The Kalam Cosmological argument

Let it be clarified that this debate is not about the legitimacy of the aformentioned argument, but whether or not this debate is any fun to have. I would also like to point out that the character limit for this debate is actually 8000 instead of 4000. Oh well. = Burden of proof = In my initial post I stated that the only rule was that the first round of the debate was for acceptance only. My opponent however, after accepting, also set forth the standard of a shared BoP. My opponent has broken the only rule I set in place, that the first round be only for acceptance. I ask that the voters recognize this and let it be reflected in their voting via the conduct vote. . http://thefunnyplanet.com... Aside from that, I invite my opponent to properly warrant a shared burden in his constructive arguments. I don't understand how this debate topic lends itself to any specific burden, let alone a shared one. = Definitions = The Kalam Cosmological[1] argument, hereafter KC, should be understood as the argument for God's existence which proposes that the universe muse have a 'first cause', thus God must exist to have brought the universe into existence. Fun[2] should be understood as "Amusing, entertaining, or enjoyable" Debate topic should be understood as a subject of academic discourse between two or more individuals. = Framework/Plan of action = 1. What to expect- a. An explanation of my purpose in instigating this debate b. An examination of past debates on KC to show how it is neither fun to debate, nor to read. c. A few constructive arguments to show that KC is not a fun debate topic 2. Voters should vote based on the content of this debate's arguments, not their opinions- While what is fun may be subjective, I ask that the voters vote based on the arguments presented by the Pro and the Con, not their beliefs on the subject matter. = Arguments = 1. This debate's purpose- At the time I instigated this debate, there were two debates in their challenge period which wanted to debate whether not KC was sound. Both instigators (Stephen_Hawkins and Rational_Thinker9119) were Con and neither debate was accepted before the instigators deleted the challenge. We can therefore take this to assume that KC is not a subject that people want to debate. It has been debated so much on this site that it's become a cliche. 2. Past debates- In the last five debates regarding KC here on DDO, Pro has won only two times. Both of those wins have been the result of a forfeit on behalf of Con. (alright, so Contradiction was the debater in one of those rounds. But still! ) . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... 3. Why KC is no fun to argue- a. It has been beaten to death here on DDO. For proof please refer to the previous argument. For further proof search 'Kalam Cosmological' b. KC is inherently flawed, as it attempts to apply logic to the illogical. There is no evidence to prove God's existence, nor is there any evidence to prove he does not exist. I like what Joseph Dunninger said on the subject best "For those who believe, no explanation is necessary; for those who do not believe, no explanation will suffice. " c. Prejudice, prejudice, prejudice. I mean seriously, who wants to have a debate when they know that a good number of readers won't vote based on the content of the round, but on their own opinion? It is extremely difficult to have coherent discourse between Theists and Atheists with the end goal of changing the other person's belief in person, doing so on the internet is a joke. = Underview = Ultimately, the heart of the issue is this; if you're going to debate on the internet, you should have fun doing so. here on DDO the Kalam Cosmological argument has been beaten to death. I personally cannot see in any way, shape or form how it is any fun to debate, or even discuss. With that, I look forward to my opponent's refutations. = Sources = [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] Google definitions