The Existence of a "Supreme Being," "Creator," or "God" is not Debatable

Wow. What a wonderful debate this has become. In this, my last speech, I am going to go over the points that my opponent (and an incredible opponent, at that) has brought up and show how they clearly flow to the affirmative side. (Any highschool policy debaters out there, that was for you). 1. Everyone can and should inquire into religion and test its claims. I conceded this point in my second speech with the stipulation that such inquiry becomes immpossible to pursue once it reaches the final question of existence. I'll elaborate on this further on. 2. The example of the argument over "incorruptibles" is only one example, not necessarily indicative of a general trend, and might have been better handled by a more knowledgeable debater (no offense taken, by the way. I concede that 16-year-olds probably do not have enough information to sufficiently argue that topic). While it is true that such an argument could have gone much farther than it did had both sides been a bit older and wiser, the end result would have been the same. Even when faced with a valid scientific explanation and examples of "miracles of preservation" from other religions, the religious side could still claim ineffability. They could still argue that it was so because God wished it to be so. I am aware that you addressed this argument, and I will present a response in my last point. Furthermore, while an example is but a singular data point, it was brought up because it IS indicative. I have had many similar conversations on different topics, and I would not have presented an anomaly as argument. 3. Arguments against the specific attributes of a God (or His/Her/Its existence) "CANNOT simply be "dismissed" by the religious side of the question, IF they truly wish to debate them honestly and are interested in determining the truth. " While I would agree with the basic argument that the accepted rules of a debate require that a side respond clearly and precisely to arguments and NEVER dismiss them out of hand, in a religious debate, such rules become meaningless. Here, I am not saying that religion is "exempt" from the rules of debate or that "permitting the "religious" opponent to get away with some decidedly invalid debating tactics" is acceptable. Quite simply, religion has defined God's parameters as having no parameters. At least in the Christian religions (and I admit that I am somewhat deficient in my knowledge of other personal belief structures and religions, but what I do know leads me to believe that they are very similar in this attribute), God is All-Knowing, All-Powerful, and Everywhere. As this is an accepted and defined statute of their religion, an opponent is debating these assertions as well as the overall question of existence. Thus, when a religious person faced with a hard-hitting question about their faith answers "'Well, God did it that way, and Some Things Man Is Not Meant To Understand,'" they are not operating under "a suspension of the rules. " Rather, they are quite inside the rules. The rules require a feasible, direct answer, and, according to the precepts of their religion, that IS a valid response. They truly believe and hold that God's will is unknowable, and thus are allowed under the accepted strictures of debate an answer to any question. THIS loophole in the rules gives religion an advantage which renders the debate (not the arguments) invalid. Their honest debates of the "truth" are ultimately an exception. Yes, religion is a special case, but not because they are benevolently allowed an easy way out. They legitimately lay claim to an easy way out under the precepts of their beliefs. Thus, even an honest, clean debate on the matter of religion will never have an acceptable resolution, which I hold to be one of the requirements of a debate. Thank you so much for taking me up on this. I have wanted to argue this for a long time, and you have helped solidify my ideas and given me many new points to think about.