God, whether he exists or not, is not always right.

My opponent argues: "God, if he was really that powerful, as I've stated before, should've known that the pharaoh was going to be stubborn." Of course He did. He was just being merciful (compared to sending him to hell, anyway). But since the pharaoh had such deeply-rooted faith in his gods, there was no way one single plague could have single-handedly convince him. The real reason why God sent the plagues was to disprove the Egyptians' idols to them [1]. To further reiterate my argument, there is no proof that God did or did not give them a second chance at life. Rebuttal 2: My opponent argues: "Um, Con I have no idea what your father was like but since you're still here debating with me I am assuming that he didn't kill you when you ate too much candy." I will tell you what I am talking about: I am saying that just like a punishment from your worldly father for eating too much candy, God's punishments were entirely justified, so God must be right all the time. My opponent also seems to be missing a key point in my argument: I was referring to the proportion between severity of the sin and the severity of the punishment. Rebuttal 3: My opponent argues: "you can not just use the argument 'God is always right.' " I will give you a new argument then: God would beat Sobek in a fight because the Christian God is immaterial and therefore untouchable to physical things. Rebuttal 4: My opponent argues: "...oh you can live again as long as you all worship me and do what I tell you to do? I don't know how God is different with the white people (sorry guys not trying to be racist) who made all those black people (once again sorry) slaves 200 years ago?" I will tell you how He is different: He only wanted the Jewish faith to survive. He did this by letting the Jews be slaves to the Egyptians for 400 straight years, then freeing them. This possibly made the Jews' faith stronger that God loved them, therefore it was justifiable. "Yeah there was nothing proving that God did not give them a second shot at life if he lived under his law. But then again there was nothing in the Bible to prove that God actually did give the children a second chance." Point taken, voice_of_truth, but all this point proves is that whether or not God gave them a second chance is irrelevant to this debate and therefore the fact that He killed the children is irrelevant to this debate. Rebuttal 5: My opponent argues: "Alright con so if someone killed all of your friends and family as long as you ask God to take the anger out of you, you can cool down in a couple of day... you are a much better person than me the atheist who actually cares about their friends and family enough to hold the anger there..." I am probably misinterpreting that counterpoint, but that does not make me a better or worse person than my opponent. I actually care so much about them that I would willingly die just to save their lives. Also, the Bible says to allow God to avenge others' sins. Rebuttal 6: My opponent argues: "...you showed absolutely no proof that God was behind all of it... the moon is drifting more and more towards the sun... there will come a day when the moon crashes into the sun... does not mean that he is always right." Again, this argument is invalid for three reasons: 1. This debate is about "God, whether he exists or not, is not always right." This means that Pro negates any argument he makes against the existence of God or Jesus or against the accuracy of the Bible. 2. The time of the end of life on Earth due to he moon crashing into the sun could well be the same time God plans for Jesus to return to Earth, when all the saved people to be transported to heaven and everyone left behind to go to hell, and for the world to end. 3. My opponent says that I have shown no evidence that God was behind it. However, really, I did. A coincidental formation could have ended with the planets positioned in a variety of different orders, thus leaving it much less likely that the Solar System appeared out of nowhere and more likely that it was divinely created. I extend this into the "Solar Scatter" portion of my argument. Rebuttal 7: My opponent argues: "For example...take that...teenaged girl...According to the Ten Commandments, coveting other peoples property... is a sin... but...that would be a crime not a sin." I would like to apologize to my opponent, but he is arguing against the accuracy of the Bible and the existence of Jesus, and as I pointed out in rebuttal 6, that makes his argument irrelevant. In addition, "Jesus could've just been this crazy old man parading around Europe 2000 years ago claiming that he was God's son..." Again, that argument is irrelevant to this debate because it is an argument against the accuracy of the Bible. "All of those so-called miracles... could be pure lies for all we know," Actually, there is hard, non-biblical evidence that Jesus really existed [2]. If He existed, then His miracles really happened. "...some, if not most of those dead and those who suffered were Christians..." Another invalid argument from Pro. If God exists, He was probably telling the citizens that there was some way to get out of the war zones alive, but they could have been too scared to hear what God was saying. As for the Christian American soldiers? They died willingly for God and country. Sources: [1]- http://www.gotquestions.org... [2]- http://canadafreepress.com...