I will debate ANY TOPIC

AvePro criticizes for me for not making a "constructive case", despite the fact that I was never required to by the rules of the debate. In any case, I would say that Pro hasn't made a constructive case either, as stealing somebody else's constructive case doesn't count as making your own.Pro seeks to implement arbitrary rules that were not stated in R1. For example, he states that I am not allowed to post any refutations in this round, and must only conclude the debate and discuss voting issues. However, the rules in R1 explicitly state that I may use this round for rebuttals. Therefore, I do not feel the slightest bit uncivil in ignoring Pro's request and continuing with rebuttals in this round.Every philosopher that I have ever read, every philosophy textbook that I have ever read, and every debate on philosophy that I have ever read, treats a "sound" argument as an argument which is 1) logically valid and 2) has true premises. As the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy states, "A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true." Ironically, the debate that Pro plagiarized his entire opening argument from utilizes this definition as well. For this reason, Pro is factually incorrect in treating my admission that the argument is logically valid as a further admission that the argument is sound. When I state that I believe the argument to be logically valid, I am only agreeing that the argument meets one requirement of soundness, not all of them. Furthermore, Pro is incorrect in calling my definition of soundness "abusive". If anything, defining soundness as mere logical validity is the abusive definition, since a debate on the mere logical validity of an argument is no substantive than a debate on whether or not 1+1=2.As a reminder to the audience, no definitions of "sound' were stipulated in the first round, so the proper definition is still very debateable.Pro states that the quantum mechanics example I provided does not actually demonstrate an example of something beginning to exist without a cause. This is beside the point, as I only used quantum mechanics to explain the difference between "begin to exist without a cause" and "come out of nothing", which Pro erroneously treats as the same thing in defending P1. Simply put, I don't really care if quantum mechanics shows that something can begin to exist without a cause. I only care if "begin to exist without a cause" and "come out of nothing" mean the same thing. Since they clearly don't, it follows that the metaphysical principle "something does not come from nothing" provides no warrant for believing in P1.Pro has completely misinterpreted my next criticism, which is likely due to linguistic differences between us. My argument has nothing to do with criticizing the assumption that space-time is all there is, or any kind of multi-verse theory. My argument, instead, was that Pro continues to equivocate, switching from a defense of "everything that begins to exist has a cause" to a defense of "something does not come from nothing", which are not the same principles. Pro, due to his misinterpretation of my argument, has failed to address it as it actually is.Pro's defense of P1 relies on the accuracy of metaphysical intuition, which he has still failed to precisely define. I provided examples of metaphysical intuitions that have been destroyed by empirical evidence. Pro dismisses this as "two thousand year old places", even though one of the examples I mentioned relates to an experiment carried out in 1982. Pro states that we can only trust our knowledge at this moment, which has dubious relevance to my argument, as I am basing it on knowledge that we have at this moment.I agued against the use of inductive reasoning as a support of P1 by showing that 1) inductive reasoning has its limits and 2) inductive reasoning cannot support the type of assertion that P1 is making. In regards to the first contention, Pro's remark is totally off-point. Nobody is accusing him of trying to disprove special relativity. I am using SR as an example to show the limits of inductive reasoning. In regards to the second contention, Pro denies that he is making an inductive argument. An inductive argument is an argument that reasons from specific cases to a general rule. Pro. in his opening case, attempts to prove the general rule that "everything that begins to exist has a cause" through specific cases. Therefore, his argument is obviously a case of inductive reasoning.Pro's entire opening argument was plagiarized. Despite this, I put in effort to criticize his arguments. He responded to these criticisms by quoting massive amounts of my own writing and then adding a few sentences of commentary at the end. The vast majority of this commentary totally misunderstood the argument being quoted, or fell into the category of "completely irrelevant". The remaining portion was easily refuted in this round. Thus, I find a Con vote to be the best choice in every regard.Vale