The Instigator
Pro (for)
5 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

God is more likely to exist than an invisible pink unicorn

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/28/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,587 times Debate No: 25320
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (2)




Alright this is a short fun one. Atheists I have talked to have made this statement, and I would like to argue it. Please note that you will be Con. I look forward to this. You may begin. No semantics or trolling.


I shall begin by laying out definitions and boundaries of debate. Then give a brief overview of my debate.


God: The one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.[1]
More: in greater quantity, amount, measure, degree, or number.[2]
Likely(adverb): Probably.[3]
Probably: Insofar as seems reasonably true, factual, or to be expected.[4]
Exist: to have real being whether material or spiritual.[5]

Invisible: Not visible.[6]
Visible: Capable of being seen.[7]
Pink: a color varying from light crimson to pale reddish purple.[8]
Unicorn: a mythical animal generally depicted with the body and head of a horse, the hind legs of a stag, the tail of a lion, and a single horn in the middle of the forehead.[9]

Now I shall set boundaries to debate and define any technical terms used:

1) No denial of my definitions if the definition that my opponent proposes would render the resolution or part of the resolution as nonsense. For example If he wished to say the invisible meant totally non-discernible to the human eye, or brain then that renders 'invisible pink unicorn as nonsense' and essentially causes the resolution to state 'God is more likely than nonsense' well I see nonsense everyday in many ways so nonsense is far more blatant and likely than God and would make this non-debatable for the pro.

Nonsense: Words or language having no meaning or conveying no intelligible ideas.[10]

2) No suggestion of an alternate God to the one defined. Supreme being is the only definition being used.

Supreme: highest in degree or quality.[11]

3) The fact that a unicorn is mythical shall have no inference regarding the likelihood if its existence. It could simultaneously be a myth and be likely.

Myth:a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.[12]
Simultaneously: existing, occurring, or operating at the same time (as).[13]

It is now up to the pro the propose the resolution as true, using my definitions and sticking within the boundaries.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you to my opponent for accepting this debate.

First of all, the fact that a unicorn is mythical must be factored in at a bare minimum. You say that it could be mythical and likely, so why not make it a factor? Normally, I would have a problem with you claiming that I must use your definitions, but as I have no problem with them, I will not counter them.

Let's get on to the main part. Could a unicorn be pink and invisible? Well, if something is pink, it must be so because it reflects pink electromagnetic radiation (light). In order for it to be invisible, incapable of being seen, they would reflect no electromagnetic radiation. Therefore, it is physically impossible for something to be simultaneously invisible and pink.

I thank my opponent and look forward to hearing their response.


You accepted my definitions. Now I will explain why the way I have defined invisible and visible enable something to be invisible and pink.

Invisible I simply defined as not visible. Visible I defined as capable of being seen. But what if the unicorn is trapped on a planet where it is the only creature in existence. It is INCAPABLE of leaving the planet and thus is INCAPABLE of being seen sine on that planet there are no surfaces which offer reflection. (it's possible). Also let's say that the planet has no sun.

So it could be not visible whilst being pink.
Debate Round No. 2


This argument is even more ludicrous than previous thought. But, I will still disprove your argument.

You have not yet defined the word "capable" yet, and I feel as this is important since you use it in your definitions and especially the last round. I will use the Merriam-Webster online dictionary that you have sourced to be fair.

Capable: having attributes (as physical or mental power) required for performance or accomplishment [1]

So let's assume in this odd scenario that a pink unicorn is trapped on some planet that will support its life hundreds of millions of light years away. Are we "capable" of seeing it? Do we "have the attributes required for performance or accomplishment" to see it? No. We do not have the ability to travel that far, and if we did, we would know about it.

Therefore, we are not capable of seeing it, it is not visible (invisible), and thus existence is still impossible.

I thank my opponent for an interesting take on the Resolution Statement and for following the rules. I thank my judges as well for reading this and making a fair and honest choice, and I strongly urge a Pro vote.



According to ym deifnition the pink unicorn is incapable of being seen but sitll if we were to shie light on it it would be pink. The fact that it is trapped alone on a planet without a sun makes it boht invisible and pink (invisible using my deifnitions). You failed to counter this sufficiently.

Also, you never once met your BOP in proving God MORE likely, he is either equally or less likely then the unicorn wince you didn't once discuss it.

Vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
Orator wrote:
: Sources: That was pretty simple, Con used more (I think pro only provided 1? correct me if I'm wrong
: here) and they were all valid.

This is a mistake, I think. We aren't supposed to vote on who has more sources. We are supposed to vote on whose sources are more reliable.
Posted by Mrihearvoices 4 years ago
Thank you to both of you. TheOrator, although he DID provide more definitions, I would say that we both were equal on reliability. I would've provided definitions, but I did not expect him to shoot them off immediately.

snnybns, thank you for being considerate and not voting due to your lack of experience.
Posted by snnybns 4 years ago
I haven't debated enough to vote, but I would have voted for con because he was right that Pro never met his burden of proof. Pro proved that the invisible pink unicorn was impossible but not that God was more likely.
Posted by TheOrator 4 years ago
more coherent sentences than what he said*
Posted by TheOrator 4 years ago
All right, let's break this down.

First, conduct: I decided on conduct simply because Con accepted then set boundaries for the debate. He didn't even ask if he could provide rules in the comments. It doesn't matter how well you justify them as you state the restrictions you're placing on your opponent, you don't make the rules if you don't make the debate. It's like me coming over to your house and making you wear a party hat simply because I said so, it's really rude.

S/G: Although neither side had perfect grammar, con had slightly less quality untill it hit the last round. When we got to the last round, his grammar made me want to slam my head against my keyboard repeatedly (and that would probably still produce more coherent sentences than what i said)

On the arguments themselves, Pro caught the Con in a semantical loophole that Con could only negate through the rules I mentioned above. However, as Con had no justification for providing these rules at all, and they actually received protest from the instigator, I acted as though they didn't exist for the purpose of the round. Because these rules couldn't be accepted, Pro wasn't banned from contesting definitions, and so Con couldn't really wiggle out of it.

Sources: That was pretty simple, Con used more (I think pro only provided 1? correct me if I'm wrong here) and they were all valid.
Posted by Mrihearvoices 4 years ago
I seem to have forgotten the source in my final round--my apologies.

Here it is:
Posted by RationalMadman 4 years ago
no I justified all parameters. He can counter them if he can justify why.
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
@ Con:

Why does he have to accept your definitions/parameters. You may even have the slightest argument if you instigated (even then it's still really flawed to presume you can), but since you're not even instigating you have no sway in forcing someone to comply with certain parameters, short of arguing why they are true or are the best parameters to use (which you don't do since you basically just say "Use these or auto-lose")
Posted by Jessalyn 4 years ago
Oh God, you're right! I almost accepted, too. Glad I didn't. I think my main flaw when it comes to debating is not noticing loopholes.

That's too bad. I would have loved to take this one up...
Posted by Numidious 4 years ago
Good point Illegalcombatant. However, since pink is just a reflection of the material that said unicorn is made up of, you might still be able to argue that if the unicorn was visible it would be pink.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con never showed up, didn't debate the actual subject of the debate. So I wanted to vote Pro. But Pro talked only about how unlikely the IPU is, without once claiming that god is more likely. Pro had the burden of proof, and didn't address the topic. Reluctantly, I have to vote Con.
Vote Placed by TheOrator 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:52 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments