The Cosmological Argument for God is a bad argument and people need to stop using it

My opponent has accused me multiple times of re-framing the premise of the debate, but I have been consistent in my challenge. It is my contention that the Cosmological Argument is a bad argument - meaning unsound, weak, unsupported - and if one is trying to argue in favor of the existence of God in a debate, the argument is unhelpful and should not be used. I see no other way to counter my contention than to evaluate the merits of the Cosmological Argument itself to determine whether or not it is indeed a poor argument. My opponent is trying to separate the issue of the worthiness of the Cosmological Argument in a debate about God's existence from the issue of the strength or weakness of the argument itself - but the latter issue is supremely relevant in the context of that debate. You cannot claim that the Cosmological Argument is "useful or valid as an argument or supporting argument for the existence of God" without fully dealing with the flaws of the argument itself, which my opponent has not done. The topic of my debate has not been re-framed, but is, at its core, about whether or not the argument is a good argument - meaning logically sound and well-supported. To demonstrate that the Cosmological Argument is a good argument to use in a debate, my opponent must demonstrate that the argument is sound, not just valid. As much as my opponent may wish, s/he cannot avoid defending the argument.On to my opponent's counter-rebuttals...."Since the cosmological argument is reliant on arguments concerning the beginning of the universe, if the argument in question that you have put forth is 'still in dispute', then that means it does not invalidate the cosmological argument, which also is being disputed."My opponent has misread my sentence. I only said that quantum fluctuations as a proposed mechanism that created the Universe was in dispute. The phenomenon of quantum fluctuations itself is not in dispute and has been thoroughly studied for a century, as I mentioned. Their uncaused existence is a result of the intrinsic uncertainty of the universe. The question of "why" they exist is irrelevant, as I only need to show that uncaused things can exist, contradicting the first premise of the Cosmological Argument. "And if we were debating the existence of God, we would do just that. As long as it is possible to define the deity being argued for, and arrive at a list of the deity's attributes, then this argument put forth by my opponent in no way discards the cosmological argument from a debate concerning the existence of God, which he himself admits here."Once again, my contention - that the Cosmological Argument is a poor argument - is directly related to the merits of the argument itself, which cannot be evaluated or defended without, among other things, defining the deity whose existence the argument is being used to support. Defining the deity and determining its attributes help clarity in a debate, but do nothing to improve the faults of the argument. If my opponent still believes the Cosmological Argument is not a bad argument to use then the argument itself must be defended."Remember, [our lack of certainty about whether the universe began to exist] would only make it a possibility that the argument was wrong, since this statement itself is only a possibility."My opponent fails to understand that the second premise of the Cosmological Argument - "The Universe began to exist" - is presented as a true statement. I do not need to prove that this premise is false - I only need to show that it is not true, and that is accomplished by simply pointing out that we do not know enough about reality outside of our observed universe. Therefore, the premise "The Universe began to exist" is not true and the argument fails - another reason to discard it."Again, I'm not here to support the correctness or the incorrectness of the cosmological argument, just whether or not it is so flawed a rhetoric that it must be discarded as a support concerning the existing of God."And again, my opponent does not understand that defending the correctness of the Cosmological Argument is precisely what s/he must do to show that it is a worthy argument to use to support the existence of God. Why would a theist want to use a bad argument to support his/her view? And how would you know that the Cosmological Argument isn't such a bad argument without evaluating whether it is sound and correct?"What's more, the reader has likely noticed that my opponent's arguments against the cosmological argument include phases like 'not necessarily' and 'still in dispute', and do not as yet exclude the cosmological argument from possibly being valid."It would be helpful if my opponent would put those phrases in their proper context. I've already addressed what I meant by "still in dispute." I used the phrase "not necessarily" in reference to a sufficient cause of the Universe that had only enough power to create a universe but "not necessarily" enough to be considered all-powerful, not to mention omniscient, purposeful, concerned with its creation, etc. - all the attributes commonly associated with classical monotheism. Basically, even if I grant that the premises are true (which they are not), they still require additional arguments to point to a god. This is a clear sign of a weak argument. I feel that there is a larger misunderstanding on the part of my opponent regarding the word "valid." Throughout this debate, I have only used this term in the formal sense - meaning structural validity. This means that if the premises are true then the conclusion must necessarily follow. When my opponent makes statements like "phases [sic] like 'not necessarily' and 'still in dispute'...do not as yet exclude the cosmological argument from possibly being valid," it makes me suspect that s/he is not using the term "valid" in the formal sense. I conceded in my opening remarks that the Cosmological Argument is a valid (structurally valid) argument. However, this is not enough to be considered a good argument for the existence of God. The argument must also be sound, meaning that, in addition to structural validity, the argument's premises are also actually true, not possibly true. That's why I brought up the "Dogs from Jupiter" argument as an example. If it is true that all dogs are from Jupiter, and if it is true that I have a dog, then it must necessarily be concluded that my dog is from Jupiter. This is a valid argument - a structurally valid argument. However, it wouldn't take much effort to show that the first premise is not actually true, meaning the argument is not sound. Thus, in a debate about the origins of dogs, the "Dogs from Jupiter" argument would be a poor argument to use. The Cosmological Argument suffers similar flaws. I do not care that the argument is structurally valid - I only care if the premises have been demonstrated to be true, which they have not, meaning that the argument fails and should be discarded."That's none of our concern in this debate. It also supports evidentially, as you pointed out through agreement with my statement, that there is a possibility of a God, making the cosmological argument a supportive, and rhetorically useful argument in a debate concerning the existence of God."No, this is actually a serious problem for the theist. If one uses an argument to support the existence of one particular entity, but that argument can also be used just as easily to support the existence of anything else that one can imagine might share a particular attribute with the first entity (the ability to create a universe, in this case), then the argument loses its explanatory power. The implicit goal of the Cosmological Argument is to present God as a necessary being, not merely a possible being, and it fails in doing so.Again, I would invite my opponent to defend the Cosmological Argument itself if s/he wishes to argue that it is a worthy argument.