Atheism is a sound position

Line-by-line refutation is below:"No evidence for atheism has been given."Excuse me for the lapse in conduct for a moment:-facepalm-Seriously? Did you just slam your face against the wall and blare Gospel music while reading my entire case?I appologize, let me resume my professionalism.The three arguments I give in my case ARE evidence for the truth of atheism. Disproving God is the main tenant of Atheism. Disproving central tenants of theism IS evidence for atheism. This is just standard definitions and common sense. "Even if the arguments given were true I can just say God is not all powerful but still exists."You could. You definitely could. But wait a second! Isn't God presumed to be all-powerful? I believe in the Bible he's been able to move mountains and part oceans and slaughter the first-born sons of entire nations (although theists don't like to talk about that since it shows how God can be a d*ck to people who don't believe in him). By conceding that God cannot be all-powerful, aren't you admitting that your God cannot exist? Either that or you're calling the Bible, and therefore God, a liar. You can take your pick there."This is limiting your thought. If God is omnipotent he can create a stone so big he cannot life at the same time lifting it. God can be in a state of limiting his power at the same time not limiting his power,"See, there are a number of problems with this response. Firstly, this still bites into the front-lined response that God cannot physically be not all powerful. Even if he limited his power, he would still be all-powerful, which would still bite into the loop. Since he didn't respond to that pre-written response, it's still applicable and refutes this argument. Secondly, God cannot logically be all-powerful and not all-powerfull at the same time. The very nature of the two cannot mix in one being or entity. I cannot be pure-blooded African American while still being Pure-blooded Caucasian. The two cannot mix. Thirdly, even if we presume that it IS possible that God could be all-powerful and not all-powerful at the same time, this would suggest that there are multiple realities or dimensions of space-time where God would be all-powerful and not all-powerful. But this assumption is a) unwarranted, b) non-falsifiable as well as non-verifiable since we can only perceive and experience the reality we live in and no others, and c) would cut both ways, presuming it was true and we could prove it. If there are multiple realities where God could be all-powerful and not all-powerful, could we not logically extend that argument out to also say that there could be realities where God could exist and God could not exist? Thus, his only refutations against the Paradox of the Stone is refuted. You can extend the argument out. This is proof that Atheism can be a sound position, and you can affirm the resolution here. But let's not stop there."God allows evil because we need an objective provable standard! Without this standard good would be evil and evil would be good."There's multiple problems with this. Firstly, this seems to contradict your statement that morality can only come from God. Why would it matter if suffering didn't exist if God already provided us with what it's meant to be right and wrong? Suffering and evil does not factor in. Secondly, suffering doesn't have to exist for us to know that being evil is bad and not being evil is good. Hitler doesn't have to be alive for us to know that the persecution of the Jewish race and massive ethnic cleansing is a generally bad idea. We can still have a standard for judging what is good and what is evil without suffering actually existing. And thirdly, there's no argument to say that if God were not all-powerful, that he could not take away suffering and yet still provide an objective standard of judging right from wrong and good from bad. The fact that you presume it can't be done seems conducive to the fact that the argument is sound.With this only refutation of the Problem of Evil refuted, you can cleanly extend this across the flow as well. This gives you two places to affirm the resolution. But hold on, folks! We're not done yet!"Atheism is a negation. Disproving the positive(theistic) arguments doesn't prove a negation."I'm a little confused by my opponent's logic here. I agree Atheism is a negation of theism. But he has the next part backwards. The flow of logic would look something like this:If Atheism is a negation of theism, ...(this is something we both agree on)... then if theism was false, atheism must be true.This is because if Atheism is a negation of theism, and theism is being negated, you are proving atheism. That's just the very basic definitions that my opponent and I agreed on. Moreover, this doesn't even respond to the entire point of the argument, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Since my opponent has provided no extraordinary evidence, then we default to atheism. This gives you the third and final place you need in this debate to affirm. But let's go ahead and refute the rest of his claims as well."Those secular morals only explain why its a good idea not why we should."1. They're the same thing.2. Even if they aren't the same thing, it's an easy, logical jump to make that says if it's good, we ought to do it. 3. Let's return back to your point about how without suffering must exist under God because without it we lose the metric to decide what good and evil is. This is why even if secular theories don't explain why we should do something, you still prefer them because they can still dictate what is good and bad without suffering existing, whereas my opponent's arguments concede that God requires suffering to dictate what is right and what is wrong. "YOu blame God because you cannot prove atheism is correct!"I believe I actually have proved Atheism correct in this debate, thank you very much."God has interacted in physics yet whithen it you cannot reach him"This would suggest that you would have to be winning that a) that there IS extraordinary evidence of God's existence, which you have yet to prove, and b) that God DOESN'T actually contradict the Third Law of Thermodynamics. Since you are doing neither and just making bland assumptions and assertions, I can easily ignore this and ask voters to do the same.The resolution is easily affirmed.