The Instigator
Mikal
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
progressivedem22
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+7
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 7 votes the winner is...
progressivedem22
Voting Style: Judge Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/4/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 14,059 times Debate No: 56023
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (22)
Votes (7)

 

Mikal

Pro

Basic Structure

Shared BOP

No new arguments in the final round

1st round acceptance
progressivedem22

Con

I accept.

The resolution we discussed is: "Which is more likely to exist -- a pink unicorn or a flying spaghetti monster?"
Debate Round No. 1
Mikal

Pro

Troll/Fun debate/semi serious ehhh whatever the hell we want it to be

Resolution - Which is more likely to exist

Note that we are dealing in odds of probability and chance. Meaning this is a weighted debate. Whichever one of us can show that their choice is *more likely* to exist, wins the debate

Unicorn - a mythical animal typically represented as a horse with a single straight horn projecting from its forehead. [1]

A unicorn is basically a horse with a horn on its head.

Pink - http://www.neiu.edu... [2]

So I am debating whether or not [2] + [1] = possibly exists


C1) Horses With Horns

Any type of horse with a horn could be considered a Unicorn. Note that we are debating which is more likely to exist, and it is my job to show that a horse with a horn is more likely to exist than a flying spaghetti monster. So we have to ask ourselves the question "can horses have horns"?






Actually from archaeological digs "unicorn skeletons have been found". Whether or not this is an actual unicorn or just a horse with a horn is not relevant. Even if it was a horse with a horn by definition, this is labeled a unicorn. There was actually a skeleton of a horse with a horn found near the vicinity of Quedlinburg near Mount Zeunikenberg [3]. The actual statement claims this

" What would seem to cast doubt on this matter is a fact reported by the illustrious Leibnitz in his Protogoea ; following the account of the famous Otto Guericke, he says that in 1663, someone pulled from a limestone quarry at Mount Zeunikenberg, in the territory of Quedlinberg, the skeleton of a terrestrial quadruped crouched on its hind parts, but on which the head was raised, and which sported on its forehead a horn of five ells, that is to say approximately ten feet in length and as thick as the leg of a man, but ending in a point. This skeleton was broken by the ignorance of the workers and pulled piece by piece from the ground; only the horn and the head remained whole, as well as some ribs, and the spine; these bones were brought to the abbess-princess of Quedlinberg. Mr. de Leibniz provides in this same work the image of this skeleton. He says on this subject that according to the report of Hyeronimus Lupus and Balthasar Tellez, Portuguese authors, a quadruped the size of a horse, on which the forehead is armed with a horn, exists in the land of the Abyssinians. See Liebnitz, Protogoea, pages 63 and 64 . In spite of all these authorities, it is maddening that the skeleton of which Leibniz speaks was not more carefully examined, and there is every reason to believe that that horn really belonged to a fish." [4]



This report shows that there could actually have been unicorns that existed and has fossils to prove it, even removing the fact that this is one of many skeletons that could have been discovered the odds of them existing are higher than that of a spaghetti monster.


C2) Evolution

The process of evolution is a long and in depth process. Things like speciation and adaptation contribute to it. Think of it like this

Let's label species (a) horses. Lets actually name them poonhunters. So poonhunters or (a) are a specific type of horse breed that exist in desert climates.

So now lets say (a) exist in environment (y). The entirety of (a) exists within (y). (Y) is any possible desert climate. (y) experiences some type of disaster, and (a) must now leave (y). (a) is now split into different regions around (y). Half of (a) now exists in (x) the other half exists in (z). These are two separate climates. Now at the initial split the poonhunter species is still the same initial species in itself. Now lets say environment (z) is more of a rocky terrain and one half of (a) is not use to this but still live here. Over thousands of years randoms variations in their species will occur to help them survive in that specific environment.

So over the course of 100's and 1,000's of years the poonhunter species that live in (x) is still predominately the same as before but the half that exist in (z) has evolved into a different type of species due to adaption and environmental changes. They are now called poonslayers.

Now lets say the half of (a) that exist in (z) have a rock they are allergic to, or get rashes from. They usually itch on their head, so to solve this problem they rub their head on other rocks to stop the itch. Over 1000's of years there head could become sharp and pointy and eventually shape up to become a horn. This is a possibility. Note almost anything is possible, and we see genetic mutations in evolution all the time that are creepy. So this is a viable possibility even if it may not be likely. The fact is though , that it is more likely that a flying spaghetti monster.





