Resolved: The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument is Sound

My rebuttal isn't going to be too long because it doesn't need to be, but just long enough to get my point across. My opponent formulates his arguments well (due to being familiar to this particular argument, which I have never heard of before this debate) but the arguments themselves fail. The LCA is presented as logical absolutes, therefore if one of the premises has not been shown to be logically absolute, then it is not logically sound as a statement claiming to be logical truth. Basically, it's false to claim that the LCA is sound because it represents itself as absolute logical truth because it doesn't use words like "most likely" and implies a must. The Fallacy of CompositionMy opponent claims that the LCA may be a fallacy of composition, but may not be. Since I didn't show how it was for sure, then my objection does not stand. The problem is even the potential still makes the LCA not logically sound because once again, the LCA deals in absolutes.P1: If the idea of X existing may be fallacious, then it's not logical to say X existing is a must. P2: The LCA may be committing the Fallacy of Composition, so it's not logical to say the LCA is valid (because the LCA presents itself as absolute logical truth)P3: The LCA (which presents itself as logically absolute) is not logically sound, because it may be a Fallacy of CompositionNow if the LCA used words like "most likely" or "plausibly" then I believe my burden would have to show how at least one of the premises is most likely false. However, when regarding an argument that claims to be absolute logic, all I have to do is show a potential fallacy to show it's not sound. Bare Assertion FallaciesMy opponent isn't understanding my point here, even if I granted a timeless, spaceless, powerful, immaterial, non physical, and eternal cause of the universe, it's still a bare assertion to infer sentience without reasoning. Without sentience we have no God, my opponent has only used infinite regress arguments which would be applied to things with non sentience as well. My opponent did not show sentience, and therefore, did not demonstrate God.M-Theory 1) The problem is my opponent is using the special pleading fallacy. He is saying that if there is a "prior" to The Big Bang that it can avoid infinite regress if it is what he infers, but when I infer something else "prior" to The Big Bang then it's not safe from infinite regress. If you apply rules to others you don't use yourself, it's called special pleading. For all we know there the membranes are eternal and our finite universe comes from this eternal super-universe. Claiming that God is the only thing that can be eternal is not logical.2) This debate isn't about other universes, the LCA is about the universe which means this universe. Since M-Theory describes how everything better than God, it is more likely because it can explain more.Re-Cap1) If an argument presents itself as absolute by not inferring a "most likely" or a "most plausible", then even a potential fallacy being present is enough to hinder the argument's soundness. Therefore, the existence of the Fallacy of Composition makes the presentation of absolute logic from the LCA, not logically sound2) Even if I granted a timeless, spaceless, powerful, immaterial, non physical, and eternal cause of the universe my opponent still never showed why sentience is necessary. Since God is defined as a sentient being, then my opponent failed to show how God follows from the other contents of the premises. This makes the LCA a non-sequitur.3) My opponent is special pleading by claiming that only his sentient being (which he didn't even show was sentient) is safe from infinite regress. Also this debate is about this universe, and since it can be better explained by M-Theory, then M-Theory is most likely. Conclusion The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument is sound only if you ignore other important factors which make it not sound. Since ignoring these factors is not logical, then by indirect contact, the The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument is not sound.PS. I have never heard of this argument before this debate, I'm used to debating the Kalam version. Regardless, I believe my opponent didn't do enough to show the argument's soundness regardless of his apparent knowledge of the argument.