Instigator / Pro
7
1683
rating
59
debates
69.49%
won
Topic

Resolved: It is illogical and impractical to oppose that which does not exist.

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
3
0
Sources points
2
0
Spelling and grammar points
1
1
Conduct points
1
1

With 1 vote and 5 points ahead, the winner is ...

fauxlaw
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Philosophy
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
15,000
Contender / Con
2
1523
rating
14
debates
57.14%
won
Description
~ 1,903 / 5,000

Resolved: It is illogical and impractical to oppose that which does not exist.
That which does not exist has no features to oppose, that is, no element to negate, and no presence to ignore. It is both illogical and impractical to oppose such a non-entity/object.

Definitions:

Illogical: Ignorance or negligence of the principles of sound reasoning

Impractical: The lack of discipline in which ideas are not tested or applied in practice

Oppose: To confront with hard questions; to interrogate, question; occasionally to accuse

Non-existence: The lack of a state or property of having objective reality

Debate protocol:

Rounds 1, 2: Argument, rebuttal, defense

Round 3: No new argument, rebuttal, defense, conclusion

All argument, defense, rebuttal, and sourcing will be listed within the context of the debate argument rounds only, except sourcing may also be listed within comments within the debate file to conserve maximum space for argumentation, but only during the argumentation’s three rounds. Neither participant may consult with any person associated with DART to serve as a sourced citation as a feature of participant’s argument.

No waived rounds. No more than one round may be forfeited, or forfeiture of entire debate will result. Concession in any round is a debate loss.

Rounds 1 & 2 will contain arguments, rebuttals, and defenses, plus 3rd round rebuttal, defense, and/or conclusion, but no new argument in in R3. No declaration of victory will be made but in the 3rd round. No declaration of assumption of the opponent’s concession or forfeit in any round. These conditions will be obvious to voters.

Arguments, rebuttals, defenses, or conclusions may not address voters directly for voting suggestions beyond statement of validity for arguments, et al, made in all rounds. A last [third] round appeal to voters may be made to request a vote in favor of a participant.

Round 1
Pro
Resolved: It is illogical and impractical to oppose that which does not exist.
 
I Argument: Introduction
I.a That which does not exist has no features to oppose, that is, no element to negate, and no presence to ignore. It is both illogical and impractical to oppose such a non-entity/object.

I.b One can certainly claim to oppose that which does not exist, but the exercise of opposition is a wasted effort because the effort of opposition will not alter the original non-extant condition of the opposed entity/object. Therefore, both energy and time expended on the opposition are wasted.

II Argument: the illogic and impracticality of wasted energy
II.a Given the resolution, as quoted above, it does not matter the subject of non-existence. One could be considering the existence of God, or the existence of the technology of “beaming”[1]  a living human from a planet’s surface to the starship orbiting that planet, or any subject in between.

II.b As stated in argument I.a, above, when an entity/object does not exist, and therefore has no features nor elements of extant matter and/or energy [the which are interchangeable according to Einstein’s Theory of Relativity][2],  the energy expended to oppose that entity/object is totally wasted because none of the expended energy results in a satisfactory conclusion. That is, the balance of value for the expense has no significant cipher above zero for any unit of measure. Further, since matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed,[3]energy expended in a fruitless exercise results in nothing gained when there is no measurable value for the expense.

III Argument: the illogic and impracticality of wasted time
III.a Furthering the argument of II, above, the factor of time is likewise wasted in the exercise of opposing that which does not exist. Non-existence is a negative factor, and logic dictates that attempting to prove a negative is fruitless. This is an argument of burden of proof, which will be explored separately below. Since time is a measureable factor in the passage of seconds, minutes, etc., attempting to prove a negative is, itself, a waste of time regardless of the measure of time’s passage.

