There is no proof that a God exists

My, my, my. What my opponent has chosen to do in this debate is very disappointing. He has made several assumptions about nature of this resolution and has applied those assumptions as truths before fully warranting those assumptions. Now of course, I fully intend to clarify this abuse of framework before getting into the specific on-case arguments, but I feel that this is warrant for a loss of conduct points from the Pro. Framework First, let us examine the nature of Instigator, versus a Contender. To instigate an argument, one need only to make a objective and clear claim. It does not matter whether or not that claim is a positive one such as 'Tacos are good' or a negative one such as 'Tacos are not good'. All that matters is that the objective claim is made by an individual who seeks discourse from another individual. The contender is the person who challenges said claim as either an advocate of the inverse stance of said claim, or one as one who only intends to refute the warrants present in said claim. For the sake of illustration, the Instigator's claim shall be 'Tacos are not good'. The Contender may take the inverse position and claim that 'Tacos are good', or the contender may simply examine the Instigator's reasoning behind claiming that tacos are not good and dismantle them. Either way if the Contender is successful into their burden of clash they have won the debate. This discussion of Instigator versus Contender also begs the question of precedent beliefs, also known as the presumption of belief. The Instigator, when making a claim, must assume that the inverse claim is the Status Quo. When the instigator claims that 'Tacos are not good', he or she makes that claim against either an assumption that the the tacos are good, or against the assumption that no-one has an opinion of the quality of the tacos. The claim is not automatically accepted simply because it has been made, it must overcome the presumption which exists in the status quo. That brings us to our current dillema in this debate; my opponent never indicated that he wished to deviate from basic argumentative theory which places the sole burden of proof on the instigator. And if that leaves him making a claim that he doesn't know how to support, then he should take this debate as a learning experience and craft a better framework next time. Before the beginning of this debate we must presume that nobody cares either way about proof of the existence of God. Those who believe in a may God take their belief on faith, tradition, emotion or they may even have evidence to support their belief. One may have a mixture of things which point to their belief in a God. Whatever an individual's personal warrant for their belief is doesn't really matter. Next, let's discuss my opponent's skimpy round one; all he says there is that 'Con gets to go first' and 'Define God'. And while that's great and all, it doesn't relieve him of his duty of his duty as the instigator of this debate. If anything, it just makes him kind of lazy for not putting his arguments out first, or at least keeping the first round solely for acceptance. The Contender maintains presumption, and my opponent fails to meet his burden. Again, if he doesn't like that, do a better job in framing the debate next time. Definitions Nope. You don't get to cry abuse when you had every opportunity to define God. This is a semantic issue guys; Pro allowed me to define, so it's my right to define however I want to. As for the whole argument of this debate being in the religious section, not all religions had to have a God who lives in the clouds. Contention 1 Analytical argument aren't refutation for proof guys. The only way this argument even begins to fly is if you reject the definition that my opponent allowed me to provide in the first place. And again, that would be semantic abuse. Furthermore, let's talk about the idea of idols which is how I defined 'God' in the first place; they are objects, things which can be worshipped. Buddha still counts under this defintions, and my opponent doesn't even touch the winged dragon of Ra More semantic abuse here too, don't let Pro get away with that. Contention 2 Drop! Don't let my opponent bring this argument up again. Saying you don't understand an argument isn't refutation. Underview As you can clearly see, the Con is winning this debate. My opponent is making a claim which he never had any intention to prove. This isn't reddit, you don't get to state a belief which is popularly held and expect to win because of the circle-jerk nature of the community you're in. In argumentation, you make claims and then you warrant those claims. You don't state what feel to be true and then shift the BOP when your claim is addressed. In short, my opponent has made some pretty lazy mistakes in framing this debate, and he doesn't get to win because he doesn't like my framework. Also he kind of dropped both my arguments. Now off the flow Religion and/or belief is God is a deeply personal thing. It's not something one takes on empirical evidence. The inverse of that, is that one who does not hold such a belief is not entitled to demand evidence supporting such a belief. Honestly, kind of argument is when one is the contender of a debate, but to make such a claim as an Instigator is kind of lame.