Heaven exists, not God; science of Quad Helix rotation.

Pro erroneously believes his dental instrument metaphysics is superior to all philosophy practiced up until this date. To the contrary, philosophy has provided important and influential insights into the real world, whereas Pro's hypothesis provides no insights into anything even remotely resembling the real world. The philosopher Karl Marx inspired revolutions spanning the globe with his communist ideals, even serving as a model to the governments of China, Cuba, and North Korea to this day. Kant's ethical notions about the dignity and sanctity of humanity has provided an intellectual basis for modern day medical ethics (Kant and Applied Ethics, Altman), adamently opposing cruel and unethical experiments which use humans as a means to an end. Contemporary philosophers of physics have worked tirelessly to clarify conceptual problems in quantum mechanics, and to distinguish between different, empirically equivalent versions of it. Philosophers of science have addressed fundamental questions about the nature of scientific inquiry itself. Through hard work and clear, meaningful thought, countless philosophers have made names for themselves by providing interesting insights into reality. Pro seemingly wants to join their ranks, but his hypothesis does not come within an inch of providing any insight into the world as it is. It's impossible to see how it could given the way it's phrased. Pro's hypothesis takes the easy way, dealing in shambolic pseudo-philosophical verbiage without any of the powerful thinking which has led us to herald thinkers before. Pro's argument is not superior to philosophy as it's been practiced, and to even begin comparing his sludge of nonsense to them is an insult to the thousands of thinkers who have stretched their brain beyond the limits of human comprehension to add a slither of knowledge to what we already have.Pro refers to the laws of logic as mere "academic laws", specially exempting himself from having to be rational for some undisclosed and necessarily magical reason. Unfortuantely, Pro isn't an exception to logic. A logical rule of inference is a logical rule of inference, and that's all there is to say. They do not depend on academia to be true. If A leads to B, and B leads to C, then A leads to C, whether or not Harvard University is around to tell us so. Thus, Pro's attempt at circumventing the basic rules of thought by calling them academic will not fly.Pro says that philosophers only adhere to logical rules because we want to " suppress the fluctuation of ideas outside of the realm of the academic body of knowledge, and against the academy mission." Actually, I want to adhere to logical rules in order to filter out BS like Pro's argument. Academia is not this hivemind entity that relentlessly enforces an orthodoxy. It has no "mission". It's capable of correcting its own errors objectively. If you don't believe me, during the 20th century, almost every philosopher thought the verification principle was true: that any claim must be empirically verifiable. Today, almost no philosopher believes in the verification principles because of sound arguments against its coherency, demonstrating academic consensus can change frequently, and is not the biased, dogmatic hivemind Pro wants us to see it as.Pro believes that logical rules only make sense to 'academic slaves'. The video I posted shows this to be false. Logical rules aren't just for academic slaves. Deductive reasoning is used by normal, everyday people. If it wasn't, everyone in our world would start acting like Patrick Star, claiming "it's not my wallet". Thus, it's evident the use of sound logic goes far beyond the world of academia.Pro continues to propogate meaningless phrases as if they have meaning, like "government-academic" and "word illness". He's also failed to clarify any of the words I identified as meaningless in the last round.Anyway, there really isn't much else going on with Pro's argument. His defense is to do nothing more than claim he's exempt from having to be logical.Yeah, we'll see how "I don't have to use logic" will go over with the voters.