IV Argument: Fiction is not synonymous with non-reality
IV.a Fiction is defined by the OED as: “A statement or narrative proceeding from mere invention.”  However, there is a relevant feature of fiction that cannot be totally ignored as existing only in the relative realm of objective non-reality. That feature is called “Suspension of disbelief.” This is defined as: The concept that to become emotionally involved in a narrative, audiences must react as if the characters are real and the events are happening now, even though they know it is ‘only a story.’”[4] 

IV.b According to Scientific American,  Although we know a fair amount about the brain activity linked with reading, no one has isolated the mechanisms tied specifically to suspension of disbelief. Yet we can extrapolate how the brain behaves on a more general level.”[5]

IV.c The practical application of the suspension of disbelief use in fiction [for it is not needed at all in non-fiction] is this:  “It isn't that we stop disbelieving—it's that we believe two inconsistent things. We accept that we are sitting and reading or watching a movie. We also believe or, more accurately, feel that what we are reading or viewing is happening.”[6]  If it is happening, even by mere belief, “fiction,” by its definition, is suspended by no more magical means than are our dreams relegated to absolute fiction since we know and can measure physical, bodily reaction to the elements of dream sleep. Nor can we awaken from some dreams without thought that tendrils of the dream condition continue into consciousness, causing at least mental, and sometimes even physical reaction to the dream condition.

IV.c.1 “People often dismiss their dreams as nonsense, but in fact we undergo the same biophysical processes when we’re asleep as when we’re awake. In other words, dreams affect our physical and mental health the same as waking experience does. And, likewise, dreams can reveal truths about both your mental health and your physical health. Nightmares may indicate that you’re sick, for example. Vivid dreaming may point to sleep deprivation, low blood sugar, or pregnancy.”[7]   In like manner, as noted above in IV.c, we physically react to fiction.

IV.d The success of suspension of disbelief is due more to the skill of the author to create the phenomenon of suspension than to the ability of the reader to experience it, although the reader must be willing to allow the effect its influence.[8] In no wise can a reader be solely responsible for the effect, and in concert, it is not effective unless the author can weave a tale so skillfully, the reader may, in fact, be unable to distinguish fact from fiction. This is why suspension of disbelief is an easier process to accept if the reader is a child, who has not yet experienced enough to recognize the distinction.

V Argument: The Burden of Proof
V.a “Why is it that few people seem to have problems with the burden of proof when it comes to the innocence or guilt of a murder suspect, but then cannot apply the same exact logic to more esoteric issues, such as the existence of ghosts, gods, and the like?”  ---Massimo Pigliucci, 2010[9]

V.b When a person claims X is true, that person owns the burden of proof to offer evidence that another person “can and should” examine before accepting the claim.[10]  The burden of proof rightly belongs to the person making any claim. Therefore, it follows that “…experience should instruct every thinking human that there is a high probability that not everything that people claim to be true is actually true.”[11]

V.c The same burden of proof must belong to a person claiming X is not true, but is made all the more difficult, and wasteful, when the task borne is to prove a negative, thus supports the resolution, It is illogical and impractical to oppose that which does not exist.”
 
 
I rest my case for round 1.
 
 

Con
Thanks fauxlaw. For my con case, I will argue that it's simple to see from impacts analysis why it's both logical and practical to oppose something that doesn't exist.

1. Flat Earth and Misinformation

It needs no saying that flat earth does not exist. One needs to look no further than Pythagoras's proof way back in the age of the Greeks, and the absurdity to continue his legacy thousands of years in the future across a global spectrum -- if the Greek philosopher was lying. Yet many think that Flat Earth is true. Is it illogical and impractical to oppose this misinformation? I say no. By reducing misinformation, you allow people to make better decisions and act in a better way. For example, if no one opposed flat earth, and Pythagoras's believers gave in, our flight times would be drastically increased by following the flight paths given by the flat earth model. The vast costs incurred would wreck havoc on a majority of airline companies. Not only so, the entirely of physics would fall flat on its face, as people would wonder why they can still walk relatively easily around Antarctica (contrary to the disk model), and all time zones would act very strangely given the properties of the sun. Exploring other planets would be more difficult given the flat earth model, and NASA might waste massive budget trying to discover the "other side" of flat earth. As you can see, by opposing the non-existent flat earth, we allow scientists and workers alike to continue be well informed and execute practical work based on the reality of spherical earth.

