The Teleological Argument is failed, and should NEVER BE USED EVER AGAIN.

To claify the resolution, the subject is exclusively the validity of the TAG, and its ability to support the conclusion that god(s) exist. It is NOT about other supports to the existence of god(s). As an example of what I mean by this, if one were to say "god(s) because KCA" that would not be a support of "god(s) because TAG".Further, I do not expect my opponent to argue for some specific god(s), however as the Teleological Argument is concerned with Teleology I do expect my opponent to argue the support of creative agency as it is required of the TAG, and so for Deism as a conclusion in the very least. I also accept that it is my own burden to establish that the TAG itself is fundamentally flawed in some way rather than resorting to some OTHER available disproof of creative agency; I accept that any disproof must be related to the premise.The burdens of proof in this debate for CON will include answering any charges brought of circularity or special pleading in the TAG. Such a charges include "If complexity implies design, why does the complexity of the designer not imply design?", and "if complexity does not imply design, from whence comes the claim of 'design!', if not from begging the question?"Finally, this is a debate about a logical argument; that which is nonsensical or otherwise not logical (ignoring the laws of identity, non-contradiction, and excluded middle) are not valid here. Rules: 1) First round is acceptance*, second round is argument, third round is rebuttal, fourth round is counter-rebuttal and closing. No new supporting argments may be advanced after round 2, except as rebuttal.2) Responses shall be directed towards the previous rounds(s) only.3) *CON may go first; if CON uses his first round for argument, PRO agrees his last round shall be a blank post, and for the purposes of voting and posting, rounds shall be offset by one post.4) No direct "vote pandering". An argument ought stand on its own, without appeals to emotion or ad hominem. The only place it may be acceptable to provide a proposed RFD is at the end of closing, and it must still be free of appeal to emotion, outright lies, or ad-hom attacks.5) No "sneaky ****erism". This is defined as making declarations to win or troll an argument rather than making an attempt to investigate whether a claim is actually valid or supported by reason (including semantic games). The winning argument here is to be determined as that argument which stands up to reason, not which argument/person people subjectively like more. In accepting, CON agrees that any votes which do not reflect an objective evaluation of the arguments (subjective votes) are invalid and to be ignored during final evaluation, retracted, or negated.6) No extension of argment character space or via gratuitous formatting liberties, except if mutually agreed upon.7) Shared BoP; all positive claims must be defended, and all arguments must be supported with reason. this is a philosophical debate, and first principles must be mutually accepted if used as a basis of argument. Argument from authority, argument from tradition, and the naturalistic fallacy are all accepted as fallacies by CON.8) Shared participation is encouraged; while there can only be one formal "PRO" and one formal "CON", any independently supported argument may be advanced and picked up by the formal debators.9) First principles accepted in this debate must include that: "The universe exists"; "knowledge exists"; "all descriptive models have greater value than any non-descriptive model"; and that "equals OUGHT be treated equally".