam Cosmological argument proves its existence. I believe it is my task to explain the irony here. The Invisible Pink Unicorn is the goddess of a parody religion. The purpose of this parody? To demonstrate that general logical proofs for a nondescript "cause" or "creator" cannot be used to show the existence of a specifically defined diety. I'm not even going to argue against the Kalam Cosmological Argument, since it does nothing for my opponent's case. Here is my opponent's logic, using the conclusion of the Cosmological argument as a premise: 1. The universe has a cause. 2. I believe in the IPU. 3. Therefore, the universe is caused by the IPU and the IPU exists. 3 is a non-sequitur - it does not follow from 1 and 2. The cosmological argument argues for a nondescript cause, it does NOT argue for any specific cause let alone an invisible pink unicorn. My opponent then suggests that I just completely drop his point instead of arguing it. If he did not wish to respond, he should not have made the argument. I would wager he only made that argument so he could make needless references to outside material in order to win the "most reliable sources" points. If my opponent wishes to concede that there is no evidence that invisible pink unicorns exist, and therefore no evidence for the resolution being true, he is free to do so. I suggest he not respond if he wants to drop this point. ===== RE: Impossibility of an invisible pink unicorn First I'd like to note that my opponent's own source notes that it is a paradox to be both invisible and pink. Good use of sources, right? However, my opponent has "number of theories that would yield the result of a unicorn which is both pink and invisible at the same time," and I will address them. ==== "1. An invisible unicorn, painted pink." ==== This of course assumes that an invisible unicorn is possible at all, but I will not press that point. However, no matter how we interpret this, the unicorn is not both invisible and pink. If we say that the unicorn is still invisible but the paint can be seen, then it is not the unicorn which is pink, it is the paint on top of the unicorn. If we say that the pink paint makes the unicorn itself pink, then the unicorn itself is no longer invisible, as it can now be seen. In my opponent's analogy, there is a white wall with red paint on top of it - the wall is not red, the paint on top of it is. As you see, it is still impossible to be both pink and invisible at the same time. To be pink, something must be visible, and it must be visibly pink. ==== 2. The Invisibility Cloak (ï¿½ la Harry Potter) ==== Again, my opponent is arguing things that are scientifically impossible. An invisibility cloak is not possible, and even if possible, there is no reason to think one currently exists and currently happens to be surrounding an invisible pink unicorn. My opponent's case is nothing but baseless conjecture. My opponent's appeal to magic and works of fiction is evidence of this. Further, this would not satisfy my opponent's definition of invisible: "incapable by nature of being seen." It is not the unicorn's nature that makes it incapable of being seen, and it is only incapable of being seen from certain vantage points. ==== 3. The blind man ==== My opponent fails to properly apply the definition of invisible he provided. "Incapable by nature of being seen." It is not the unicorn's nature that makes it invisible in this example, it is the blind man's lack of eyesight. == Note that even without the refutations of my opponent's examples, my opponent has given us absolutely no reason to believe that unicorns, let alone pink ones, let alone ones that are paradoxically pink and invisible, exist. He has failed to affirm the resolution.