Is the metaverse simulation theory valid

I will begin my final round argument with correcting the legal definition of the word "flaw". 1. A : a defect in physical structure or form " a diamond with a flaw b : an imperfection or weakness and especially one that detracts from the whole or hinders effectiveness " vanity was the flaw in his character a flaw in the book's plot An argument can have a flaw as can anything. If one were to argue an argument such as "we need to protect children by locking up cleaning chemicals, Keeping kitchen knives out of there reach, And follow our kids around wherever they go" the obvious flaw in the statement is "following them around wherever they go". The first 2 statements were valid thereby not compromising the entire argument, Just the final piece, Thus making it a flaw. A defective argument (which is what you likely meant) is where the entire argument or item/material is useless or completely incorrect. A defective argument would be for example "Hitler wanted a superior human race, Therefore he was good and it was ok for him to oppress millions of people". The obvious defect is that Hitler was not a good person due to the fact of him killing millions of people to attain his goal of a superior human race. Without getting into legal definitions, I think it's common sense that such an argument would be defective. Even if by legal definition it's not. 2) Even though the earths atmosphere can at times be hostile, This does not by any means negate the simulation theory as humans could simply be just another unimportant animal that was created by the simulation. Questioned by my opponent previously "do you think that we will still be around a few thousand years from now? " I can say that if humans were really highly intelligent and gifted problem solvers this would not even be a realistic question as humans would be so intelligent and gifted that few would ever be questioning themselves being terminated by there own species ignorance and hostility. Just because humans are the most intelligent species on Earth does not by any means mean there the most intelligent beings in the universe. Additionally Humans tend to rationalize that they have been the most important and intelligent species of animal in the world of all time (or if your into religion the only important or species of all time). However when remains have been recovered of our ancestoral cousins, We have identified SO FAR that there is at least 1 other species of animal that was more intelligent than humans. This average hominids iq was 150, A humans is only 100 on average. Therefore not only making us not the most important and intelligent creatures in the universe, But vrather not even intelligent creatures on our own planet compared to one of our cousin ape species. . http://discovermagazine. Com/2009/the-brain-2/28-what-happened-to-hominids-who-were-smarter-than-us Therefore humans would likely not be the important source of the simulatiom, Vrather just another animal byproduct such as chimpanzees, Neanderthals, Deer, Rabbits, Tyrannasauras rexs, Etc. Etc. 2) Ultimately, I think that it is EASIER to rationalize that the universe was created by intelligent life forms because as stated recently and I'll state again, We do not know the circumstances at all whatsoever of the background of how this species could have come to be. We don't know what there universe (if they even have one), Environment, Or laws of physics would even relate to this universes environment whatsoever. Therefore, To say that they could not come to be by forces unknown to humans is not a philosophicaly skilled belief. To believe that an explosion in which spacial debri can still be seen as a result of the explosion coming from nothing at all is much more unlikely and irrational currently than having the belief that a simulation was created by somewhat intelligent beings (again humans will be able to do this in not too long from now) to procreate life (intelligent and unintelligent) 3) I will now give my reasoning as to why I believe that somewhat intelligent life would have procreated life. The answer is simple. To ensure that animals and most importantly themselves would have survived no matter what the outcome of there society itself. The rational would be similar to why humans would bring a child into this world taking into account (or not) that suffering would be a normal part of it's life. There philosophy behind it could be that since they have the ability to give animals life in which they could live to pursue comfort and piece (all animals have emotions) for procreative purposes, They would do it.