C3) Mutations and Deformities.

If a horse is born with a deformity such as a horn, it would still be labeled a unicorn. I mean again this is possible, there are women that are living with 3 boobs [6] ( This is censored but still only click if over 18 or at your own discretion), and even guys with 2 penises[7].

A deformity or mutation in a horse is much more likely and plausible that a flying spaghetti monster.

Here are just some deformities and mutations in horses, so it is very likely they could accidentally grow a type of horn.













C4) We can will stuff into existence.

I mean this is a proven fact, you can sometimes alter time and space if you want something bad enough.

This is even shown in the bible [8]

I mean what would you rather will into existence. A spaghetti monster or a freaking unicorn. Reasons why people would will a unicorn into existence over a spaghetti monster.

(a) Girls like horses




(b) Guys like horses





(c) Hot girls like horses



(4) Transportation



(5) Food




(6) Production of horses/ (unicorns) and the money that comes for it



(7) Girls like horses.



These are just some obvious reasons why people would will horses and unicorns into existence over a spaghetti monster. Everyone likes them, you can use them for transportation, hot people love to ride them, and you can even eat them.

Conclusion

My BOP is fulfilled.

A unicorn is more likely to exist than a flying spaghetti monster.

Sources


[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[2] http://www.neiu.edu...
[3] http://www.johnkettler.com...
[4] http://quod.lib.umich.edu...
[5] http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
[6] https://xenophilius.wordpress.com...
[7] http://www.thedailybeast.com...
[8] http://www.openbible.info...
progressivedem22

Con

I will rebut my opponent's arguments in the next round.

What constitutes a monster is subjective. A monster can be "something that is extremely or unusually large." [1] When we say "exist," we mean that something can exist in some possible world - and Mikal himself has agreed to it. [2]

So the question that arises is what is "unusually large?" Well, what is usual? This is entirely subjective, and thus we can say that, in some conceivable world, a "monster" may exist.

Now, I"d like to draw your attention to a "Red! Recipe" blog for what they call a "giant spaghetti bomb" -- and I don"t know about you, but "bomb" sounds pretty darn monstrous. Here is a picture of it [3]:





Now, that looks pretty darn large and is certainly more spaghetti than I've ever seen before in my life -- and I"m Italian, so I know about spaghetti. Is it a monster? Well, let's consider the logic:

P1: If the definition of "monster" mandates subjectivity, the fact that subjective opinion, in principle, could classify this "spaghetti bomb" or a variation of it as a "monster," means that we can call it a monster that exists in some possible world.
P2: Subjective opinion, in principle, could classify this "spaghetti bomb" or a variation of it as a "monster."
C1: Therefore, we can call it a monster that exists in some possible world.

Since this is the case, we have our monster and our spaghetti. But can it fly?

What does "fly" mean? Let"s consult the text of a dictionary.

"Fly" can take on many definitions, including the following [4]:

(1) To rise in or be carried through the air by the wind
(2) To travel by air
(3) To move with great speed; rush or dart
(4) To be dissipated; vanish
(5) To undergo an explosion; burst

I'm going to show how this "spaghetti bomb" thing-a-ma-bob can fulfill all 5 of these definitions.

For it to "rise" in the air, it could be picked up. Someone of exceptional strength, perhaps the incredible hulk or Airmax1227, could pick this spaghetti bomb thing up. I mean, it"s about the size of a cake, so clearly it can be picked up, right? Someone had to make it, transport it, serve it, etc.

Could it travel by air? Of course it could. If you placed the cake on a plane, then of course it would travel by air in the same way as a person.

Could it move with great speed? Note that this definition does not mandate autonomy. Of course it could. The plane could move at an exceptional speed. And what is "great?" "Great" is subjective, so this is the same appeal as my last argument regarding a "monster."

Can it be dissipated? Of course. If the CIA (or now the Pentagon) dropped a drone hellfire missile on it, it would blow up. It is prima facie that things that get hit by drones blow up. Ask a civilian in Pakistan and they will tell you.

And the same logic applies to the last definition: it can indeed explode.

So I have proven to you that, in this world, we can have a contraption made of spaghetti, which some consider a monster, which can fly.

My end of the burden of proof is fulfilled.


Now, to address a pink unicorn: Note that my adversary has NOT addressed comparatively why he believes a pink unicorn is more likely than a spaghetti bomb, whereas I am providing my own case providing a pink unicorn. He has not fulfilled his end of the BOP. Again, this will not be a rebuttal.

