Intelligent Design cannot be disproven.

:) My opponent has tried his best to ignore the fact that he has the burden of proof because he knows that because of that he will lose this debate. "1) The resolved is a double negative. It is the same as 'Intelligent Design can be proven'" Wrong. The debate says that Intelligent Design cannot be disproven. It could also be unable to be proven. Right now, I cannot disprove that you are wearing a hat. Does that mean that I can prove that you are wearing a hat? No. Therefore, you cannot apply double-negative logic to the resolution." No! I see you trying to pull a fast one there. 'Cannot disprove' is not the same as 'unable to prove'. It's actually 'unable to disprove.' :) First of all, as Pro and the Instigator, you're the one in the first place that made the claim that intelligent design cannot be disproven in the first place. Just because you say you don't have the burden of proof doesn't mean anything. The resolution does not imply that I have the burden of proof. ""2) As Pro and the Instigator, you have the burden of proof" Wrong again. For one thing, I specified that you would have burden of proof. For another thing, the resolution implies that CON would have the burden of proof." Sorry pal. It doesn't matter if you say I have the burden of proof, what matters is the resolved and the resolved only. The resolved doesn't imply I have the burden of proof because I never said that intelligent design cannot be disproven. You did it. And right now your being a hypocrite. http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... Fellow voters, do a CTRL F and type in 'burden.' Also, you should read the first of the comments. This dude thinks he can get away with making stuff up (as far as burden of proof rules go). :) ""3) I need not put forth any logic, science, or experiment disproving intelligent design until you prove it valid. Otherwise, your argument will be one based off of negative proof and therefore will be fallicious and invalid." Wrong, yet again. This debate requires for you to disprove Intelligent Design. My argument is for the possibility of Intelligent Design." Other way around pal. As you clearly bear the burden of proof, you must show how intelligent design cannot be disproven. I can simply offer the possibility of it being able to be disproven. Hey, you made the claim. I don't know who you think you are trying to play around with burden of proof rules. http://en.wikipedia.org... Not only you made the claim but you have yet to present evidence. "4) In its self, the resolved is the same as 'The existence of fairies can be proven.' In order to be valid it needs evidence." Wrong. It would be, "Faries[sic] cannot be disproven." The only way to negate the resolution would be for you to disprove fairies. If fairies can neither be proven nor disproven, then they obviously can't be disproven." Ok, I'll let it be fairies cannot be disproven. You would still have to present evidence as to HOW. The burden of proof is on you Ok to save space I'll shorten my copies of your arguments. "5) You can't play the agnostic card here...... Wrong. You carry the burden of proof, because I'm saying that you can't disprove something." Still playing with burden of proof rules. You made the claim buddy. You said that intelligent design couldn't be disproven. You don't show how. "6) Merely rebutting my arguments isn't enough to affirm the resolution. You have to put forth evidence as well since you bear the burden of proof." Wrong. You bear the burden of proof. The only way to prove that something can't be disproven is to point out a failure in disproving it." :( This is getting annoying as heck. Who made the claim? "7) You can't just uphold one aspect of your assertion and believe that you win by default Wrong. I don't need any contentions. I'm here to say that you can't disprove Intelligent Design. If I show how your proofs are flawed, and you don't actually disprove Intelligent Design, then I have done my part, and would win the debate." Nope. You need to uphold all your points because according to you "Intelligent Design cannot be disproven." And worse, I bet my opponent is going to keep on with this nonsense, instead of actually offering proof for intelligent design. As far as all of my rebuttals, he will never say how they're wrong, he will just keep saying "no your wrong." Let me ask you this: Can intelligent design be proven? I like triple dog dare my opponent to answer that question. Anyway, lets get to the real debating (hopefully no more throwing rocks at me without actually making a case) Arguments: "1) Lack of imagination 2) Argument of ignorance 3) Negative proof However, this does nothing to disprove Intelligent Design. Therefore, it is irrelevant." Intelligent design is a fallicious argument in the first place. And yes it is based off of negative proof because instead of providing evidence, it says it's hypothesis is correct because another (natural selection) is incorrect. Intelligent design has no proof for it whatsoever, which is why can't be considered proven ""5) If intelligent things have to be designed by an intelligent designer, then who designed the designer?" I don't know." You don't know? Then how do you know that the complex features in the universe where created by an intelligent designer? See, the assertion is inconsistent because it states itself that complex things must be created by a more complex designer. But has not been tested or been proven to be always true. See, I disproved it right there, saying that for it to be true there must be an infinite regress of designers. If our designer didn't need a designer, then why do we need one? "6) It aims to have science accept supernatural explainations[sic]. " If you read my source then yes, that's what intelligent design does. Also, something does need to have scientific evidence to be true. Science, fact, and truth are somewhat synonymous. Also, intelligent design claims to be science, so it must follow the scientific method. But it doesn't. "Ultimately, diety, you have to understand that you do have the burden of proof. So far, you haven't taken either of the two steps. Until you do, this debate really hasn't started yet. Good luck with your logic/experiment, should you ever get to it." No. You keep it up with that mindset that I have the burden of proof and I'll be the clear winner of this debate. And worse, you've shown no proof for your case whatsoever, you just attack mine and assume you're correct by default. That sound's like negative proof to me. Bottom line, you made the claim that intelligent design cannot be disproven. As pro and the instigator you have the burden of proof. You have yet to meet it. To meet it you need evidence. I see none. I've shown several reasons why intelligent design is disproven, most notably that it claims to be a science and it's not. Therefore I urge a CON ballot. Thank you