Bob the Magic Fairy Exists

1. ImpossibilityCon is trying to argue that BTMF is logically impossible by redefining him. The definition states that BTMF is in people’s closets when they are not home. Con interprets this to mean that he is in the closet of everyone who is not home all at the same time. This is not standard English. If someone told you that they like to steal people’s cars out of their driveways, you wouldn’t need them to clarify that they only do this one car at a time. That’s common sense. Cons definition and therefore argument does not apply to the subject of this debate.2. Fairies do not existIt doesn’t matter whether this is your first inclination to believe when reading the title. If Con’s position is so reasonable that he doesn’t even have to argue it for you to accept it, then he has no excuse for not being able to present a valid case to support it.Con moves on by attempting to argue that “absence of evidence = evidence of absence”. However, this requires us to expect evidence to be present in the event that the claim is true in order to work, and if this expectation cannot be established the argument fails. For example if one claims that there is no life in the Andromeda Galaxy, he cannot cite a lack of evidence as support for his claim because there is no reason we would expect evidence to be available to us. Because of this, the argument doesn’t work and is therefore useless in our attempts to answer the question.This is basically what Con is doing. A being who is magical, can sense when others are nearby, and uses his magic to erase all traces of his existence is clearly a powerful being who does not wish for his existence to be known. So to assume any evidence would be left behind is not reasonable.But Con’s errors are even more profound, as he begins talking about fairy villages, lack of fairy remains, etc… The definition does not mention anything about BTMF’s family, origins, or length of time on earth, so Con is adding to the definition in order to argue against the things he added, again. There is no reason to make such assumptions, so none of Cons refutations are warranted and they do not address the actual existence of the being in question.3. FalsifiedCon is again arguing against his re-definition of BTMF as an entity in everyone’s homes all at the same time which is not the case. Ruling him out of a few rich people’s closets does not falsify him. You would need to set up cameras in every home in the world in order to pull this off. I also remind Con that since he has the ability to magically erase all traces of his existence, there is no reason to assume that this ability is limited to what is in the closet. 4. Bob & ImplausibilityThe rate of usage of the name says nothing about whether he exists. I have a friend named Bob. Cons chart gives us no reason to assume I am lying.5. Appeal to the bibleWow, really Con?The bible is a 2,000 year old book. Con needs to substantiate it as a valid source of information on future events before any appeals to it can even be considered, otherwise he is just saying “vote for me since you already agree with me”. Again, whether you agree with him before the debate is irrelevant to whether he has upheld his burden.Second, even then there is no reason to believe the bible would necessarily mention this. We are talking about an entity that did not necessarily exist at the time and has purposely shielded his existence from us. It has no effect on our lives, so there is no reason to expect it would be mentioned.Third, I would bet that if anyone searched hard enough one could find a passage that may in fact have been speaking about this. Of course we don’t know for sure since most passages are extremely vague. So sorry but no, the fact that you may be a Christian does not mean Con deserves your vote. He needs to earn that with argument.SummaryNothing Con has said remotely proves his claim that BTMF does not exist. His case at best, refutes my burden of proving that he does exist. But I already conceded this in the beginning of the debate so we have so far gotten nowhere, therefore neither side at this point has upheld their burden.Vote Tie.