There is a possibility that Obama could be Satan.

My adversary claims this resolution is about the preponderance of evidence, but that is false. I explained how something could be a possibility. Just because there is a significance amount of evidence to show that something could not exist, does not mean that it does not. He also claims I made a non clear burden of proof. The burden of proof is on me, and I have fulfilled it already. The resolution is quite clear in this regard. I must show that there is a possibility that Obama is Satan. I have shown facts to support how and what a possiblity is. I do not need to show that he is Satan, but just that there is a possibility. I have shown in the first round how something can be possible as long as it does not contradict any empirical or proven facts. The concept of God and Satan not existing is not a proven fact, the same goes the other way. Since there is no contradiction of factual evidence, I have upheld and fulfilled my Bop. My adversary is trying to argue with probability, but because something may not be probable does not mean that it is not possible. The same argument is often used in reference to a God. There is no way to show that Obama is or is not Satan, so there is always a possibility that he could be. Russel's Teapot Fallacy. My adversary is arguing that I must prove a positive and show that Obama is Satan. This is not the resolution and is only the case if I claimed he was Satan. This is often brought and used against Christians who claim there "is" a God.No where in the resolution did I state that Obama "is" Satan. I stated there is a possibility that he could be. This entire analogy is irrelevant and can be dropped because he is trying to tamper with the resolution. Occam's RazorAgain irrelevant to me upholding my BOP. If I were claiming he "is" Satan, then this would be a valid argument just as Russel's teapot would. I did not claim that, as I mentioned. I just simply said there is a possibility, and I have laid out and defined how the possibility of Obama being Satan is possible. It does not contradict any given facts or evidence that can be observed. Almost anything can be possibleMy adversary is asking me to show that he "is" Satan, that is not the topic of this debate Also Occam's razor does not address this question at its heart. Just because a theory is simpler or easier does not mean it is accurate. It is asking you to use the theory that is simpler because it stands a higher probability of being the most logical. That theory falls apart a lot as well. It is just a principle of reasoning that we can often use to compare theories, it does often failAs I said the simplest explanation is not always the correct one. If that were the case God creating the universe is much simpler than it causing itself to exist. That is not even the principle behind the theory itself. The principle is that when you have two existing theories, and you have a working model for one then there is no need to over complicate it. Again this is irrelevant to this debateThis entire argument can be dropped because he is using Occam's Razor to try and make me prove an "is". I do not have to show that Obama "is" Satan, but just that there could be a possibility. Obama In HebrewDroppedConclussionMy adverary has tried to shift the resoultion to "Obama is Satan"and then shift the new resoultion and the BOP to me. I do have the BOP but not under that resoulltion. My BOP is to uphold the initial resoultion and the resouiltion that my adversary accepted."There is a Possibility that Obama is Satan"I have upheld this and met my end of the BOP. My adversaries attempts at altering the BOP and saying I have to prove a posistive are false. I must only show that there is a possibility that he is Satan. I did this in all of round 1Recap[1]For something to not be possible it must contradict empirical and factual evidence[2]The Idea of Satan existing and being Obama does not contradict any factual evidence[3]Therefore It is possible