2. Symbolic representation

Though many fictional stories are non-existent (Harry Potter, My Little Pony, etc.) Pro notes that we generally do not oppose them. However, there are countless stories that *are* opposed. My favorite is the debate over the button that can revive a brain dead loved one to perfect health. At first it seems absurd to oppose this idea -- human lives have value, and it seems like a no-brainer to revive the loved one. However, practically speaking this brings attention to overpopulation problem existing in real life. Not only so, one may think over the inability to move on, and how the loved one's memory lives on after death. By refusing to revive your loved one, you respect their freedom to die (assuming they died of their own free will). As the life-and-death matter is no straight forward problem, it's clear to see how the revival button can tell us a lot about human philosophy, the ways of living, and moving on after someone has died. By bringing a seemingly absurd situation to the table, we are able to think more clearly about regular situations as well.

3. Prepare for the Future

There are many specific policies and implementations that do not exist yet, for example, implementing an assault rifle ban in the US, colonization of Mars in the future, so on and so forth. But without opposition of such policies, it seems to me that we would be forever changing the status quo to an arbitrary standard. For example, let us say my opponent concedes that "complete ban of guns in the US" is something that is non-existent. He would think it impractical and illogical to oppose this non-existent policy. So I say, hey, why not implement it? He might begin thinking of all the ways it would be ridiculous to actually implement. How would we take away guns from the people? Wouldn't criminals still be able to produce guns illegally? And would the ban of guns violate the second amendment, one of American's believed crucial rights? Indeed, even if Pro bites the bullet and says "I don't care, do it", the reverse situation will then occur. After we implement a complete ban of guns, the "allowance of all guns in the US" is now non-existent, and pro is back to either allowing an arbitrary shift of policies, confusing the public and hogging up the legislature. Clearly, we must oppose some policies that do not yet exist, because they cause severe problems and issues. Even if we eventually shift towards that policy, that does not give us excuse to willy nilly change our minds and shift the legislature back and forth like a swing. Nothing important would ever be accomplished if Pro accepts that we can adopt any contradictory policies at any time. 
Round 2
Pro
Resolved: It is illogical and impractical to oppose that which does not exist.
 
I Rebuttal: Misinformation
I.a Con argued first in R1 that opposing, for example, a flat earth theory would prevent our disastrous acceptance of such phenomena, which would otherwise cause excessive cost and mayhem. Such a disastrous result is undoubtedly true. However, Con ignores that a flat earth has discernable features, such as its shape: flat. Con argues that such a condition as a flat earth is not correct. And Con is correct. But a non-existent flat earth implies that its very shape is a non sequitur.My R1 arg I.b: “One can certainly claim to oppose that which does not exist, but the exercise of opposition is a wasted effort because the effort of opposition will not alter the original non-extant condition of the opposed entity/object.”

I.b It is at least illogical to argue a non-extant condition of earth. Otherwise, to expend time and energy to argue to prevent making adjustments to such a condition as a flat earth is absurd because there is more than just flight schedules, and the alteration of time itself in a flat earth scenario. As Con alluded to, without further exploration [why bother, indeed?] our very science of physics is upset. 

I.c What is alarming is that among Briton Millennials [born 1981 – 1996, approximately – British population about 10M as of 2019[1]], the surveyed percentage of them reaches a reported 3% who are willing to accept a flat earth condition. More alarming, an additional 14% report not knowing for sure either way.[2]The survey does not report the attitude of the 14% “not sure/don’t know,” but on other subjects conducted in the survey, and further analyzed by Scientific American, some among these 14% simply do not care one way or the other.[3]

I.d With such low percentages of flat-earth believers, it is highly doubtful that the rest of us would agree to alterations of our schedules, our clocks, our building codes, etc., on the beliefs of so few.

I.e Such a misinformation effort by so few participants in a non-extant condition is not a logical, nor practical effort, particularly when those of us still around who are older, ostensibly wiser, and certainly of greater experience than Millennials only cause a drop in the percentage of flat-earth believers: only 1% of early Gen-X believe a flat-earth scenario [about 8.5M in Great Britain].[4],[5]  Therefore, Con’s argument is neither logical[the flat-earth model does not compare with observable physics relative to the Earth system], nor practical[what? Establish social engineering on the basis of an unpopular theory?]. The resolution holds. 

