A Triune Godhead is more likely revealed by the Bible than a single God entity

Disclaimer I am a Pastor and Christian school teacher. I do personally believe Trinitarian Theism, but also realize that the Trinity is merely a well intended attempt to describe the indescribable. While I will make my case vigorously I do not mean to communicate to any reader that I negate the model of the Trinity wholesale. However, I'm always open to being wrong in even my deepest convictions, and for this reason I am well aware of the Trinity's weaknesses, and will attempt to communicate these in the round. My motivation for accepting this debate is to educate Christians on this website to learn the valuable skill of historically analyzing modern theology. I also hope to dismiss Christian prejudice against those who may reject the Trinity by explaining exactly where the disputations are, and what rationale those groups often labeled "cults" have for their beliefs. My sincerest belief is that we all benefit from hearing both sides of the argument, and since traditionally topics like this one are taken by somebody ill suited for the task, I decided to ensure the audience a more substantive debate by accepting. Special Request I have several important writings due in the next week. In total, something like 24 pages for my Masters. I took this debate to ensure its quality, but need some leniency in the timing of responses. I respectfully ask my opponent not to post his Round 2 Case until Wednesday. Definitions Bible- The 66 books of the Old and New Testament irrespective of translation or version. (Catholic Canon also acceptable). Trinitarian Theism- The theological view that God is three distinct person united in one person. Simultaneously a Tri (three) Unity (singularity). Sabellianism- (also known as modalism, modalistic monarchianism, or modal monarchism) is the nontrinitarian belief that the Heavenly Father, Resurrected Son and Holy Spirit are different modes or aspects of one God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three distinct persons in God Himself. Council of Nicaea- (325AD) The first of a series of assembled discussions of Church leaders to reach consensus on a range of theological issues, from the exact date of Easter, to the included books of the biblical canon, and most notoriously the nature of Jesus and his true relationship to God the Father. This Council did reach a final vote, but did not reach consense on the issue of Trinitarian Theism, which resulted in several more councils being summoned to clarify and resolve the issue. Constantine- Emperror of Rome from 306-337AD. Granted legality to Christianity through Edict of Milan in 313AD. Notoriously meddled in Church affairs and is supsected of having seen the Church not as God's manifested truth on Earth, but rather an administrative vessel for achieving a united Empire. Assembled the Council of Nicaea in 325AD for exactly that purpose, because the church itself was divided throughout the empire, especially on the issue of the nature of God. Arius- A priest of Alexandria in Egypt in the time of the Council of Nicaea. Arius became the name associated with the most prominent nontrinitarian view of the time, known as Arianism. His enemies attacked him in effigy and legend now paints him in shadows and isolation, which has been historically debunked. While Arius' name is most associated with the brand of theology that bears it, he was not its originator nor its strongest proponnent. Nicene Creed- The official statement of belief issued by the Council of Nicaea. It reads: "We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen. " Observations The Bible is the weighing mechanism for the round. However the Bible is inescapably subjective. Therefore my oponent and I will need to do more than merely quote verses and offer our own personal interpretations. We will both need to consult theologians and offer their interpretations. Theologians and Church leaders who lived during and before the Council of Nicaea take precedence over modern or Post-Nicaea interpreters. History is written by the victors, and facts are often suppressed to avoid dissent. This is a well known truth in historical study, and its importance cannot be underestimated in this debate. The Catholic Church has a history of censoring material it objects to, and re-painting history in a preferred likeness to delegitimize controversy. Since most of Arius' writings and other nontrinitarian writings have been destroyed, the Con must observe this reality lest the Pro make sweeping assumptions that the Arian controversy was merely a tempest in a teapot, and "everybody" else was "always" Trinitarian. The best scholarship shows us, despite having limited resources extant, that this is not the case. The Pro and Con must affirm a shared understanding of history. I require that the Pro affirm that the original Council of Nicaea was not unanimous in the creation fo the Nicene Creed, though the majority of the council (but not the plurality) were in agreement for Trinitarian Theism. Once both sides agree to this, we can begin to reenact that ancient debate on even ground, each utlizing scripture and ancient interpretation to make his case. Effectively creating a Council of Nicaea 2011. The Con is not required to produce a definition of God to oppose Trinitarian Theism, rather Con must cast doubt on the "Triune Godhead" view to dismiss its liklihood in the mind of the voter. The only limit the Con must observe is the phrase "Single God Entity". This permits the Con to advocate for any number of conflicting views of God, so long as they cast doubt on the Trinitarian Theism view. For instance, the Con may argue that scripture describes a Modalism view of God, or a Panentheist view, or any other view so long as it limits God to a singular entity, as per the resolution. While this may at first seem unfair, granting the Con too much ground and pigeonholing the Pro, please be aware that Trinitarian Theism is the Orthodox view of Christianity and easily the Lion of the match. It has been the preferred view of God for almost 1700 years. The Con is at a natural disadvantage. Further, as G. K. Chesterton noted in his book Orthodoxy "There are an infinity of angles at which one falls, but only one at which one may stand". If Trinitarian Theism is to be the only true view of God, it must take on all comers and stand undisputed. Surely my opponent would agree that anything less devalues the nature of our subject.