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

My opponent has asked me to make an opening statement in round 1 without responding to his preemptive rebuttals, which means that by round two I would have the impossible task of responding to both his opening arguments, plus his rebuttals to my opening statement. In this way, he could always point out some number of points to which I failed to respond as a reason why you should vote Pro. Nevertheless, I will now give him the opening he asked for. "The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model that describes the early development of the Universe.[1] According to the Big Bang theory, the Universe was once in an extremely hot and dense state which expanded rapidly. This rapid expansion caused the Universe to cool and resulted in its present continuously expanding state. According to the most recent measurements and observations, the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.75 billion years ago,[2][3] which is thus considered the age of the Universe.[4][5] After its initial expansion from a singularity, the Universe cooled sufficiently to allow energy to be converted into various subatomic particles, including protons, neutrons, and electrons. While protons and neutrons combined to form the first atomic nuclei only a few minutes after the Big Bang, it would take thousands of years for electrons to combine with them and create electrically neutral atoms. The first element produced was hydrogen, along with traces of helium and lithium. Giant clouds of these primordial elements would coalesce through gravity to form stars and galaxies, and the heavier elements would be synthesized either within stars or during supernovae." (Wikipedia: Big Bang) From this definition is clear that before the Big Bang occurred, there were no moons, stars, or planets that make up the universe as we know it today. All that existed was an extremely dense point called a singularity. P1a: Everything that has a beginning, has a cause Today, when we speak about the universe, we refer to all the things in it, but these things (living organisms, planets, moons, stars, elements such as helium and hydrogen, particles such as protons, quarks, etc) did not exist before or at the Big Bang, and are not synonymous with the singularity. Therefore, all the major elements on the periodic table that make up all the matter in the universe, and all the matter itself, had a beginning, and the cause of all these things was (1) the expansion of the singularity, and (2) the laws o physics operating on the "stuff" that expanded as it cooled and slowed down. It should be evidence from this that either everything, or almost everything we see around us had a beginning and was caused in this way, which leads naturally into premise 1b. P1b: Even if we do not know the cause of something, we can infer that it has a cause based on the record of causation. Since everything else that we know of has a cause, it would be more logical and prudent to say "I do not yet know the cause of X," then to infer that "X has no cause." This is backed by the fact that there have been many things in the past for which we did not at first know the cause, but as our knowledge and understanding increased we were able to find out the reason (the cause) behind those things. For example humans didn"t always know what keeps us down on the earth and prevents us from drifting off into space. But eventually we learnt about gravity as the cause. We didn"t always know what caused sickness, but then we learnt about viruses, disease, bacteria. We didn"t always know where mountains came from, and some religious people even speculated that God put mountains there as tent pegs to hold down the earth, but now we know better, we know about the movement of tectonic plates. The list is too large for this 8000 character limit, but the point is clear that as time goes on we continue to find causes for many things which mystified us in the past. Based on this consistent record, it is prudent to believe that even things whose cause is elusive now may not be hidden in the future. Which leads us to premise 1c. P1c: But even if we never find the reason for some things, this would not be enough to undermine the principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause. To illustrate, if we did not know the reason why Martin Luther King was assassinated, does it mean there was no reason? If we do not know what motivated a man to kill his wife, does it mean it was completely spontaneous, without cause? It may have been jealousy, money, mental illness, we may never know, but just because we don"t know doesn"t imply for a minute that there was no reason. Sometimes the coroner is unable to establish a cause of death, but does it mean her death was completely spontaneous? No, it simply reveals that we need to be more humble, because with our limited knowledge it is impossible for us to know everything. Similarly, it is not likely that a species that hasn"t been around for a million years yet, will be able to know all the secrets of a 13 billion-year-old universe! It is reasonable to acknowledge that there are some things we will never know, including the causes for some things whose origins are greatly removed from us historically by billions of years, which might not still be there anyway, and in either case are not available for direct investigation. We cannot travel to the centre of the universe with instruments to study ground zero; all scientist can do is make educated guesses based on what evidence remaining from the past is even detectable by our current technology. P2a: The Universe had a beginning I have already made a case that the suns, moons, stars, planets, and all the things in them did not exist before or at the instant of the Big Bang. The singularity cannot be the physical universe because matter didn"t exist before or at the Big Bang, therefore, matter had a beginning, and Pro admits that time began as well. P2b But there is another reason why we should believe the beginning of the universe has a cause, namely, the fine-tuning of the cosmos. In his debate with Edwin Curley, Dr. William Lane Craig made the following comment: "Stephen Hawking has estimated that if the rate of the universe's expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed into a hot fireball.5 P.C.W. Davies has calculated that the odds against the initial conditions being suitable for star formation (without which planets could not exist) is one followed by a thousand billion billion zeroes, at least.6 [He also] estimates that a change in the strength of gravity or of the weak force by only one part in 10 raised to the 100th power would have prevented a life-permitting universe.7 There are around 50 such constants and quantities present in the Big Bang which must be fine-tuned in this way if the universe is to permit life. And it's not just each quantity which must be finely tuned; their ratios to each other must also be exquisitely finely tuned. So improbability is multiplied by improbability by improbability until our minds are reeling in incomprehensible numbers." Now if the Big Bang was spontaneous (uncaused), it would also be random because there could be no "organizer" (either natural or supernatural), but the delicate balance of the forces necessary for life in the universe can hardly be said to be random. Such order leans heavily in favor of causation as opposed to spontaneous generation.