First, what on God's green earth is a unicorn? [5]:

"an imaginary animal that looks like a horse and has a straight horn growing from the middle of its forehead."

Well, Merriam-Webster says that it's imaginary, and everyone knows that Merriam-Webster is omniscient, so because it's imaginary, it doesn't exist in any possible world, meaning that it is a concept, meaning that it is less likely to actually exist than a spaghetti bomb doo-hickey thing-a-magig, which I have already proven to you can exist IN THIS WORLD.

But let's take this a bit further. On an episode of The Suite Life on Deck that aired a while ago, Heiress London Tipton had this to say [6]:

"Oh. Please! Everybody knows Unicorns live in Australia."

Now, why should we trust London? It"s simple: she's an heiress, her father owns the ship, she clearly has ins with the DDO Elite, and she's so darn cute. And, as a red-hearted conservative AMERICAN, I"ve been taught to trust rich people because they are the smartest, most enlightened, most productive members of society who would never ever ever ever ever do something stupid like, say, crash the global economy by bundling together toxic subprime mortgages and then betting against them on the derivatives markets. Never. That was CLEARLY the workings of the [Censored by DDO lluminati].

So here is the argument:

P1: If London Tipton says it is so, it is so.
P2: London Tipton says it is so.
C1: So, it is so.
P3: If London Tipton says it is prima facie that unicorns live in Australia, it is prima facie that unicorns live in Australia.
P4: London Tipton says it is prima facie that unicorns live in Australia.
C2: It is prima facie that unicorns live in Australia.


But what or where is Australia? Let's ask MassiveDump, another expert on this subject. I caught up with MassiveDump earlier today [6]:

ProgressiveDem, Ace Reporter: So, Massive, what are your thoughts on London Tipton"s comments?
MassiveDump: AUSTRALIA DOESN'T EXIST! Also, thett3 isn"t gorgeous. And it is prima facie that Mikal is a meanie bovenie slovenie who set the character limit at 8,000 instead of 10,000. Heck, I bet he made a disgusting assertion about a very prominent member doing naughty things to kittens.
ProgressiveDem, Ace Reporter: Thank you for your thoughts, Massive. When will the next Weekly Stupid be up?
MassiveDump: Watch yourself, or you"ll be on it.

Yes, I know what you"re thinking: "Progressive, you idiot, why didn't you find out when the Weekly Stupid is coming on?" Sorry, I panicked. He's much hotter in person.

Anyway, let's put this argument into another polysyllogism! Cuber would be proud!

P1: If MassiveDump says it is so, it is so.
P2: MassiveDump says it is so.
C1: So, it is so.
P3: If MassiveDump says that Australia doesn't exist, it is prima facie that Australia doesn"t exist.
P4: MassiveDump says that Australia doesn"t exist.
C2: It is prima facie that Australia doesn't exist.

So if Australia doesn't exist, it doesn't exist in any possible world. It is merely a figment of our imagination. Let's examine the final syllogism:

P1: If unicorns live in Australia, they live in the imagination.
P2: Unicorns live in Australia.
C1: Unicorns live in the imagination.
P3: If unicorns live in the imagination, they do not exist in any possible world.
P4: Unicorns live in the imagination.
C2: Unicorns do not exist in any possible world.

I have disproven my opponent's case.

And I shouldn't even need to address pink! For goodness' sake, why would they be pink? What an abnormally repugnant color that would completely redefine gender roles and threaten the NATURAL, TRADITIONAL FAMILY. How you could ever think that these morally depraved creatures could ever exist is beyond logic. Next you"ll be telling me that the bloody things engage in coitus for pleasure -- or that airmax and bladerunner AREN'T the same person. Or that Kim Kardashian harvested an IQ point.

Let's ask Jesus H. Christ what he thinks about the color "pink" [7]:

ProgressiveDem, Ace Reporter: Jesus, what do you think about pink?
Jesus: Pfft, can a camel enter into the eye of a needle?
ProgressiveDem, Ace Reporter: Camels don't exist. They're the spawn of unicorns which means they have their roots in Australia.
Jesus: Well done, my son. Now, about your sins--
ProgressiveDem, Ace Reporter: AND we're out of time. Thank you, Jesus!


