No believer in any religion that includes an afterlife can provide me with a sound argument

I accepted this debate with V5RED because he proved honorable and intelligent in a previous debate. I was excited for a great exchange of thoughts, which diminished each round as he constantly made weak arguments and false accusations. Finally, in the last round, he discarded all sense of rational discussion with his blatant attacks: He committed the act of blaming the victim when accusing me of making fallacious and absurd arguments. This is coming from a person who used an argument of a “magic ball” in response to logical deductions in relation to the prime mover. He made a blatantly detestable false accusation of me, and I quote: “con essentially said he is in favor of rape, murder, and slavery.” It is accusations such as this one that truly show the character and commitment to truth that a person holds. My opponent claims that I am ignorant of my own belief system. This is ironic, as the only argument he offered was the evidential problem of evil, but then mistakenly used the logical problem of evil. My opponent argued that I used a “snow plow fallacy” and overwhelmed him with sources. My opponent had three days to respond to each debate round, and in each debate round I never sourced more than a few articles and a lecture (and my references never went over 7). If my opponent truly doesn't have enough time for minimal research, he shouldn't be debating complex topics. Ironically, my opponent then “snow plowed” me with multiple arguments that are too complex for me to cover in conclusion round, and is especially distasteful after we agreed on no new arguments in the last round. My opponent accused me of having a certain script. This is just disingenuous. He accuses me of being incapable of crafting me own arguments, and slanders me by stating that I am a plagiarist. My opponent continually accused me of committing various fallacies (which I would then demonstrate how those claims were false), and then would ironically commit those same fallacies when attempting to refute my arguments. Well, then, let's examine each argument and see the final conclusions: Mind over Matter: I argued that the universe is ordered (information is an inherent principle), and that requires a sender. My opponent argued that the universe just magically started off ordered (he did not explain how this is so), and conceded that the ordered universe becomes more chaotic over time. My next argument, the prime mover, demonstrates how the universe can start out ordered. Prime Mover: Through logical deduction, I argued that the prime mover must be beyond space, time and limitations. My opponent argued that the prime mover could be a magical ball (inherently meaningless) or quantum fluctuations (necessarily contradictory). Historicity of Jesus: My opponent argued that it is in the realm of human psychology for multiple people at different times and places to have the same exact hallucination, and then all be so convinced of said hallucination that they will die for their beliefs. I argued that the best explanation for the apostles dying for their beliefs was that they were convinced of what they saw to be true, and it was this integrity that caused the initial growth of the Christian religion. Historicity of Genesis: My opponent committed the bandwagon fallacy, arguing that because Creationists are the minority, they must be wrong. I offered a credible scientist, the inventor of the gene gun (someone making important contributions to science and obviously understands his field), who has proposed a thesis consistent with his observations: genetic entropy. This thesis demolishes evolution and is consistent with creation. Miracles: My opponent did not respond to my arguments made in the 4th round. I expect this to mean he realized he had no valid refutation, and my arguments for the likelihood of the existence of miracles still stand. Problem of Evil: My opponent has an incoherent view of free will. If people are able to make free choices, there will necessarily be suffering in the world. He then argues that if someone rapes someone else, this violates the victim's free will. No, this doesn't, and its absurd to think so. Free will is the ability to make choices. The man may choose to rape a woman, and the woman may choose to prevent that from happening. Clearly, the person with the stronger force will achieve their desires, but this does not mean the person not obtaining their desires lost their free will. This would be akin to saying, “I want to fly. Since I can't, my free-will is violated.” No, my physical options, or lack there-of, do not take away my free will. My opponent then argued that God took away Pharaoh's free will in regards to the Exodus event. No. Again, this Bible claims that God had a causal role in the physical options (i.e. the pharaoh had a higher desire for resistance in regards to the Hebrews), but again, physical options do not take away the free will. Morality: Pro: “Calling goodness god's nature does not solve the dilemma. It just shifts it.” No, you presented a false dilemma, and your inability to understand the third option does not negate its truth value. Example: If the nature of the law is that you cannot go past 60mph while driving, your subjective belief that the law is unjust does not negate the value of that law. You will get a ticket if you speed over the limit, and the officer will not be persuaded by your arguments that the system is unjust. The understanding of God is that he is the prime mover who created all things. This is an eternal being creating purpose, consistent with his nature. Morality necessarily derives from the prime mover, as ontology gives birth to teleology. My opponent argued that he rejected stoicism. Okay. I also reject stoicism. This should be obvious as I'm defending the Christian religion. A paradigm can be wrong but still have specific principles that are correct. Socrates argued that evil doesn't touch good people. People can only cause their own evil. If a thief robs someone, the evil resides only in him, not the victim. He argued this before he was put to death for demonstrating critical reasoning skills to his society. Allow me to give an analogy: There are two women. Both of them get raped by the same guy. The first women becomes bitter, she pushes away many male figures in her life and resents that guy. The second woman forgives the guy; she pleads with him to become a better person. She uses that opportunity to relate to others in her situation, and shows them the way to happiness. If you understand the second person as a good person, you then understand that no evil touched her. My opponent conceded that atheism cannot claim an objective moral stance. He then contradicts his paradigm by claiming that he can still hold others accountable to his subjective paradigm. If one person acquires good evidence that the best way to deal with thieves is to kill them on the spot, then according to your arguments, he is justified in immediately killing anyone who steals from him. If you have your own sense of morals that you hold others accountable to, you have to recognize that others will also have theirs, and they will be contradictory to your system. Whose system should win, when one of you wrongs the other? This is why society would collapse if atheism was true, and why it is demonstrable that people act according to an objective standard, above their personal opinion. Multiple Arguments: My opponent falsely accused me of a snowball tactic, then ironically uses the same tactic he criticizes. He uses lots of articles to make arguments against biblical inaccuracies and the creation/evolution debate. If one wants to consider themselves as an intelligent and open-minded person, it is important to evaluation the claims by both sides of an argument. One intellectually dishonest claim a person can make is that there is no debate to be had. This is generally said by people who don't want the evidence from the other side to be evaluated. If one wants to be sloppy and simply agree that there are biblical inaccuracies, and that there is no legitimate evidence for creation, then please don't listen to theologians and historians who spend enormous amounts of time replying to the critics, or to the scientists who supply evidences for a young earth. Conclusion: I clearly need to be better at choosing others in which to spend time discussing complex topics with. There are people that respect the truth as much as they respect others. It is sad that so few of those people exist, but I hope to find them. I do thank my opponent for the opportunity to present some arguments, and for the opportunity to deal with the pressure of such an impolite person. I hope that one day he becomes more respectful.