You can't convince me that the God of the Bible doesn't exist.

Thanks to my opponent for making this debate interesting. He has been a good sport not to react negatively to the direction I took this debate. Now, on to my arguments... 1. I have not assumed my opponent would accept the mind altering substance. My opponent could be forced to take the drugs. He could also be fooled into taking them. The means by which this happens does not matter as long as the end result is that the drugs are in effect. 2. & 3. Using the fact that you believe in something as a justification for believing in it is logically invalid. If we used this reasoning, I believe in myself and the self I believe in possesses the power of mind control (in much the same way the God my opponent believes in possesses the power of omnipotence.) I can then use my power of mind control to convince my opponent that God does not exist. If God tries to intervene, I will simply use my power of mind control on Him. The Bible does not state immunity from mind control is one of God's powers. 4. I do not mean to imply that probability is proof. I am alluding to the fact that the definition of the word 'can' states that if it is probable that you are able to do something, then you 'can' do it. And though it is true I would not know exactly what drugs or what amount to use on my opponent, I already accounted for this. As I said, I would simply keep trying different possibilities until I achieved success. As stated before, whether or not my opponent consented to this would not be important because my own goal is to render him convinced. 5. The fact that I casually refer to 1984 in my argument does not invalidate the extremely likely claim I made that it is possible to alter my opponent's perspective. As I said before, unless we can see that he is neurologically incapable of changing his mind without the influence of drugs (extremely unlikely) than we can assume it is possible for me to convince him. Also, if we are to be discounting works of fiction without a solid criterion for defining fiction then there is a certain historical fiction I know of that should perhaps be discounted as well... Semantic Argument: I don't see why my opponent brought this forward. Is he saying that the pronoun "You" could be referring to anyone? This seems to be so. You either refers to the person a comment is directed at or to people in general, it cannot refer to a random, unspecified person. He thus contends not that it is only I that is unable to convince him that God does not exist, but anyone to whom to word you could be referring. This leads to a nasty contradiction. Informal logic: 1. 'You' could refer to anyone (any one) 2. God is someone (some one) 3. Therefore, 'you' could refer to God (1 and 2) 4. Therefore, my opponent believes that God could not convince him that God does not exist (Resolution and 3) 5. My opponent states that God is omnipotent numerous times 6. If God cannot do something, he is not omnipotent 7. My opponent states, "The God I believe in has the power of omnipotence 8. Therefore, either the resolution is not true or the God my opponent believes in does not exist (6 and 7) As you can see, no matter which of these possibilities is true my opponent has put himself in an extremely bad spot. He would either have to accept that the resolution is false or accept that the God he believes in does not exist, thus proving the resolution. He could attempt to refute my logic, but it is mostly comprised of his own words. And last but not least: "Given the above, I, "me" remain convinced that the God of the Bible does exist." The resolution never calls for action so whether or not you presently believe that the God of the Bible exists does not matter.