You choose topic, I choose position.

Rebuttal"A rebuttal works when it shows that the opposing position with regard to the proposition fails I am not sure that he takes me to be stating a general point or a point about mathematics. It is usual to show that an apparent phenomena can be represented mathematically as means of having a loo at it, it is why physics makes such ample use of maths. I am arguing in terms of a more general point,; that functional ascriptions are under determined by evidence."With my argument, I am showing that it is impossible to have any scenario where all matter and energy in the world don't follow their function. It can be summed up as follows:P1: The function of all matter and energy in the universe are the laws of physics that govern it.P2: Laws of physics are determined by how the matter and energy behave.C1: All matter and energy has done its function perfectly since it can't not.C2: Regardless of whether the laws of physics do change, matter and energy have always served there specific purpose at that time and place.C3: The world functions perfectly with everything functioning entirely in accordance with its function.P1 Justification: This was determined by the definition of function.P2 Justification: This can be justified using the definition of science. Science is defined as "knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation" by the Merriam Webster Dictionary. Link: http://www.merriam-webster.com... This means the Laws of physics are learned behavior that we figure out through our experimentation and observation of matter and energy.C1 Justification: Since the function of matter and energy are a byproduct by how matter and energy behave, there is no conclusive way in which you can say "At least some matter or energy has not done its function perfectly." From an outside perspective, yes this is circular reasoning. However, it is justified by the definitions given by the Merriam Webster Dictionary.C2 Justification: Since C1 is justified, we can extend the conclusion to any given point or place in time, and it will still hold true.C3 Justification: Self explanatory.Thus I still hold my position that the resolution is true, simply because it can't be false.Perhaps an analogy of this situation could be given. Say we have a box that contains a certain number written a piece of paper that may or may not be rational and can't be seen by any method and may possibly change. The box contains a display on the outside saying the number inside is between 0-10. As time goes on, the range on the display exponentially decays in a graph like this: Where X is time and Y is range. As time goes on, the absolute boundaries of the number are more defined. The display's function is to show the range at which the number could be between. Since we have no way of knowing the number actually present in the box, we define the number to be in the range displayed on the box. Therefore, to say that the number is outside of the range would be fallacious, given the definitions of the number and the range.How is this similar? The range displayed on the outside of the box is what we perceive to be the function of the matter and energy in the universe. The number inside the box is the ultimate function of the matter and energy in the universe, which we have no way of currently knowing flawlessly. As time goes on, our understanding increases, thus the absolute range of the "number" decreases.Good luck to my opponent.