Intelligent Design cannot be disproven.

"You agreed that the resolution is the same as stating intelligent design is undeniable." What? No. The resolution is that it can't be disproven. "I don't see an intelligent designer. There is no math, evidence, or reason why I should think that an intelligent designer exists. I have just denied intelligent design." Okay, then. You deny it. People deny lots of things. That doesn't disprove it. "Then, you come up with all of these 'could have' arguments. There's no evidence or proof supporting any of this, so it cannot be considered fact." It can't be considered false, either. "Now, as far as me showing you how intelligent design isn't valid science, that right there ought to successfully disprove it...." You never say why things have to be science. Things can be true without science. If we humans rewrote science, it would be science. You dropped my bulls-eye example. You conceded that things can be true without science. "You're whole hypothetical metaphyisical[sic] example would be perfectly valid truth..." You asked if it could be proven. That's how it could be proven. An Intelligent Designer would have powers over his own laws. Thing is, this can't be applied in reverse to disprove Intelligent Design, because if he never shows up, he might just not feel like showing up. "Also, once again intelligent design is disproven because under that logic there has to be an intelligent designer for every intelligent thing, including the designer, creating an infinite regress of designers..." I already addressed. One Intelligent Designer could be created randomly through natural forces. The rest would be an eventual progression, not recession. We might someday create another mini-universe to observe under our own variables, making us Intelligent Designers. "You can't play the 'Intelligent design could have stopped at some level card,' because that would also make the theory invalid because every intelligent thing wouldn't need a more intelligent designer." The theory is that our universe was created through Intelligent Design. It doesn't matter how the Intelligent Designer showed up, really. My definition disagrees with you. My opponent has dropped the bulls-eye example. He concedes that something could be true without being proven scientifically, which is his entire argument. http://en.wikipedia.org... All of the arguments against Intelligent Design only attack the proofs for Intelligent Design. They don't do anything against Intelligent Design itself. My opponent has conceded that an Intelligent Designer could create the universe without making it look any different than natural forces. My opponent has conceded that things don't have to leave evidence to be true. My opponent has conceded that things don't have to be confirmed by science to be true. My opponent has conceded that there is no experiment that could disprove Intelligent Design. There are no observations, therefore, that could ever be made to show how Intelligent Design could not have happened. Therefore, Intelligent Design cannot be disproven. The resolution is affirmed. Vote PRO. I wonder if sources that are irrelevant to the debate count as sources. If they don't, my opponent has no sources.