Intelligent Design cannot be disproven.

"You might have got lucky and beat me in other debates because of vote bombers, but this time you set yourself up for failure." Wrong. Vote bombers had nothing to do with proving facts to be true. "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. "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. "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. "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. "5) You can't play the agnostic card here, telling me that I don't know if intelligent design is true or not, because it is not enough to affirm the resolution. You have to show how intelligent design can be proven." Wrong. You carry the burden of proof, because I'm saying that you can't disprove something. If you fail to disprove Intelligent Design, then you cannot disprove Intelligent Design, and the resolution is affirmed. "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." "7) You can't just uphold one aspect of your assertion and believe that you win by default. Actually in this debate, it's the other way around. All of your contentions have to stand, whereas I only need to uphold one of mine." 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. Wow. Seven wrong out of seven. "Since I have nothing better to do, I guess I might as well point out the flaws of intelligent design. Also, once again take note that merely rebutting my arguments is not enough to affirm the resolution." Yes, it is. "My opponent will carry the burden of proof, as implied by the resolution." "1) This argument is one of lack from imagination. I cannot imagine how certain features of the universe could have occured[sic] on their own as they are too complex. So there MUST be an intelligent designer." However, this does nothing to disprove Intelligent Design. Therefore, it is irrelevant. "2) It serves as an argument from ignorance as well. The existence of certain features of the universe are currently unexplained or insufficiently understood or explained, so there must have been an intelligent designer." However, this does you no good when it comes to the resolution. It receives the label of "IRRELEVANT," as well. "3) Not only that, but it's based off of negative proof. Since something is false, apparently your assertion must be true." I never said that anything is false. However, you still aren't helping your case. "4) It does not specify the nature or identity of the designer, just that one exists." Can you disprove that that one thing exists? "5) If intelligent things have to be designed by an intelligent designer, then who designed the designer?" I don't know. "6) It aims to have science accept supernatural explainations[sic]. If supernatural is beyond the scientifically visible universe, then how can it be science? Well one things[sic] for sure, intelligent design ain't science." Does something have to be science to be true? If it's pseudoscience, then you should be able to disprove it, should it be disprovable. "7) To further number 6, the scientific method involves these steps... Intelligent design doesn't follow the scientific method." So? Something doesn't have to follow the scientific method to be true. Is there a scientific method for disproving things? That's what you're going to need here. "8) To further explain why intelligent design isn't science, it must follow these criteria... And it doesn't" Unless you can point out why failing to meet criteria for being science makes something disproven, this doesn't mean anything. Furthermore, you cover it with, "You tell me," and "I think not." Well, since the burden of proof is on you, please explain. If we don't know "how" something happened, does that mean that it could not have happened? Does something have to be useful to be true? 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.