Sources:
1. http://tinyurl.com...
2. Mikal in a Google+ chat
3. http://tinyurl.com...
4. http://tinyurl.com...
5. http://tinyurl.com...
6. http://tinyurl.com...
7. Interview with MassiveDump
8. Interview with Jesus



Debate Round No. 2
Mikal

Pro

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 pink

So 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 pink

http://giphy.com...

pretend the color is pink

R1) A Monster is Subjective

The 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 sentient

So 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 exists

My 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 out

For 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 fails
If it is just a monster and not flying, the resolution fails
If 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 true

The 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 it


The fallacy behind this

(a) Unicorns live in Australia
(b) Humans live in Australia

Not 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 exist

By 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 Australia

Not 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 hitler

You should all vote him down.




CR3) Some effed up syllogism

Lets review all of this in the context in which my adversary has stated


P1: 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 world


Can 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 points

went 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...
progressivedem22

Con

I'll go to R3 first.

Pro claims that you can make anything tangible pink. This is true, though the spray can he links to includes black paint, so he has effectively invalidated his own argument. Also I ask the audience to consider this: even if you put lipstick on a pig, is it still a pig? If you put spray on a horse, is it stil a horse. Yes, and yes.

However, he is playing games with definitions to assert that a unicorn is a “horse with a horn.” His own definition says that a unicorn is REPRESENTED by a horse with a horn, not that it IS a horse with a horn. We don’t know what an actual unicorn is because it is based on a fantasy. All we know is our perception of a representation of it. Mikal cannot uphold his burden because he cannot prove what an actual unicorn is.

Pro deceptively asserts that all monsters are sentient. This is a flat-out distortion and he cannot PROVE that all monsters are sentient. He has not even contested my definition, which mandates subjectivity, nor has he sought to address my syllogism. He asserts that every definition of monster includes “creature,” but this isn’t true. His “on balance” claim is also fallacious, as he suggests that, because a monster CAN be sentient – which it can be – that we must consider this backwards: that only something sentient can be a monster, or that most monsters are sentient. But this isn’t true, and if what is monster is subjective, spaghetti can be a monster.

Example: if I have an exam tomorrow on 20 chapters of stuff that only Pots or Sargon would understand, I’d say: crap, that exam tomorrow will be a monster. Why? Because it includes an abnormally large and frightening amount of material and scares the bejesus out of me.

He then brings up an irrelevant list of things that could exist, but this is IRRELEVANT. I only must show that it is possible for this monster to exist, which is what I have done. I’m separating that from a pink unicorn entirely: I’ll refute that point separately. He concedes that it is POSSIBLE for a flying spaghetti to exist, so this debate is already over. Likelihood of existence is indeed our criterion, but I’ve already shown that it CAN and DOES exist, which means that my burden is fulfilled. At this point the debate can either end in two ways: a win for me or a tie.

He claims that a monster must be capable of performing an action that qualifies it as a monster. However, his following syllogism and his argument boil down to a monster being sentient. Again, not all monsters are sentient – which he admits – and not all sentient beings are monsters, nor must all monsters be able to go to school. The criteria for determining whether something is a monster is entirely subjective and is based on a perspective of what you consider to be unusually large. If one person considers it a monster, it is a monster in some possible worlds. His next argument only addresses one type of monster but this doesn’t refute that spaghetti can be a monster. Thus, my burden is upheld.

He then suggests that I cannot prove that something can concurrently fly AND be a monster. However, my opponent has dropped the definitions of fly that I listed. One of them suggests that being exploded by a drone is flying. Something could be considered a monster and be hit by a drone. Matter can not be created or destroyed according to the law of conservation of mass, so the monster still exists, is still a monster, and we will still deem it a monster even during the split second where it is being exploded – because the act of exploding is, to the naked eye, is instantaneous that we cannot make out its parts being dismembered. And even if we could, if even one person still deems it a monster – because my opponent has NOT effectively proved objectivity – my burden holds.

And, if we deem a bowl of spaghetti a monster and it is taken up by an aircraft, it is STILL a monster. So I have achieved my BOP.

He then deceptively appeals to objectivity again by asserting that “everyone would be overjoyed.” Untrue. Some people may not like that it was just exploded by a giant drone, or if they were violently hit by a spaghetti bomb and were injured, of course they’d probably yell “CURSE YOU!” And they could still find it to be abnormally large and ergo a monster.

He cites Brenda Song. Who the heck is that? I’m talking about London Tipton from the Suite Life on Deck. Mikal has provided us with NO reason to doubt her word regarding unicorns. He completely dropped my argument that rich people know best and we should trust them. Who cares if she’s pregnant? Baby bumps are cute.

