The Argument from Design is inherently false

Protagoras of Abdera is back. I haven't been here for a while now, but I am ready to one again fight on the side of truth and logical accuracy. Thus, I do not agree with "Resolved: The Argument from Design is inherently false." This is an exemplification of "sticks and stones". This is true to the extent that my opponent is throwing a substantial amount of sticks at me. Sticks being used as a synecdoche for a stick man fallacy. For those of you who are unversed in logical fallacies, allow me to explain. A stick man fallacy occurs when an individual debates another person by presenting his opponent's "arguments" vis-ï¿½-vis some sort of prï¿½cis, sometimes via syllogistic semblance, as my opponent bestows upon you. This is a fallacy because the displayed arguments are not really an argument that was made, rather a fabrication constructed by the opposer. My opponent does just this. First, he defines what argument from design is, subsequently he presents the arguments made to support his argument. Following this, he defines ‘magic' and ‘god' in a severely strategic manner so that his syllogism regarding the AD to be contradictory. This is a quintessential case of the straw man fallacy. My opponent is stating the following: This is what (I think) AD is defined as. This is what God and Magic are (according to me). This is how what I just defined cannot make sense because they contradict each other. Even if you think what my opponent proposed to you makes sense, I must offer counter definitions and clarifications in order for this debate to be fair. At this point my opponent fabricated definitions and then deconstructed what he wrote himself. For those of you who need further clarification, allow me to present to you what my opponent is doing in a dialogue. Person A and B are just your average Joe's. A: Hey B, do you believe in God? B: Yes, why? A: Well, I bet you I can prove he doesn't exist. B: Take a shot at it. A: Well, God is defined as a unicorn, SO, if I prove unicorns do not exist, I win. B: Wha.. A: Hold on, let me finish. A: Let us assume the bible is accurate, that's fair. B: Wait, God is... A: Let me finish B. A: Anyways, the bible is accurate, so, let's see.... HERE, I found it, the bible says " " (....). This means that God is a contradictory, thus "inherently false". Now this may be an extreme version of what my opponent is doing, but I entreat you that the resemblance is far from different. My intentions may be a bit unclear at this moment, so allow me to explain. You should not accept my opponent's advocacy because of it's fallacious nature. He uses a logical fallacy to deconstruct my advocacy prior to me even making an argument. Therefore, I urge you to vote in my favor. ______ EVEN if you do not accept this approach, I shall offer counter definitions and a true argument, in syllogistic form, defending the validity behind the "AD". A God is defined as a supreme being. BUT, it does not need to be defined as for God is not an inherent component within the AD. My, being the affirmative debater, have the ability to define the grounds that I am willing to defend. Thus, I am not obligated to prove the existence of God. Since the term "God" does not have to defined, nor does the term "magic", as for magic once again is not an inherent component of the Argument from Design. Allow me to explain what the "AD" is. The Argument from design argues one main precept; that being, there is an intelligent designer for either the creation of earth, and/or the complex species that exist today. I shall now present to you justification for the AD in 3 seperate syllogistic proofs. FIRST this being a simple version: "1.X is too complex, orderly, adaptive, apparently purposeful, or beautiful to have occurred randomly or accidentally. 2.Therefore, X must have been created by a sentient, intelligent, wise, or purposeful being. 3.God is a sentient, intelligent, wise, or purposeful being. 4.Therefore, God exists. SECOND: Other forms of the argument assert that a certain category of complexity necessitates a designer, such as the following... 1.All things that are designed were preconceived, intended, purposed, or contrived. 2.Preconception, intention, purpose, and contrivance necessitate an intellect, mind, or will. 3.All things that are irreducibly complex display intention and preconception. 4.The universe contains non-man made things that are irreducibly complex. 5.Those things display intention and preconception. 6.Those things necessitate an intellect, mind, or will. THIRD: 1.Complexity implies a designer. 2.The universe is highly complex. 3.Therefore, the universe has a designer." http://en.wikipedia.org... _______ As a defender of epistemology, my last argument is that labeling things "inherently false" discourages research. This is true because, supposing a rational being agrees to the extent that something is inherently false, they will not regard it as a valid, or at least a possibly valid, argument. They would thus disregard it when it could in fact be beneficial or at least partially true. So, I urge that my opponent never attempts to label things as "inherently false". _______ I hope this is sufficient enough for you to see that my opponent is not only fallacious in his approach, but also incorrect in his final conclusion. I would like to withhold the right to present new argument and proof in my next speech, if need be. Thanks for this opportunity, and good luck. Thanks for your consideration, Protagoras of Abdera (is back)