II Rebuttal: Symbolism
II.a Con argues his second point in R1 is the story that a button can revive brain-dead loved ones. I argued in R1, IV.a that while reading a story, or watching a movie, for example, we are, in context of the story, able to engage suspension of disbelief such that, in the context of the story, we can believe it is really happening. I further argued in R1, IV.c that, in the context of the story, “It isn't that we stop disbelieving—it's that we believe two inconsistent things. We accept that we are sitting and reading or watching a movie. We also believe or, more accurately, feel that what we are reading or viewing is happening.”[6]  The point here is context: within the context of the story, by suspension of disbelief, we believe the button has this miraculous power. But outside the context of the story, that is, when we are no longer in the story, the rationale of its fiction should, and usually, for most adults, does put the story in its proper place: it is fiction.

II.b Con argued that believing the story would lead to the over-population myth. Well, outside of the context of the story, the button does not exist. Therefore, by its non-extant condition, the button, which does not exist, will hardly cause the effect of over-population, which, itself, is another fiction. Quite simply, one can calculate the population of earth, its available land and resources, and conclude that an excessive population is not defined even by 7.8 billion people on earth. The Earth has 510M km2of total surface area, of which 149M km2 is total landmass, of which approximately 133 M km2is habitable.[7]. Further, it is known that 90% of the world’s population inhabits 10% of the habitable landmass.[8]. Finally, it is known that of the habitable landmass, 14.6 M km2is presently cultivated.[9]  This leaves 105 M km2uninhabited, while habitable. Finally, consider that, given the landmass of the United States with 330M in population, 47% of the U.S. remains totally uninhabited.[10]  Yes, there are some uninhabitable regions, but they do not account even half of the 47%. We do not have a world population and resource crisis; we have a world population and resource distribution problem. There’s a difference. Therefore, Con’s Symbolism argument is illogical [the story remains plausible only in the context of the story] and impractical[we do not have an over-population crisis]. The resolution holds.

III Rebuttal: Future preparation
III.a Con’s third R1 argument offers future preparation of currently nonexistent policies such as implementing an assault rifle ban, and colonizing Mars. My rebuttal by the numbers:

III.a.1 Assault rifle ban: How do we establish a banning policy when a concise, agreeable definition of “assault rifle” escapes us? Some equate the term to “military arms,” but the AR15, for example, a popular ban target, is not and was not used by the U.S. military. Further, in spite of Con’s argument of my presumed commentary on a ban, my rebuttal is more simple, and expansive, than “assault rifles,” whatever they are. Guns are sophisticated tools. Other tools can be implemented as killing devices should a ubiquitous gun ban be imposed. A knife, for example. So, do we ban knives; even butter knives? What then? A spoon can kill. Do we ban spoons? That argument can be carried throughout the plethora of tools we commonly own and use for completely different purposes than human killing. Do we ban tire irons, a popular Perry Mason series murder tool? Thumbs can kill. Do we ban thumbs? This argument, you see, enters the realm of reductio ad absurdum;carrying an argument to absurdity, or contradiction. Or, in two words: the absurdity of a ban whose aim is nothing but to prevent human killing overwhelms the suggestion to implement it. Therefore, it is, and the two words are: illogical and impractical,  per the resolution. The resolution holds.

III.a.2 Mars colonization. Con suggests this is not yet U.S. policy, therefore, a nonexistent object. Au contraire, mon ami.  Mars exploration and colonization is already a NASA policy.[11]That there are yet technology obstacles in the way, notwithstanding, the policy holds. After all, perhaps not within Con’s lifetime, but certainly in mine, President John Kennedy established our Moon exploration policy by NASA on May 25, 1961,[12]a mere nine years before we accomplished the task on July 20, 1969, without having the technology to achieve it in 1961. Rest assured, and as cited, Mars exploration and colonization is current NASA policy, and, therefore, it exists in principle even if the fait accomplis  is still a future event. Con’s argument of future consideration is, therefore, according to the resolution, illogical[the policy exists] and impractical [our history shows lack of technology is a matter of time to overcome, not a question of ability]. The resolution holds.

