The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Unicorns Once Existed

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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/8/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,246 times Debate No: 51866
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (81)
Votes (3)




I will be attempting to demonstrate that unicorns had at least existed at least at some point in the past.

Debate Format:
Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Opening Arguments (no rebuttals)
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Rebuttals & Conclusions

Good luck!


I accept my opponents challenge to this very interesting topic.

I agree with the Wikipedia definition provided in the comments.
Debate Round No. 1



My argument for at least the prior existence of Unicorns will be a two pronged approach, they both closely interlink but they are for two separate entities. The first will be argument for the deity, the invisible pink unicorn, the putative creator of the universe. And the second will demonstrate the existence of the original sentient creations of the invisible pink unicorn, the mammalian species, evolutionarily closely related to horses. If I can demonstrate either one of these to be reasonably true, then I have satisfied my burden of proof in this debate.

Invisible Pink Unicorn:

Modal Ontological Argument:

The invisible pink unicorn is the proposed greatest possible thing in the universe, one such that there could not be a conceivably greater unicorn.

It is possible that a maximally great unicorn exists.

2. If it is possible that a maximally great unicorn exists, then a maximally great unicorn exists in some possible world.

3. If a maximally great unicorn exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

4. If it exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.

5. Therefore, a maximally great unicorn exists.

This argument is logically valid, and my opponent would need to contest the premises in order to contest the conclusion. I hold that the maximally great unicorn is a strong metaphysical possibility that must be true in this world.

Another formulation of the ontological argument of this is as follows:

1. It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that The Invisible Pink Unicorn is a being than which none greater can be imagined

2. The Invisible Pink Unicorn exists as an idea in the mind.

3. An Invisible Pink Unicorn that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than an Invisible Pink Unicorn that exists only as an idea in the mind.

4. Thus, if the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than Invisible Pink Unicorn (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist).

5. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than the Invisible Pink Unicorn (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)

6. Therefore, the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists.

This formulation has the advantage of directly arguing for the invisible pink unicorn, as the invisible pink unicorn is a strong concept that can exist in the mind. One interesting concept regarding the invisible pink unicorn, is the fact it is pink.

Pink is purely a conceptual colour, and not one that exists anywhere in reality.Only such a being is capable of such manifestly ‘physical’ and purely conceptual properties, which is a large advantage over classical theistic Gods with internally-contradictory attributes (such as omnipotence, omnibenevolence), this example makes no such extraneous claims.

Kalam Argument:

Another variation of the divine unicorn argument is found in the Kalam Cosmological Argument. First I need to establish the first cause, which is done by the following syllogism:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause

2. The universe began to exist

A. The universe has a cause

In defence of premise 1, this is obviously true, everything that is formed and made is done so with pre-existing efficient causes, such as flipping a light switch to create the light, or assembling a house with workers. This trend holds at macroscopic scales with utmost religiosity. Furthermore, even microscopic scale events such as virtual particle pair production are at the best least caused by a Necessary cause (the quantum vacuum), and an efficient cause is still a matter of debate, since we cannot see at that scale what sub-sub atomic ‘ftuff’ is occurring

In defence of premise 2, this is confirmed by Big Bang Cosmology, where the universe was united at a single point in the past at the singularity, the beginning of out universe, which is well established within the Alexander Guth Vilenkin theorem

Now this conclusion doesn’t go far enough to demonstrate the invisible pink unicorn, of course. What we do know about this cause, is that it must be spaceless, immaterial, timeless or infinite, and causal.

What causes do we know about that fit this description?

1. A personal cause

2. An impersonal cause

However, all impersonal causes we know about are conceptual (which require a mind, and ironically themselves are personal!) such as numbers, descriptions, etc. All of which have questionable at best causal ability.

The list of personal causes is relatively short, it’s a mind of some form. This can only be the invisible pink unicorn I argue, as it is the only non-contradictory type of mind with physical and aphysical attributes, with the only colour known to be purely conceptual. QED.

