Is Intelligent Design a Rational or Irrational belief (Part 2)

I look forward to an engaging debate. For starters, I will start off my part of the round by challenging my opponent's arguments. Let's get to his first syllogism. ARGUMENT 1 --------------- Premise 1) Design occurs due to having an intelligent cause. Premise 2) Design can be deduced by the observation of multiple working parts working not just in themselves but working complimentary with other working parts. Statement: Humans have multiple working parts not working just in themselves but working in complimentary with other working parts. Inference: Therefore, we can deduce that humans have design. Conclusion: Ergo, humans have an intelligent cause. Now, this all seems fine and dandy at face value, but my opponent creates a central flaw in his syllogism. I don't know what to even call it at this point, as it seems to be a mixture of a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, a false dichotomy, and some type of circular reasoning. As for debunking it, we can start by critiquing the second premise, the statement and inference. The second premise has a huge 'can' in there. It infers that if something may have the possibility of being designed, it is designed. It does not account for evolution, and is thus a false dichotomy. The statement is true, I'd think, but the inference does not sync up. It assumes that for ANY organism to have multiple working parts blah blah blah, it must have been designed. It also commits a false dichotomy, in which it excludes chance in it's entirety. Until my opponent can rectify this, the syllogism must be marked as valid. ARGUMENT 2 --------------- My opponent's syllogism follows as such: Premise 1) Something exists either by design or accident or necessity. Statement: Humans do not exist by accident or necessity. Conclusion: Therefore, humans exist by design. Obviously, there are some main problems, which lie in the Premise & Statement. The Premise totally excludes evolution. It does not combine chance & the natural laws of the universe, so we can assume Premise 1 to be a false dichotomy. The Statement gives an assertion without proof. It does not show how humans don't exist by accident nor necessity. It is simply a huge postulate he expects us to take as a given. It is most certainly not. Since his burden shows that he must prove ID rational, he is expected to fulfill that burden, and explain every inch of his assertions and claims. He needs to do so, or he will not have met his burden. Well, now that we've gotten that out of the way, it seems that I must now fulfill my burden. However, I've already done that. His definition of rational states that the subject, topic, etc. in question must agree & be supported by logic. However, if his arguments fall short, then it can be assumed that whatever he is arguing for/against is irrational, and is NOT supported by logic. As I've shown why his arguments are not rational, then we must assume they are IRRATIONAL, by my opponent's very own definitions, and I have fulfilled my criteria asked of me by the burden. As of now, I have defeated my opponent's arguments, and met my burden of proof. Were this debate to end suddenly, I would urge you to vote Con. I now pass the debate to my opponent.