IV Defense / Argument: “Shifting the burden of proof”[13]
IV.1 In my R1, arg V, I introduced, by citation, the argument that few people seem to have problems with the burden of proof when it comes to the innocence or guilt of a murder suspect, but then cannot apply the same exact logic to more esoteric issues, such as the existence of ghosts, gods, and the like?”  ---Massimo Pigliucci, 2010[14]   Con countered in his R1,  “…by opposing the non-existent flat earth, we allow scientists and workers alike to continue to be well informed and execute practical work based on the reality of spherical earth,”  and“By bringing a seemingly absurd situation to the table, we are able to think more clearly about regular situations as well,  and“Nothing important would ever be accomplished if Pro accepts that we can adopt any contradictory policies at any time.”
 
IV.a.1 The three conclusions Con draws are examples of attempt to shift the burden of proof to Pro, to wit,   “The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of  argumentum ad ignorantium,is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.” 

IV.a.1.A Argumentum ad ignorantium:  “The fallacy that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proven false. Also known as an appeal to ignorance.”[15]. Looking at Con’s three arguments [R1], and my three rebuttals [R2, I, II, III, above], is Con’s effort an appeal to ignorance. How?

IV.a.2 First, Con’s flat-earth opposition assumes opposition to a non-existent condition of earth is necessary for scientists to maintain that which is the factual condition of earth. An appeal to ignorance.

IV.a.3 Second, Con’s argument of the button alleges to encourage an over-population condition, which is evidenced to be a non-crisis, therefore, false. An appeal to ignorance.

IV.a.4 Third, Con’s argument of gun control and Mars colonization are evidenced to be, A, false by argument of reductio ad absurdum,  and, B, a true, extant policy, after all. Both, then, are false arguments. Therefore, an appeal to ignorance.

IV.b However, there is another feature of shifting the burden of proof that must be explored, and it is best explored by using the example of the attempt to prove a negative, such as, coincidentally, “You cannot prove that there is no God.” Other than the logical fallacy of attempting to prove a negative, this statement, made by a theist to an atheist, is a double-edged sword because it is a double negative. Ignoring that grammatical fallacy, let’s look strictly at its philosophic property.

IV.b.1 First of all, the statement made is going to typically be a response by a theist to the following from an atheist: “You cannot prove that there is a God.” In effect, the discussion ends with the reply by the theist, stated above, IV.b. It’s a classic “he said, she said” without evidence from either side. With no more, were this a legal matter before the court, the court would rightly toss the case as jurisdictionally unresolvable.

IV.b.2 Second, then, “Proof, logic, reason, [critical] thinking, and knowledge pertain to and deal only with that which exists. They cannot be applied to that which does not exist. Nothing can be relevant or applicable to the non-existent.”[16]  Therefore, “You cannot prove that there is no God,” being a forced question of proving a negative, has nothing to offer by way of logical argument. To refute it, in essence, is related to Parmenides’ 5thcentury BCE argument, “(Greek: οὐδὲν ἐξ οὐδενός; Latin: ex nihilo nihil fit).” In English: “Nothing comes from nothing.” While Parmenides was speaking to the creation of Earth, the linkage is obvious in relation to the attempt to prove a negative. The same is true in the attempt to prove a false condition, which is the sum of the Argumentum ad ignorantium,  or, in other words, the shift of burden of proof.

I rest my case for round 2.
 
 
 



Con
With argument 1, pro misses out on my point that we should educate people on issues which they may not know the truth of. On a more controversial topic, creationism is taught by many schools despite the non existent proof of it. Pro does not refute the fact that we should oppose flat earth, only that it is not practically a significant issue. If we fail to address ignorance of knowledge, informed consent may be a bigger problem, for example with donating organs.

With argument 2, pro misses out on my crux that a button that can revive your loved one speaks volumes about moving on with your life and the value of your memory. Extend this argument. Similarly, even imaginary scenarios are often used to topple morality theories, for example, the trolley problem, which rarely exists in a form so simple in real life. Tough situations prove the logical gaps in moral philosophies, whether true or false.