Physical Species:

Our evidence for the Unicorn species is rather limited. We have limited examples of this species in the fossil record, which indicates that Unicorns only sustained minor populations. There is biblical and mythological evidence in the past regarding these creatures which are now likely extinct.

Job 39:9-12

Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?

“Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee? Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? or wilt thou leave thy labour to him?

Psalm 29:6

“He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn.”

Isiaah 34:7

Here we have three independent accounts of unicorns in just the biblical literature.

History of Unicorns:

I will discuss the unicorn’s evolutionary origins in the next round, however with our current evidence, the unicorn is no longer extant today. This is understandable, as the unicorn horn was once thought to possess powerful medicinal properties [2], and was likely hunted to extinction in the years BC. This is obvious when you consider over horned mammals, such as the elephant [3] and rhinocerous [4]

Both these species are slow reproducers (less than 1 calf/year) and therefore replenish its own population slowly. The fact the unicorn is extinct makes a scientific prediction, we should find evidence that Unicorns had generally much longer lifespans (and therefore slower reproduction rates) than their fellow elephant and rhino species, as that would explain their inability to recover. Indeed we find accpording to Chinese mythology claims that the unicorns do indeed survive for thousands of years, scientifically confirming the prediction just made! [5].









Thanks to my opponent for an interesting philosophical argument for the existence of Unicorns. Now lets me provide some scientific examples of why the existence of Unicorns in the past is highly unlikely.

My opponents position in this debate is that Unicorns once existed, as such I should present some scientific (i.e fossil, genetic) evidence to show that it is highly unlikely that Unicorns once existed.

My opponent defined Unicorns in the comments section as "a legendary animal that has been described since antiquity as a beast with a large, pointed, spiraling horn projecting from its forehead." If we consider the etymology of the word, then it must hold true that "uni" means one.(1) So we need to consider evidence for a one horned animal, where this horn projects from its forehead in a spiraling manner. At this point, I am not trying to bore you to death, I just really need to get the definition understood for the facts presented below to make sense.

So what animals could have existed (or do exist) that could be considered a unicorn?

The Narwhal is one animal, whose horn was used in times past as proof for Unicorns.(2) However, we can be certain that this is not the elusive Unicorn, as it still exists today and this is a debate about the past existence of Unicorns. What does make the Narwhal most probably contribute most to the myth of the Unicorn is its spiral shaped horn.

The Rhinoceros similar to the Narwhal cannot be used as an example of the unicorn as they still exist today. Additionally, this horn is not spiraled.

The second animal that comes to mind would be the now extinct Tsintaosaurus spinorhinus.(3) While this may seem like a likely candidate for the now extinct animal which could classify as a unicorn, it is highly unlikely. This horn was in no way spiraled if anything it looked like an appendage from a bad alien movie, see picture below. In fact, there is no consensus among scientists, that I am aware of, as to what the exact shape of this "horn" was. For this reason it is obvious that the now extinct dinosaur is not our elusive unicorn.
<a href=; width="485" height="513" />

The last and probably the most widely used example for the existence of unicorns is the genetic deformity or physical deformity unicorns, see example below.

File:Oryx gazella (unicorn).jpg

This group is two horned animals that have undergone some genetic deformity to produce only one horn, or have had one horn broken off. In all these cases the animal is not a unicorn as it genetically has two horns in the species but is in fact a genetic mutation which would have to breed with the exact same mutation to produce and offspring with that mutation. As far as I am aware there is no example of this kind of unicorn species and as such we can say this is not the fabled unicorn.

It is my belief that this opening argument shows that the existence of the non existent unicorn is highly unlikely. The only way it is possible is if we change the definition and accept past animals like Tsintaosaurus spinorhinus to be the elusive unicorn. However, if we do this then we really are moving outside the scope of a scientific debate.

I now hand the debate over to my opponent for rebuttals.

Debate Round No. 2


Thanks Con.

I will expand on my opening arguments before rebutting my opponent.

