God probably doesn't exist.

This is my last round, so I will offer a summary of why I have won. The topic of the debate is "God probably doesn't exist. " No evidence has been put forward by the affirmative team in support of this assertion. No arguments have been made. In a debate, the affirmative (pro) team has the job to affirm the resolution. He has utterly failed in this respect. Even if everything he has told you is utterly correct and everything I say completely wrong, I should still win the debate because I have succeeded in preventing my opponent from doing his job. What's more, my opponent also foolishly made it a rule that he cannot do his job, and thus even if he satisfies the burden of proof in the last round, he should lose for breaking his own rules. On the other hand, I satisfied everything that was required of me in the debate and more. All I had to do is negate the probability of God's non-existence. What I have gone on to show is not just the probability of God's existence, but certain veritable proof that the God, as my opponent concieves him, absolutely must exist. Therefore I have fulfilled my role in the debate, as well as the burden of proof that the "rules" say I have. What has pro done in response to my cogent analysis? In round two he laments that I simply state his definition as fact, implying that his definition is not a fact and therefore false, while in round three he flip-flops again by saying he now agrees with his definition again. That's probably because I gave you paragraphs of evidence in round two that the definition is, in fact, accurate. Then he says that I changed his definition. Let's compare them side-by-side:PRO - The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authorityCON - The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority (who may or may not be real)As you can see, the two statements are exactly the same. The brackets at the end of my definition are, in context, assumed under pro's definition. Therefore this claim is entirely misguided. At the very end of the last round, pro tries to make a last-second comeback with his new argument: "This doesn't inherently claim [God] necessarily exists, it just explains what God would be if he did exist. " That is true only if premise one is seen in isolation. So, if God does exist, God is the ruler of the universe. If my opponent has actually read the argument carefully, he would notice that there are not one but three steps before you got to my conclusion. The second was my opponent's assertion that anything that "has actual being" exists. So long as God actually is, therefore, I have won the debate. We know already that God is (after all, we defined him) but is he actual as opposed to imaginary? Seems like we'll need an extra step before we can reach our conclusion. Oh wait, there's one right there - the definition in step one cannot be correct if God is imaginary! Tertium non datur - the only options are either that pro's definition is incorrect (which it isn't, both by my opponent's claim and my analysis) or that God is not imaginary. Since God is not imaginary, God must be actual. Therefore, God has actual being. If we check back to premise two, we discover a most remarkable conclusion - God exists. Holy cow, that's point four of my logical steps! Well, looks like they did prove God after all. Come at it another way. Presume God (creator/ruler/moral source) did not necessarily exist. My opponent needs to explain how this is possible. How is it possible that the creator and ruler of the universe, as well as the source of all morality, does not necessarily exist? It seems to me quite logical that to rule/create/be a source, one must exist. Certainly human imagination isn't ruling the universe, or else that unicorn horde I imagine trampling my opponent's avatar will soon appear. That's not semantics by the way, that's logic. Even if it was semantics (which it blatently isn't), just pointing that out is not enough to make it false. I think I have stated my argument enough times with sufficient logical reasoning. My opponent offers no arguments, and no rebuttals aside from expressing uncertainty over the premises - premises that he wrote himself.