Was there space before the universe came into existence.

Underview Who had more convincing arguments? The answer: Con. Pro had the entire burden of proof in this debate, and failed to fulfill it. Vote Con on arguments for the following reasons: (1) Pro says the universe's existence is "supernatural" because knowledge is impossible within the universe -- and therefore imagination is a legitimate way to gain truth. First, Pro doesn't prove that you can't gain truth through any empirical means within the universe, or that the universe is beyond "nature. " Second, if truth is impossible, there's *no* means -- including imagination -- to gain that truth. If truth is impossible, imagination remains illegitimate. Pro doesn't advance the link between imagination and the impossibility of truth. Thus, vote Con because Pro's sole argument that fulfills their burden of proof -- that we can't "imagine" a world without space -- fails, because even if the scientific method is false, imagination remains illegitimate. It's their BoP to demonstrate otherwise. (2) Regarding space, Pro *drops* that scientific definitions are more important to this debate than dictionary definitions. For this reason alone, you can ignore all their definitions of space and vote Con because the scientific definition of space is dependent upon objects. Pro also constantly confuses "space" and "vacuum. " Vacuum is a region of nothingness. Space isn't that -- space is a dimension. Space is an actual "thing. " For their fundamental misinterpretation of the idea of "space," vote Con. (3) Extend my point about the definition of "universe," which Pro, once more, drops entirely. Pro keeps saying if you remove the matter from the universe, space remains. Even if I were to agree with that, they lose anyway because the debate isn't about a world where *matter* doesn't exist, it's about a world where *the universe* doesn't exist. The universe is defined as including space. Without the universe, space doesn't exist because space is a part of the universe. Vote Con just because of that. (4) Finally, extend my entirely dropped point about how the universe never came into existence. A key assumption in the resolution as it is worded is that the universe "came into existence. " I proved that this assumption is false, by citing Hawking and other experts. Pro doesn't contest this *at all. * This means their entire position in this debate is meaningless, so Vote Con right there. Each of these four reasons is independent, and you can vote Con simply if any *one* of these reasons is true. Who had the more reliable sources? The answer: again, it's Con. Two reasons Pro's sources are flawed. One, Pro's only sources are dictionaries. They use those in definitions alone. I proved that we can't rely on dictionaries for scientific definitions because scientific concepts are distinct from literary terms, and that since scientific definitions actually exist, we should use those when debating such issues. Pro drops this point entirely, thus conceding by omission that their sources are -- for the most part, at least when dealing with scientific terms such as "universe," "space," and "nothingness" -- unreliable when talking about this resolution. Two, Pro often fails to justify with sources multiple claims, such as the idea that imagination is as reliable as the scientific method in justifying empirical claims. By contrast, I've used (1) books written by noted scientists and philosophers, such as Skylar and Kuipers, (2) articles written by physicists such as Stephen Hawking, (3) scientific definitions from the UNH Experimental Space Plasma Groups, and other reliable sources and (4) more reliable Internet sites such as the Encyclopaedia Britannica. I didn't make many/any bare assertions, instead justifying all key assertions (e. g. the idea that a "beginning" requires time; the idea that the universe never came into existence; all my definitions) with proper and more than adequate sourcing from such reliable sources. While Pro's sources are either (a) grossly insufficient, or (b) nonexistent, I made multiple well-justified arguments from extensive citations of various scholars, etc.