Invisible Pink Unicorn:

As mentioned previously, the invisible pink unicorn uniquely has both material and immaterial attributes that are both real and conceptial. Take the colour pink for instance. Whilst having the unique effect of throwing a heartthrob in the direction of male humans who perceive the colour, this colour is one that does not exist in the visible light spectrum.

I would like to make the following addition to the argument for a pink universal mind.

P1. All things in existance interact, at least in part, with electromagnetic waves
P2. The creator of the universe is purely mental
C. The interaction that creator of the universe with electromagnetic waves is purely mental.

From this conclusion, only one such colour fits this descrption, of a purely mental colour, and that colour is pink. [1]

Therefore we have evidence for a pink creator of the universe.


The only proposed entity for this is the invisible pink unicorn [2], which I have also demonstrated by the modal ontological argument. The creator of the univserse also must be invisible, while I would not go as far as to say that the invisible creator grounds the universe in it's mental state, any creator that interacts with physical reality to manipulate it and create the species of animals on Earth, humans included, must additionally be at least in part of the physical reality. We however have not seen this pink creator with even our most powerful telescopes, therefore we can inductively conclude that the pink creator is also invisible.

While the creator pink unicorn is invisible, her signitures are left in the cosmos, and evidence of her prescence can be seen in gaseous nebula [3].

This, much like our incredible recent findings in the CMB, constitute some of our first direct empirical observations of the pink creator unicorn.

Unicorn Species:

The universe is indeed intelligently designed for life, which is trivially proven via various fine tuning arguments [4]. But the real question should be, what life is the universe finely tuned for? While the argument has been made and continues to be made that the universe is finely tunes for us humans, with the correct atmospheric concentrations, gravitational constants etc. If one actually looks at the details, they would quickly realise it is actually better suited for quadrapeds.

Our rugged landscape was originally rugged, and littered with predators. Our Earth's relatively high density and hence, relative gravity means bipedals are more severely limited in their maximum growth sizes, all of which are better dealt with by quadrapeds.

Furthermore we are an imperfect species, with various vestigial traits and design imperfections in our anatomy, far too numerous to conclude that gumans were the objective of intelligent design. In fact the only species it is logical to conclude the universe and the planet Earth must have been designed for are indeed unicorns [6]. Unicorns are aproximately twice the height of horses, and capable of living for hundreds of years. Only something the result of very precisely tunes biological features can achieve.

Boltzmann Unicorns:

This last argument is an extension of the 'Boltzmann Brain' problem seen in cosmology [7] which I will make briefly. It's perhaps not the most satisfying argument, but it at least demonsttrates that unicorns MUST have existed at least some point in the past. The multiverse is likely infinite in the past, even if one disregards that the invisible pink unicorn created the multiverse, the very fact that it's infinite also means an infinite number of preceding sub-universes to our own must exist in the past.

That being the case, it is an absolute certainty that anything with a finite possibility of occuring in each sub universe, must have occured not once, but an infinite number of times in the past. And I assert, it is entirely possible that via. Quantum Mechanics, a unicorn in any such sub-universe could appear spontaneously.

Richard Dawkins said:

"But if, by sheer coincidence, all the molecules just happened to move in the same direction at the same moment, the hand would move. If they then all reversed direction at the same moment the hand would move back"

The odds do not matter at all however, anything that is possible, if given an infinite amount of time, will occur an infinite amount of times!

Therefore, if one accepts this argument, then I have already demonsttrated all I need to to show that purely physical unicorns must have once existed at some point in the past.

My opponent has successfully shown a number of 'false unicorns'. The dinosaur example can be ruled out since because the unicorn is obviously closely related to modern single-toed horses, it could only have arisen naturally within the post Cretacious period [9].

Furthermore, both the horse and the Rhino are closely related. They both share a symmetrical bilateral, mammalian odd-toed ungulate morphology, and share a recent common ancestor within the Ceratomorpha family.

