I will debate ANY TOPIC

NOTE: My opponent has no constructive case. This means he has no ground. He and I can't make any new arguments since this is rebuttals. This simplifys my burden to defending my opponent's attacks and if that is done, I win the round. "Since I believe that the argument is logically valid" - He literally concedes with the resolution. Resolved: The Kalam Cosmological Argument is sound. And since sound is "according to the rules of logic" as per MW dictionary. In my obeservation 1 I point out the parameters for the round and that my opponent has to disprove that is is sound. Yet, he concedes... so pretty much he affirms. He offers a counter definition of "if all of the premises are true and the argument is logically valid." However, this definition is extremely abusive as it pushes the burden beyond the resolution. It goes from just proving it is logical to proving it is completely true. Also, this definition has no source. So reject this definition, remain with mine, and realize my opponent agrees with the resolution. "Pro employs ambiguous language, a great sin in analytic philosophy, in defending premise one. He defends it based on the "obvious" metaphysical principle that "out of nothing, nothing comes". Even if this metaphysical principle is true, it does nothing to support the first premise. An entity can begin to exist without a cause even it does not come out of nothing. For example, in certain interpretations of quantum mechanics, virtual particles emerge out of the quantum vacuum with no cause, thus constituting an entity that begins to exist without a cause. However, they did not emerge from absolute nothingness." First, I don't have to prove each premise TRUE. I have to prove the premises flow in a logical chain. Also, if things are appearing randomly, like in the quantum example, then there is a cause. In addition, there may be a cause not known to man yet. Logically, x causes y. Just because I don't know that doesn't mean it is without a cause. It is simply knowledge humans haven't reached yet. So this argument falls and I re-support the first premise. "Pro's second defense of premise one is ambiguous, as it changes the meaning of the first premise. Pro asks why we don't see entities popping into existence every day if the first premise is incorrect. Here, Pro is not speaking of entities coming from nothing, but entities coming into existence in a spatio-temporal context, much like virtual particles. P1 is first defended by the notion that something does not come from nothing, but now it is being defended on the notion that everything that begins in space-time has a cause. The same is true for the third premise. Pro bases his defense on our experience, which takes place in a spatio-temporal context. Therefore, he is again defending it based on the notion that everything that begins in space-time has a cause, not on any metaphysical principle about entities coming out of nothing." Ok, my opponent simply kritiks my argument because it operates under the paradigm that our sptio-temporal context universe is all there is. However, again, that is all we know so far. Nothing has proven a multiverse theory or anything besides what we know. Also, the universe is the spatio-temporal one. It is the only logical universe we can look to, as we have quantitative and qualitative data of it's existence. So my opponent is saying I can't win because the entity could be in a different universe. We can only base our meta-physical postulates off what we experience (this universe) so reject this skeptic argument as this attack falls. "Pro implicitly assumes that we should trust our "metaphysical intuition", whatever that may mean. Such "metaphysical intuitions" are seldom accurate. Aristotle's metaphysical intuitions about motion were overturned by Galileo and Newton's first law. Our intuitive notions about action-at-a-distance, or locality, were overthrown by Alain Aspect's experiments with elementary particles. Experiment, contrary to our metaphysical intuition, has demonstrated that two particles can have instantaneous causal relationships with each from opposite sides of the universe. From the history of science, there are no good reasons for accepting our "metaphysical intuition"." Ok, look; these institutions were inaccurate, but you are talking about 2,000+ year old places. We can only trust our knowledge at this moment. In addition, the development of our knowledge and technology helps us realize more on the meta-physical aspects of life. Again, my opponent avoids the argument and argues the assumption that metaphysical institutions are inherently bad. So, I disprove this so this attack falls. "Pro states that we experience things coming into being having causes, so everything that begins to exist has a cause. This is clearly an attempt at inductively justifying the first premise. I'm shocked that he does this without noting any of the problems with this method. I can use inductive generalization to disprove the theory of relativity! In all of my experience, when an object in motion gets pushed, it travels faster. Therefore, I can make an inductive generalization that an object in motion goes faster when it"s pushed. Imagine a William Lane Craig book traveling at the speed of light. According to my inductive generalization, if I push the book, it will travel faster than the speed of light. This means that my inductive generalization has proven that an object can travel faster than the speed of light. If your warrant for P1 can be used to disprove one of the most confirmed theories in all of science, there"s something wrong with your warrant." "Pro states that we experience things coming into being having causes, so everything that begins to exist has a cause. This is clearly an attempt at inductively justifying the first premise. I'm shocked that he does this without noting any of the problems with this method. I can use inductive generalization to disprove the theory of relativity! In all of my experience, when an object in motion gets pushed, it travels faster. Therefore, I can make an inductive generalization that an object in motion goes faster when it"s pushed. Imagine a William Lane Craig book traveling at the speed of light. According to my inductive generalization, if I push the book, it will travel faster than the speed of light. This means that my inductive generalization has proven that an object can travel faster than the speed of light. If your warrant for P1 can be used to disprove one of the most confirmed theories in all of science, there"s something wrong with your warrant." Look, I am not trying to disprove any other theories. I am simply trying to show that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is Sound. I am not disproving the Theory of Relativity, simply offering other ideas which can be logical. In addition, my opponent claims I make a inductive generalization, but doesn't warrant it. So reject that assertion with the remainder of the attack. "There is another problem with this kind of reasoning. Pro is utilizing inductive reasoning, which does not yield necessarily true conclusions. In another words, it can always have its conclusion disproved at a later point. However, premise one purports itself to be necessarily true for anything that begins to exist. Inductive generalization is only tentative, so it cannot be used to support a premise that claims to be logically necessary." My opponent further claim that I simply use inductive reasoning. Yet, he doesn't warrant it. So we must leave it at its face value, an assertion, and have this attack fall. He continues on with more attacks, but I lack the amount of characters to defend further. I do not concede with the attacks and do not permit extension of them. For next round, we will do conclusion/voting issues