With argument three, pro points out the slippery slope of banning guns, but he is actually arguing against a non existent policy! By his logic it is impractical and illogical to refute my argument. Therefore his refutation holds very little weight. Would he somehow consider the non existence of abortion ban within US worth talking about? All the while saying nothing about the developing countries’ non existent **allowance of abortion in all circumstances**? My point is, policies contradict each other, and opposing point of views are worth considering even if they may be the future or only implemented by another’s country. Pro says Mars’ colonization exists. What about Saturn? What about another far away planet? Should we only focus on the present and forget about the future? The suggestion seems to be absurd to me.
Round 3
Pro
Resolved: It is illogical and impractical to oppose that which does not exist.
 
I Rebuttal: Education
I.a Con alleges I have not answered his argument of educating the ignorant, as if the answer to that concern is a valid argument against the resolution. I remind Con of my rebuttal in my R1, I.b: “One can certainly claim to oppose that which does not exist, but the exercise of opposition is a wasted effort because the effort of opposition will not alter the original non-extant condition of the opposed entity/object.”  What has this to do with education? One may be ignorant of a flat earth proposition. That person can be educated with the result that they understand the proposition. They may become an expert on the subject and teach others. That’s the value and consequence of education, yes? Fine, our ignorant friend can now lecture extemporaneously on flat earth theory. But does that resolve the problem that it will not alter the original non-extant condition of the opposed entity/object?  Con has not argued that it does, therefore, the BoP remains with Con to prove that, somehow, against logic and practicality, with education, the ignorant person, now educated, can now prove that we inhabit a flat earth. Since Pro has failed to date to demonstrate that opposing the argument against the non-extant condition of a flat earth is logical and practical. I so challenge Con to do so, only, as earlier noted, Con made no argument in R2, and there can be no R3 argument, only rebuttal, defense, and/or conclusion. 

II Rebuttal: Button, button, who has the burden of proof?
II.a Con engages in an attempt to shift the Burden of Proof by such exercises as raising the matters of flat earth, the button, gun control, Mars colonization, and now, in R2, donating organs, and abortion ban. I might add that Con’s sole argument in favor of opposing non-existence is a matter of overcoming ignorance, because considering all six suggested subjects by Con, only flat earth and the button are fully non-existent things. In all other cases, these are existing conditions and policies. Therefore, they do not meet the resolution standard of non-existence, and, therefore, opposing these extant conditions is not illogical or impractical. 

II.b I could even argue that Con’s “button” factor is extant in this regard: resurrection. I know, I know, I have no empiric evidence of such, so I will not argue the point further, other than saying that the hope of such a consequence after death is a comfort to millions upon millions around the world, and, therefore, meets Con’s argument threshold of allowing us “moving on after someone has died.”

III Rebuttal: “The trolley problem,” and other morality tales
III.a Apparently extending his failed argument of “moving on” with the “button,” which I have rebutted in R2, II.a, II.b, and I.b.2.E, above, Con alleges in R2, “Similarly, even imaginary scenarios are often used to topple morality theories, for example, the trolley problem, which rarely exists in a form so simple in real life. Tough situations prove the logical gaps in moral philosophies, whether true or false.”  

III.a.1 May I ask, not expecting to receive a sufficient reply, what, exactly, is “the trolley problem,” and what it may have in context to the resolution, since trolleys are existent things, and, therefore, do not fit the resolution? I say I do not expect a sufficient reply, because Con is now forbidden, by the debate protocol established, from offering further argument in R3. By merely raising the subject of trolleys, without offering a relevant argument about the morality theories it is claimed to contain, and how they relate to the resolution, does not give license to do so in R3. Sorry. That protocol exists, and, therefore must stand. Although Con argues that the trolley problem is exemplar of “imaginary scenarios,” I have already demonstrated, without rebuttal, that fiction is not synonymous with non-reality [R1, IV], and is therefore outside the parameter of the resolution, being restricted to non-existent entities/things. Therefore, the entire effort by Con to include a trolley argument fails.