Obviously this implies an intermediate species between the two must have existed in the past. Let's compare the physical characteristics of both:

Weight: 850-4500kg
Horns: Two

Weight: ~350kg
Horns: Zero

Now, let's see the characteristics of the putative intermediate species by taking an average of the values for the Rhino and Horse.

Intermediate Species:
Weight ~1512.5 kg
Horns: 1

And now let's compare that with what we can estimate from unicorn mythology:
Weight: 2800kg
Horns: 1

While the weight might seem a bit off, it is calculated by taking the weight of the horse and multiplying it by 2 cubed (8), assuming the unicorn was exactly 2x the height of the horse. In fact the weight of ~1500 kg is achieved by a 1.7x height increase over the wild horse, easily accountable by the margin in mythology.

I have provided solid, compelling evidence for the existance of unicorns on multiple fronts, I expect similarly extraordinary evidence to refute this. Absent of such means the rational conclusion is to accept the existance of unicorns.




My opponent has presented an interesting case for the existence of Unicorns, now let me shred it apart.

My opponent has presented two philosophical arguments for the existence of unicorns, that can be used to posit any other fictional beast. As such if we are to believe these arguments then we also have to accept the evidence of a host of other ridiculous beast, characters etc. However, besides this obvious flaw the arguments themselves are flawed as I will demonstrate below.

The Ontological argument is flawed.

My opponent has presented two variations of the ontological arguments, so let me address premise one of both of these arguments and we will see that they are flawed. Please note, that if premise one is defeated then the argument that flows from it is defeated.

In the arguments my opponent assumes that " It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that The Invisible Pink Unicorn is a being than which none greater can be imagined." This is an assumption which I reject and everyone reading the debate should reject as there is no evidence for The Invisible Pink Unicorn existing. A such this truth cannot be valid without tangible evidence, this is also important as this being is getting attributed characteristics which need to be shown to be true. Remember if you accept this argument you also have to accept that.
" It is a conceptual truth that Superman is a being than which none greater can be imagined." Which is more valid as we have proof for Superman.(1)

In the second version my opponent assumes " It is possible that a maximally great unicorn exists.' Sure its possible, but I reject this claim without further evidence. When I make a claim that starts "it is possible", this needs to be verified with some credible evidence. For example if I say it is possible that dinosaurs dies due to multiple volcanic eruptions making the Earth uninhabitable, I need to prove that during that period there were in fact multiple volcanic eruptions.(2) Only then can we accept this as a possibility and even then it is a possibility and not a fact. However, when you are presenting a possibility with no supporting evidence then you are not even close to presenting a valid argument.

The Kalam argument is flawed.

My opponent also uses the Kalam argument for the existence for the Invisible Pink Unicorn, however as with this ontological argument it fails in its basic premises. My opponent again assumes that "Everything that begins to exist has a cause". No, this is not true if this was true then the Casmir effect would not be happen yet it does.(3) As such the first premise is defeated and the Kalam argument is defeated. My opponent may bring up the contention of this not truly been nothing, then my opponent needs to provide proof for this nothing that is different to the nothing in which the Casmir effect occurs.

The Other evidence

Lastly, my opponent say Unicorns existed and there is not on physical evidence (fossils) but also mythological and biblical evidence. First lets look at the fossil record which my opponent asserts exist, "We have limited examples of this species in the fossil record, which indicates that Unicorns only sustained minor populations." Unfortunately, my opponent did not provide any reference to this evidence and my searches provided non. As such I have to assume that there is none. Could my opponent please verify this for me in the next round.

Next If we are to believe my opponent that mythological and biblical accounts are to be true, then we also have to accept that the Egyptians chased the Israelites out of Egypt and that Zeus resides on Mount Olympus. These are both false statements that do hold up to scrutiny.(4,5) As such why should we accept Unicorns existed if they are mentioned in the Bible when there is no evidence that they existed other than the Bible.