When did I suggest that humans live in Australia? This isn’t true at all. He admits that not all humans live in Australia, so I have not committed genocide. I said Australia only exists in the mind: it’s a figment of your imagination. Australia doesn’t exist and MassiveDump said so. He has dropped the argument that what Massive says is prima facie. He suggests that the word of (x) may be questionable. This may be so. But Massive is not (x); Massive is Massive, and I trust Massive, and you should too. He’s provided NO reason as to why Massive would deliberately lie to us, or any defense of Australia. For all we know, Australia could be a figment of our imagination. A group of people could have gotten so drunk that they started saying nonsense like “Hey I'm from.”

Let me ask you a question, voters: have you been to Australia? No, don’t lie, you haven’t, because Australia doesn’t exist.

My interview with Jesus regarding camels, the color pink, and the traditional family have been dropped.

As for his R2 argument:

I’ve already addressed his definitions and why his first contention is a broad overstatement and a distortion.

He brings up a skeleton which could be a unicorn and suggests that it doesn’t matter whether or not it is. This is false because I’ve already proven my end of the burden, so in order to win, he must prove that this is a skeleton of a unicorn, not a horse with a crappy haircut or a parsnip that fossilized over time and appears to be a horn. He can’t do this because he can’t prove what a unicorn actually is. Pro has proven a “could” statement, but has not provided any actual evidence that it “is,” which he needs at this point.

He then suggests that a species could have evolved into a unicorn. This is a fine point, though to be consistent with his earlier suggestion that unicorns lived long ago, he would have to argue for devolution. Why exactly would this be so?

He then suggests that it is viable for this to be so, but provides no explanation for why it would have happened other than changes in climate – he has not proven that a species of horses every existed who were impacted by something of this nature – or explanation for how a random genetic mutation to the extent of growing a horn could occur. Rubbing their head to form a horn? Matter cannot be created or destroyed. You can’t just sharpen your head and grow a horn.

He then points to mutations and deformities. It’s interesting that none of his arguments are in sync. The problem with this argument is that he asserts that a horse with a mutation = a unicorn, but he hasn’t proven this because, as I pointed out, his definition of unicorn is jaded.

His assertion about a flying spaghetti monster is just an assertion.

He claims we can will stuff into existence. Can I will 5 billion dollars for myself. Of course not. For the third time, matter cannot be created or destroyed. No, the Bible is not a credible source. It’s been rewritten and retranslated so many times and holds so many contradictions that we can discard it as a credible source.

Then he suggests that a pink unicorn is more desirable because people like horses. So? Unicorns aren’t horses. The points about horses are tangential and misguided. And tastes are subjective. For instance, I’m scared of riding, so I’d rather have a spaghetti bomb right now. And I’m fat, so there’s that

My BOP is fulfilled, whereas Pro’s is not.

Debate Round No. 3
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Bullish 2 years ago
Bullish
Second loss for Mikal.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
Kaboom! And for the second time in forever...Mikal is getting beaten! Will he get a last-minute miracle or not? We will see...
BTW Mikal's really good at troll-debating!! :D
Posted by progressivedem22 2 years ago
progressivedem22
lol Wow, this just got interesting!

It was a fun debate indeed. As soon as the voting period ends, I'll summarize my case in the comment section. I think the semantics was heavily on my side, but Mikal's arguments regarding evolution et al. were quite good.
Posted by ESocialBookworm 2 years ago
ESocialBookworm
... 0.0... Mikal is losing... 0.0...

