You can't convince me that the God of the Bible doesn't exist.

Resolution Negated: [I] can't convince [my opponent] that the God of the Bible doesn't exist. Examination of the Resolution: This would seem to be an impossible resolution, as my opponent could simply claim each round to still believe in the God of the Bible despite anything I said. However, the resolution does not call for me actually convince my opponent that the God of the Bible doesn't exist. The only question here is whether I CAN convince my opponent that the God of the Bible doesn't exist. can - to be able to; have the ability, power, or skill to /or/ to have the possibility (1) So all I have to prove is that it is possible for me convince my opponent that the God of the Bible does not exist, given my skills and abilities. I do not have to actually do any of this because the resolution does not call for it. I only have to show that I can. Now, my opponent has not provided any set of circumstances under which I would be attempting to convince him that the God of the Bible does not exist, so I will define those as I wish. Here are a few examples of how I could convince my opponent that God does not exist: 1. If my opponent were under the influence of mind-altering drugs, it would be far easier to convince him of anything. I think voters will agree that if his mental state were sufficiently compromised, it would be possible (see the definition) for me to convince him that the God of the Bible does not exist. 2. I could offer a stunning argument against the existence of God which would satisfy whatever ridiculous burden of proof my opponent placed on me. I have formulated no such argument, but the resolution does not require this. Granting, destroying his firmly held beliefs would be difficult, but as long is it is possible given my abilities it is safe to say I can. Though it is not given that I would succeed, I think voters will find that it is possible that I possess the ability to do this. Analysis of My Opponent's Argument: In my opponent's argument, he once again states that he wishes to "see if any unbelievers CAN (emphasis mine) ... convince me that God does not exist." He very clearly again states that I only must prove I can and that I am under no obligation to actually do this. If this reasoning sounds like semantics, I offer two points: 1. Imagine if the resolution had been "My opponent can't jump of a ten story building." Would I be under the obligation to jump off a ten story building to win the debate? No, I would simply have to prove that it is possible that I could. 2. If we interpret the resolution as requiring me the actually convince my opponent of anything (even "the sky is blue") he can just deny it each round. Thus he would simply be declaring himself the victor and there would be no debate. I find this highly unsporting. Conclusion: I have demonstrated how it is possible that I may possess the ability to convince my opponent that God does not exist. If necessary I will offer more examples in further rounds. In order to win the debate, my opponent will have to definitively prove that it is not physically possible for me to convince him that God does not exist (thus satisfying the requirement that "I can't"). Sources: (1) http://dictionary.reference.com... I hope my opponent finds the dictionary not to be fallacious or circular in reasoning.