Pink Unicorn (Pro) Vs Flying Spaghetti Monster (Con)

The first thing i want to address is something I left out, due to it being a truism. I again am operating under the assumption the judges would vote on this as a truism but I am going to cover my bases just in case. [P1] You can make anything tangible pink[P2] A unicorn is a theoretically tangible being[C] a unicorn can be made pinkSo I just have to prove the reality of unicorns and the fact they could be made pink is an objective statement. How to make something pinkhttp://giphy.com...pretend the color is pinkR1) A Monster is SubjectiveThe first think that i would like to note this is somewhat false. While what constitutes a monster could be subjective, there is one things all monster share in common. They are sentient beings. Sentient - responsive to or conscious of sense impressions [1]Sentient being - The state and quality of being sentient [2]Basically all monsters share the common property of exhibiting consciousness or awareness. So on balance monsters are sentient beings. To clarify this view the following definitions [3] [4]Almost any definition you pull up classifies a monster as a "creature" , "animal", or "person", So while the traits of a monster can be subjective, most monsters share common properties per the definition. Again they are sentient, so we can acknowledge this as a on balance statement. On balance monsters are sentientSo lets work from there. My adversary is basically saying this[P1] If a monster can be spaghetti in any possible world or reality, his resolution is upheld[P2] Per his [2] monsters can occasionally be non sentient. [C] Resolution is upheld. Note : This is a weighted debate so we are weighing in odds of probability Anything can possibly exist. God , the devil, flying pink flufballs that shoot out farts, obama, and even pixies can theoretically and possibly exist. Just because something can possibly exist does not mean it actually existsMy adversary has just shown that it is *possible* for spaghetti to be a monster, so it could *possibly* exist as a monster. This does not serve his purpose or fufill his BOP. He would have to show that it is *more likely* to exist than pink unicorns. Just because something can possibly exist does not mean its existence is probable. Also in addition to this I would like to state that a monster is not entirely subjective. A monster must be capable of producing an action which can qualify it as a monster. To simply state that a "desk" is a monster is false. A desk is not a monster because it does not subscribe to the definition of monster which is all around a sentient being. If someone where to indirectly make the desk do something that could constitute it as a monster, that person would be the monster in reality, not the non sentient object. Review the following to confirm this[P1] All dogs go to heaven[P2] If all dogs can go to heaven, all monsters can go to school[C] If monsters can go to school, they are sentient On balance what properties do monsters at school share? They all are furry, human, or some deformed type of weird looking fukfaced creepozoids. The main thing is they are all sentient. They all exhibit conscious or awareness. [P1] Something must be sentient in order to gain knowledge and go to school[P2] All monsters have the ability to gain knowledge[C] Spaghetti cannot gain knowledge and cannot go to school, therefore it is not a monster nor sentient R2) Flying Spaghetti So lets work this outFor the resolution to be upheld by PROG. He must show that a spaghetti is flying and a monster at the same moment in time. Note : Flying spaghetti monster. If it is just flying and not spaghetti , the resolution failsIf it is just a monster and not flying, the resolution failsIf it is unlikely that both will occur at the same time and unicorns are more likely to exist it fails. There is a certain criteria that must be met. We can call this (abc) criteria. For a flying spaghetti monster to possibly exist in some possible world it must uphold (abc) criteria at the same given instance and any given point in time where it is flying. My adversary holds the bop to show how likely it is that(a) Spaghetti could possibly fly (b) At the point it flies it has to be labeled a monster(c) How likely this is to occur Just because it could possibly occur does not mean it will occur. R3) Spaghetti bomb. How does this uphold the BOP? I mean if you saw spaghetti blowing up in your face, would you fear it or consider it a monster. On balance everyone would freaking be overjoyed because they are about to eat it. CR1) London Tipton(x) says it so its trueThe only bad thing is we are relying on a bad pregnant actress to confirm the syllogism. Yes shes pregnant [5], and yes no one cares. The only thing is that she's pregnant by this guy This is Trace Cyrus,[6] brother of miley cyrus. So now realize we are relying on the prima face judgement of a bad actress who is pregant by the brother of teen whore super star sensation miley cyrus. You see this guy? You ever wonder why you never seen him that much? This explains itThe fallacy behind this(a) Unicorns live in Australia(b) Humans live in AustraliaNot all humans live in Australia, not all unicorns live in Australia. If its possible for humans to exist outside of Australia, its possible for unicorns to exist outside of Australia. CR2) Australia does not existBy my adversaries own logic, he has just proven humans along with himself does not exist. I applaud him .(a) Unicorns live in Australia (b) Humans live in AustraliaNot all humans live in Australia, not all unicorns live in Australia By categorizing a specific species to living in Australia and saying they could only exist in Australia, he just wiped out the human race. That is reason enough to vote him down[P1] My adversary committed genocide of the human race[P2] Hitler committed the genocide of jews[P3] Killing the human race is worst than killing just jews[C] My adversary is more hated than hitlerYou should all vote him down. CR3) Some effed up syllogism Lets review all of this in the context in which my adversary has statedP1: If (X) says it is so, it is so.P2: (x) says it is so.C1: So, it is so.P3: If (x) says it is prima facie that humans live in Australia, it is prima facie that humans live in Australia. P4: (x) says it is prima facie that unicorns live in Australia.C2: It is prima facie that unicorns live in Australia. P1: If humans live in Australia, they live in the imagination. P2: Humans live in Australia.C1: Humans live in the imagination.P3: If Humans live in the imagination, they do not exist in any possible world.P4: Humans live in the imagination.C2: Humans do not exist in any possible worldCan we offer my adversary a salute. Thank you prog for providing logic for the mass genocide of the human race, and no affirming the resolution. We who are about to die (actually we who do not exist in any possible world) salute you *that syllogism is bad* *feel the sarcasm it's real*CR4) Main pointswent non refuted and cannot reply to my adversaries response. Conclusion[P1] Prog is the next Hitler[P2] Unicorns are more than likely to exist than a flying spaghetti monster[C} Vote pink unicorns. Sources[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[4] http://dictionary.reference.com...[5] http://www.imperfectparent.com...[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...