IV Rebuttal: Shifting the BoP, revised
IV.a  Lastly, Con’s R2 argument says, “With argument three, pro points out the slippery slope of banning guns, but he is actually arguing against a non existent policy!”  Exclamation. Fitting, because, exclaimed, or not, Con ignores that the policy banning guns does have examples currently in force, to wit [by State]:[i]
1.    AK: a person must certify qualification to own a gun AS 18.65.810
2.    AZ: a person must certify qualification to own a gun  ARS 13-3121
3.    AR: a person must certify qualification to own a gun  5-73-112
4.    CA: Cannot own an assault weapon §30500, §30515
5.    CT: Cannot own certain specified assault weapons CGS 53-202
 
IV.a.1Virtually every state has various bans like these examples, and others. Therefore, gun bans do currently exist in the United States by law. No, they do not universally ban all guns, but that is not the argument. That argument takes us back to absolutes, and the resolution does not ask for absolutes, does it?  There are extant gun bans of specified kinds. Therefore, Con’s argument fails because it does not meet the parameters of the resolution: non-existence, and lack of both logic and practicality.

IV Rebuttal: “What about Saturn”
IV.a Con concludes his R2 argument asking that if a Mars colonization policy exists, “…what about Saturn?”I suppose that argument could continue down a rabbit hole to this or that other planet, another star system, perhaps a black hole[?], but it is the same reductio ad absurdum  I argued in R2, III.a.1 on gun control,and Argumentum ad ignorantium:  “The fallacy that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proven false. Also known as an appeal to ignorance”  In my R2, IV.a.1.A on shifting burden of proof. I will still ask: has Con made a valid argument sustaining the proposition that opposing a Saturn colonization policy is not illogical and impractical? No. But he is, by shifting burden of proof, asking me to prove that it is an illogical and impractical argument. I have already done so with the Mars colonization example. I will not describe the argument because I did not raise the argument, it is my R3, and I am prohibited from making such argument. Since Con brought up the subject of a non-existing policy of Saturn colonization, it was his burden to prove the argument would be logical and practical in his R2. Con made no such argument and cannot now offer it in R3. Case closed.

V Rebuttal: What is the resolution argument: an absolute should not, or just illogical and impractical?
V.a Con makes the error in R2 of assuming the resolution states that one must not oppose that which does not exist, as if the resolution is an ultimatum; an absolute. He states, “Pro does not refute the fact that we should oppose flat earth, only that it is not practically a significant issue.”  But that is not what the resolution states, either. I have repeated it again above. Pro is correct; I do not refute the absolute that we should oppose a flat earth. I only say that arguing such is illogical and impractical.    The resolution does not propose absolute conditions; it does not propose mandates. This is not a debate of absolutes. One certainly can oppose non-extant entities/things, but, I do not need to argue the point of an absolute. I argue that the result of such opposition is senseless and unworkable. It is spurious and unserviceable. It is unreasonable. All synonymous with, respectively, illogic and impracticality.

V.b Con then argues that “If we fail to address ignorance of knowledge, informed consent may be a bigger problem.”  Yes, informed consent – whatever that is; it is certainly not a subject mentioned in the resolution, and, therefore, is not defined in the context of the resolution – ignorance of knowledge may, indeed, be a factor of concern, but ignorance is not a subject of the debate resolution, either.

V.b.1 In the fashion Pro is presenting his argument, his is saying, literally, as in R2, “Would [Pro] somehow consider the non-existence of abortion ban in the U.S. worth talking about?”  On first pass, Pro would reply to Con’s abortion question, “Let’s consider that Con is really asking a “for-instance” query; an exemplary subject that may have relevance only in recognizing that the resolution is really void of any particular subject, but, rather, allows any subject to be questioned in debate that is currently non-existent. It is true, an abortion ban is, relatively speaking, non-existent, but one cannot say abortion is banned entirely. In that understanding, Pro would have to reply, in keeping with the resolution: No, Pro would not consider such a subject worth talking about within the context of the debate, because an abortion ban does not exist. As the resolution speaks only to non-existent subjects as being illogical and impractical to oppose, it is to Con to prove that an abortion ban opposition is not illogical and impractical. I have nothing to say on the matter beyond the resolution, and the arguments I have raised in R1 and R2, describing why a non-existent subject is illogical and impractical to oppose.