Finally, my opponent uses the declining numbers of elephants and rhinoceroses to prove that Unicorns once existed. The reason for this is that Unicorn horn has magical properties. However, again like many times in this argument this is an assumption for which there is no evidence. The only evidence my opponent has presented comes from a fantasy website! This is like me saying Harry Potter is real by linking to the Leaky Cauldron.(6)

I hand the debate back to my opponent for closing arguments and final rebuttals.






Debate Round No. 3


Thanks Con.

Ontological Argument:
First my opponent attempted several appeals to ridicule, which I find rather weak and pulls into question the integrity of Con's rebuttal . I kindly ask voters to ignore such tactics. Both Ontological and Kalam are logically valid arguments, that being the case, if the premises are true, then the conclusion necessarily follows. Regardless of whether you like the conclusion or not. Therefore we need to assess the premises' plausibility in turn.

My opponent makes the remarkable concession:
"It is possible that a maximally great unicorn exists.' Sure its possible, but I reject this claim without further evidence"

But that is exactly the point! By granting the argument's other premises and in particular this one (of possibility), my opponent has effectively conceded the entire debate! If the Invisible Pink Unicorn is a metaphysical possibility to be the greatest being imaginable, then it follows it must exist in all metaphysically possible worlds.

When challenging the premises my opponent states:
"This is an assumption which I reject and everyone reading the debate should reject as there is no evidence for The Invisible Pink Unicorn existing."

Once again my opponent just reiterates his objection to the conclusion, not the premises! This is akin to me showing a murder tape recording and having Con reject it saying there's no evidence it was the person in the video!! This argument itself provides strong philosophical evidence for the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. The fact my opponent did not even attempt to address the direct point Con was quoting leads me to conclude Con actually accepts this premise, that
"It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that The Invisible Pink Unicorn is a being than which none greater can be imagined".

This just weakens Con's case.

My opponent's appeal to ridicule for Superman doesn’t work. As a being that fits the attributes I have given necessarily requires both conceptual (immaterial) and physical properties, otherwise it could not interact with both! Superman has purely material properties, and therefore is a poor candidate for the greatest possible being. Pro’s other appeals to ridicule also fail for similarly, which my opponent did not attempt to expand upon despite having ample character space in order to do so.

Kalam Cosmological Argument:

My opponent astonishingly attacks the first premise of the argument! In the process of doing do Con makes a gross equivocation of philosophical definition of 'nothing' (ex nihilo), and the current physicists definition of nothing. Let me bring up the definition of the Casimir Effect:

"The Casimir effect is a small attractive force that acts between two close parallel uncharged conducting plates. It is due to quantum vacuum fluctuations of the electromagnetic field."

The part I underlined & bolded is a big fat juicy 'something' (!). This something acts as a sufficient cause for these quantum fluxuations to occur. In other words my opponent has only reinforced my case for premise 1 in that even the smallest beginnings of existence require a cause!

My opponent would like me to prove that the nothing in the Casimir effect occurs within is different from the philosophical definition of nothing. Besides the obvious description of a field, let's have a quick look at the wiki definition of a Quantum Fluxuation:

"In quantum physics, a quantum vacuum fluctuation (or quantum fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space, as explained in Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle"

Which just reaffirms my previous point; you need space for quantum fluxuations to occur. As they by definition are a result of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty principle, which is a statement you can only know to a certain degree of precision, the momentum and location of anything. Both these properties require space, which thanks to relativity; we know is a very tangible something indeed.

Mammalian Unicorns:

When I was referring to the fossil record I was referring mostly to the evolution of horses and rhinos. Note that unicorns are morphologically very closely related to horses, and I provided a prediction of the intermediate form of the Rhino and Horse which was in line with what is reported in mythology.

I will expand on this reasoning mathematically:


U = # of Unicorns
t = time
UB = # of Unicorns born overall
Ub = # of Unicorns born per unicorn
d = Rate of change of...
LS = Lifespan

First we need to assume that the unicorn population was once at equilibrium. Given the large timescales involved and in the time before there was major human influence this is a reasonable assumption on ~10,000 year scales.

