Wumbology is valid science

I accept, but since you didn't bother actually defining "Wumbology" or anything else, I'll do so now:

Wumbology: The study of all things Wumbo.
Wumbo: "The opposite of Mini". Direct definition from Spongebob Squarepants, season 3, episode 1, "Mermaidman and Barnacleboy IV": I wumbo. You wumbo. He- she- me... wumbo. Wumbo; Wumboing; We'll have thee wumbo; Wumborama; Wumbology; the study of Wumbo. It's first grade, Spongebob! [1]
Valid: having some foundation; based on truth [2]
Science: a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws. [3]

Now, considering "Wumbology" is just a fictional word made up by a fictional starfish, I think my opponent will have a tough time explaining how it in any way should be deemed as "valid science".

Man, I must be bored...

Sources:
[1] http://www.urbandictionary.com...
[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[3] http://dictionary.reference.com...

Reminds me of Monty Python's "is she a witch" argument:

P1: Witches burn.
P2: Wood burns.
P3: Wood floats.
P4: Ducks float.
C: If one weighs the same as a duck, she's a witch.

Anyway... let's take a look at my opponent's argument:

P1: Scientists study whales.
P2: Whales are big.
P3: Big is the opposite of mini.
P4: The opposite of mini is Wumbo.
C: By the transitive property, scientists study Wumbo.

What do these arguments have in common? They're both talking about fictional things, witches and Wumbology. The definitions of "Wumbology" and "Wumbo" exist only in the Spongebob Squarepants universe, not in any credible dictionary, so my opponent's fourth premise has no merit in the real world.

It should read "The opposite of mini is Wumbo according to Patrick Starfish". And what does that prove? Nothing, unless we include a premise "Everything Patrick Starfish says on TV is actually true" and agree with it for some reason, which we wouldn't.

My opponent needs actual evidence that Wumbology is more than just a fictional science. Otherwise, the resolution has not been proven.

I admit, I took a test to skip the first grade, but there were certainly no questions about "Wumbology" on it. Geography, maybe, but not Wumbology.

My opponent asserts the Spongebob universe is a part of the real world that we live in, but provides no evidence for this. As an alternative, much more likely theory, I propose that Spongebob Squarepants is nothing more than a fictional cartoon. Whether or not I can prove this is irrelevant, because the burden of proof here is not on me. The burden of proof is on my opponent to prove Spongebob and Patrick are real creatures but he has simply not done this.

My opponent tries to claim Patrick is a god by wrongly attributing a few properties to him. He says because Patrick can fly without the aid of wings or overly inflated pants, he must be omnipotent, but this doesn't even logically follow! Just because one has the ability to do one thing (ie, fly) does not mean he/she has the ability to do all things.

And need I remind him, and the audience, that in "Chocolate with Nuts" Patrick only said "I love you" to a complete stranger because he was trying to butter him up so he would buy some of the chocolate he was going door to door selling? This clearly proves that Patrick is a deceitful, sociopathic creature who uses people by lying about being in love with them just to make some cash. Can we really trust such a starfish's promise about the existence of "Wumbology", especially when it's unsupported by literally every dictionary on the planet?

The defense rests.