V.b.2 Con may wish to argue [only he cannot] that abortion bans do exist: there are partial birth abortions, conducted, illegally, or not. But existence falls outside the resolution, so, the conduct of it is not arguable.

V.b.2 I have offered, in R1 and R2, a total of four arguments supporting the resolution:

V.b.2.A Such opposing arguments against non-existence is a waste of energy.

V.b.2.B Such opposing arguments against non-existence is a waste of time.

V.b.2.C Fiction is not synonymous with non-reality due to suspension of disbelief.

V.b.2.D  The Burden of Proof must overcome the argument that  “there is a high probability that not everything that people claim to be true is actually true.”[ii]

V.c Further, Con has, to date, dropped defense of the following arguments I rebutted in my R2:

V.c.1 Con’s R1 argument of misinformation, and my R2 rebuttal I.a – I.e.

V.c.2 Con’s R1 argument of over-population as a possible response to not believing a story, and my R2, II.b rebuttal that over-population is a myth was dropped in his R2.

V.c.3 Con has dropped my R2, IV argument of shifting burden of proof as a Con tactic to be absolved of BoP regarding flat earth [my IV.a.2], the button [my IV.a.3], and guns/Mars [my IV.a.4].

 V.d Con has not addressed any of these issues, identified in my R3, I through V.c. I therefore conclude that Con has not met his BoP to satisfactorily argue that opposition to non-existing entities/things is both logical and practical. Therefore, Con’s rounds have failed to rebut the resolution. 

I rest my case and ask for your vote.

Con
With regards to flat earth, Pro misses my point about teaching others about misinformation. I have given a big impact analysis by opposing the flat earth, especially Pythagoras's spark in the very beginning. If there was no opposition, there would be severe economic costs and lack of progress in physics. Pro has failed to refute this.

As for the revival button, pro proves my point. If we assume that everyone had this button, "hope of such a consequence after death is a comfort to millions upon millions around the world, and, therefore, meets Con’s argument threshold of allowing us “moving on after someone has died.”" As you can see, by assuming absurd situations (opposing the revival button), we can prove meaning of real life situations.

Pro claims to lack knowledge of trolley problem -- that is an issue on his part, not mine. I presumed it well known common knowledge that the trolley problem (killing one to save five) was famous when talking about Kantian theory and Utilitarianism. He thinks that we have the suspension of disbelief within imaginary scenarios, but that doesn't mean we should stop doubting the flaws within these scenarios. 

Pro claims that I cannot offer the Saturn argument in the same vein as the Mars colonization's existence, but makes no offer to differentiate these two policies. Therefore it must be at least worth considering the Saturn colonization and try to over turn it, lest we delve too much resources to other planets to make the decision to go to Mars first. Pro goes into granular arguments and tries to argue that he is not talking about a universal ideal, but all my examples have been overarching generalizations that challenge Pro's thought process. Why would we allow gun ban in California, but when talking about complete gun ban in America, Pro actually begins countering it, despite the federal gun ban being non-existent? There's clearly arguments in favor for this non-existent policy. And in the contrary, we still have the non-existent of "complete allowance of guns in California", proving my point that policies contradict each other and we must oppose some of them in order to think of which policy has the best impacts and more benefits. Otherwise, any debate that opposes the status quo would be illogical and impractical by Pro's logic. This is clearly absurd.

Over this entire debate I have given many strong impacts of opposing non-existent theories. We prevent misinformation among the masses, and encourage people to make the right decisions and actions. Using symbolism, we can allude to greater values such as the value of life, the value of memory, and the message of moving on with your life (as shown by opposing the non-existent Resurrection Button). And finally, there are always policies that are currently non-existent, but may be implemented in the future. Pro has conceded that there may be fruitful debates about banning abortion in US -- despite its non existence, or allowing abortion in developing countries -- despite its non existence. Vote for con.