Second, we need to get the total population of unicorns that ever lived
U(totol) = dUB*t

Now we know the earliest unicorns existed was at most 8 MYa-1 MYa judging from the horse evolution fossil record.

Now, the fact there are no examples of the unicorn fossils in the record makes a prediction, which is that dUB must have been very low. Most animal populations achieve an equilibrium, so we can assume that dUB was largely constant over its period of time from the deduction

1. dU/dt = 0
2. dU/dt = dUB/dt - dUD/dt
3. 0 = dUB/dt - dUD/dt
4. dUB = dUD

This should hold true unless Con is going to argue unicorns being teleported away from Earth or something, which is absurd.

Now, for a population to go extinct, dUB/U is likely a relatively small figure. For if for example we started poaching rats (with a high dUB/U), we might reduce the population some, but their high reproductive rate per rat would easily accommodate any ecological pressure, therefore we can conclude that dUB/U is a small figure.
With this in hand, let's see how lifespan affects reproduction rate at equilibrium:

The total number of unicorns birthed by each unicorn is expressed as follows:
5. LS* dUb/dt=Ub

This is a simple rate*time = total, similar to velocity*time = distance

Given Ub can be assumed to remain roughly constant, a low reproduction rate predicts a high life span, and a long life span a low reproduction rate. Both directions of this prediction have been attested to by the lack of unicorn fossils and also the mythological attestatiosn to long lifespan.

Two independantly corroberating methods of determing this. Which further explaisn the already extremely rare fossilization process (all human fossils can be fit in the back of a large car), so it should be no surprise we don't have any direct fossil examples.

I have thoroughly demonstrated the existence of unicorns at some point in the past. A number of my arguments have gone unanswered, such as the Boltzmann Unicorn argument for one, and the intermediate form predictions for another.

I would like to thank my opponent for this great debate!

The resolution stands. Vote Pro!




Before I give my closing remarks I would like to thank my opponent for an entertaining and intellectually stimulating debate. I would never have thought it would be too difficult to debunk unicorn mythology. but you have done an excellent job. I would like to think I have done a better job on the Con side, but thats for the voters to decide.

I will now proceed with some rebuttals and then make some concluding remarks.

My opponent has claimed pink does not exist in the visible spectrum. If we use this same reasoning then there are a multitude of colors which do not exist as they are combinations of colors in the visible spectrum, such as white, magenta and black. This is used as proof for the existence of the invisible pink unicorn as light can interact with matter and according to my opponent "The creator of the universe is purely mental". Well yes, the creator is mental as this creator exists in my opponents mind, but that does not mean the creator exists anywhere else but my opponents mind. For this reason we can reject this argument until further evidence is provided that this deity lives outside of my opponents mind.

Where are the fossils my opponent said existed? This proof is still missing. My opponent has tried to skirt the issue by saying there should be fossils according to his theory. However, this theory should have more than just assumptions to be valid.

Was the Universe designed for us, or are we adapted for the universe? As evolution, and natural adaptation, is an established scientific theory there is no doubt that we certainly adapted to the universe. For this reason fine tuning arguments are void, they can only be valid when there is evidence that we were created and do not adapt to our surroundings.

With respect to my opponents multiverse explanation for unicorns, I have to say prove the multiverese theory. The multiverse theory is an untested theory. If the multiverse theory is correct, then all arguments for unicorns my opponent presented can follow from that, however we need to establish first that the multiverse theory is true. I will accept this argument at the same time my opponent receives his Nobel prize in physics when he proves the multiverse.

My opponents arguments for the Kalam and ontological arguments for the existence of the Pink Invisible Unicorn still rely on assumptions. The fact that I, and everyone else should, reject these claims as these assumptions are weak still holds. My opponent has very craftily sowed confusion into these arguments when responding to my rebuttals by playing on words, however word play is not going to make the arguments correct. The only thing that will make these arguments valid is scientific validation of the premises which is not forthcoming.