XD
Posted by ESocialBookworm 2 years ago
ESocialBookworm
PROGRESSlVE FTW!!!
Posted by progressivedem22 2 years ago
progressivedem22
I think it's bsh. Either him or airmax.
Posted by Envisage 2 years ago
Envisage
Who is the fifth judge?
Posted by ESocialBookworm 2 years ago
ESocialBookworm
I would have taken Mikal's side of course. However, Prog great job all the same! Mikal's pictures had me leaning to his side just a little (because seriously? Who doesn't like visual aid?!) BUT, I LOVED Prog's interviews! They were hilarious and his syllogisms were funny as well. I recommend Pro use pictures in his next troll debate. (They're very effective!!!... Although I still don't know how to do that also...) All in all, I think you guys both did great so I'd consider this a tie.
Posted by ESocialBookworm 2 years ago
ESocialBookworm
I would have taken Mikal's side of course. However, Prog great job all the same! Mikal's pictures had me leaning to his side just a little (because seriously? Who doesn't like visual aid?!) BUT, I LOVED Prog's interviews! They were hilarious and his syllogisms were funny as well. I recommend Pro use pictures in his next troll debate. (They're very effective!!!... Although I still don't know how to do that also...) All in all, I think you guys both did great so I'd consider this a tie.
Posted by Envisage 2 years ago
Envisage
This debate is awesome!
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by bsh1 2 years ago
bsh1
Mikalprogressivedem22Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Lol...Okay, this round was freaking hilarious. Mikal, plaudits on the hot cowboy image...damn fine. You deserve conduct points just for that. As for arguments, Con is winning the important ones: (1) the definition of a monster, (2) the definition of a unicorn, (3) flying. Insofar as a monstrously huge pile of spaghetti, lifted by a plane is subjectively more likely to exist than an imaginary creature (not a horse with spray paint, b/c a unicorn is more than that), Con wins this debate. Args to Con. *Applause* Very amusing round, lol...
Vote Placed by airmax1227 2 years ago
airmax1227
Mikalprogressivedem22Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Both sides did a good job making this debate humorous/entertaining and based on the arguments presented, both did well in supporting plausibility for their respective positions. While I found Pro's arguments and especially images compelling, I believe Con did especially well in using his semantics of monster argument to ultimately be the strongest argument presented in this debate, and allowed him to at least come closest to carrying his BOP. In regards to Con's arguments, not only is a "Flying Spaghetti Monster" as he has argued in favor of it more plausible, it seems likely in fact that it does exist. So argument points to Con.
Vote Placed by Jonbonbon 2 years ago
Jonbonbon
Mikalprogressivedem22Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a rough debate to judge, and I would like to start out by applauding both sides. There was one small thing that put pro over the top. Even accepting the definition of "monster" I think con failed to show how it flew. I understand the plane and picking it up and everything, I just don't think he proved that these things are likely to happen, and I think saying that it's flying because someone picked it up is way too loose of a definition. Then with the surety about pink unicorns existing as presented by pro, I have to give pro the vote for arguments.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
Mikalprogressivedem22Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: A troll debate, so of course the RFD is less rigorous. But c'mon--Con's attempts to get his Spaghetti Monster to fly by *being carried* were ludicrous. And that flight point was the single failing point. He needed to show the spaghetti bomb on a plane. Also, that he never once brought up pirates and their link to global warming is frankly HERETICAL. May the noodly appendage give Con a wet willie for the oversight, and arguments to Pro. I was tempted to award sources too, but Pro gained it with sexy people and lost it with unsexy Hitler.
Vote Placed by Romanii 2 years ago
Romanii
Mikalprogressivedem22Tied
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: Pro did a good job of proving that a pink unicorn is likely to exist, especially with his evolution argument. However, Con's MassiveDump/Australia argument was pretty epic, and Pro's counter, while funny, failed because, as Con pointed out, *humans don't necessarily live in Australia*. Thus, Con did prove that unicorns cannot exist in any possible world. Meanwhile, on Con's side of the resolution, we see that by Con's definitions, if we throw a plateful of spaghetti and at least one person subjectively finds it scary/monster-like, then the FSM would exist. Pro attempted to hammer on the subjectivity point to show how unlikely it is for flying spaghetti to be a monster, but Con showed that it is actually highly likely because if *even one person* felt that flying spaghetti is scary, then the FSM would exist. This is a realistic enough of a situation that we can believe that the FSM probably exists in some form somewhere. Hence, I vote Con. Hilarious debate!
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
Mikalprogressivedem22Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Well, I had fun. I'm awarding the debate to Con because I buy the analysis that a "monster" need not be animated, and therefore that there is evidence that said monster already exists. Pro gives a good explanation as to why we should have a unicorn by now, but no solid evidence of one's existence. So while I vote Con, I do ask whether such a monster can ever touch us with its noodly appendage. Such a shame.
Vote Placed by YYW 2 years ago
YYW
Mikalprogressivedem22Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: lol, this was hilarious, but neither persuaded me that the pink unicorn or the flying spaghetti monster is more or less likely to exist. So, I've got to give it a tie. However, horses could, potentially, at least make it not impossible for pink unicorns to exist, as Mikal showed, whereas PRO could make no similar "thing" that would make animated spaghetti not impossible. One of the more insane troll debates I've seen, but I'm giving Mikal a technical win.