With regard to the Casmir effect, I previously stated "My opponent may bring up the contention of this not truly been nothing, then my opponent needs to provide proof for this nothing that is different to the nothing in which the Casmir effect occurs." My opponent never provided this evidence, instead my opponent showed that the only "nothing" we know is in fact the quantum vacuum thereby defeating his argument.

In conclusion I will say the following.

Mostly my opponent arguments (i.e. invisibility of the pink unicorn, lifespan of unicorns, Kalam, ontological etc.) rely on assumptions. The one argument that was meant supply real scientific evidence, i.e. fossils, was never presented. For this reason we should reject all my opponents arguments as they are assumptions with no proof to back up the claims.

As I showed in my opening statements, there is no possible way unicorns existed before. My opponent even agreed with me that these false unicorns are not the unicorn in question, yet no evidence has been provided to show other beasts/animals could have been the mythical unicorn.

I need to commend my opponent again, as by following the line of reasoning in this debate I have been forced to touch on subjects which may illicit an emotional response by voters. However, I have also shown that there is no scientific rational proof for the existence of unicorns and as such I should win this debate.

I now hand the debate over to the voters.
Debate Round No. 4
81 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
unbelievable. Sswdwm proved unicorns.
Posted by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 2 years ago
I didn't doubt it, although like you said keeping the front up for a while could have been fun.
Posted by Sswdwm 2 years ago
I feel a bit guilty about winning this however... As the format did not favor Con.

I set a small character limit and he couldn't rebut in the first round. Also I performed something of a Gish Gallop....
Posted by Sswdwm 2 years ago
Lol, just to clarify I don't think they ever exist, although I was hoping to maintain the suspension of disbelief for a bit longer...

The modal and Boltzmann arguments are actually legitimate methods of arguing for unicorns however... If the premises are true that is. Perhaps there is one universe where unicorns arose...
Posted by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 2 years ago
@ Shadow-Dragon: Its a good debate to show how illogical arguments for the existence of imaginary beings are often seen by some as true. That was the gist of the debate, and my opponent did well to prove a point. However, I don't want to put words in my opponents mouth.
Posted by Shadow-Dragon 2 years ago
Was this a joke debate? Did you both actually take it seriously?
I read some of the points and they weren't really actual evidence or proof of anything. I think the Pro pretty much thrived on the imagination of the voters and readers by saying that they could be invisible, but that doesn't prove that they are real. Con took the more logical viewpoint, but maybe people like to imagine that the Pro's points are plausible.
Posted by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 2 years ago
Nice, thanks for the debate. It was very enjoyable and I do think it got sufficient attention in the end, as from comments it seems multiple people did read it.
Posted by Sswdwm 2 years ago
*Triamphant Pose*
Posted by Fanath 2 years ago
Lol he won?
Posted by theOmniscient 2 years ago
They were actually eaten to extinciton by the inhabitants of the asian continent. But they had two horns, not one; the englishman who first illustrated them couln't see them very well through the trees.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
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: made strong arguments that con struggled to refute
Vote Placed by zmikecuber 2 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: In the end, it was the philosophical arguments that convinced me, particularly the ontological one. I think Pro did best with these, and they were presented best. Con made some ok rebuttals, but Pro dealt with them easily. So I have to give arguments to pro, since he did an excellent job showing unicorns. I only wish he had shown that the unicorn was a female, since that went assumed. Good debate to both. Quite enjoyable to read ;)
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did a good job of disregarding the philosophical evidence. Those arguments aren't tailored to unicorns anyway.the only valid argument pro had was the multiverse theory. I don't feel like the multiverse argument was sufficiently debunked. Pro did have 2 rounds of arguments and it was difficult to respond to absolutely every one and the evidence that remained wasn't that strong. So I'm awarding the win to pro, but I'm just doing it through the conduct point as I don't feel a full 3 points is justified. Good luck to both of you in future debates.