existence of god

I'm a little dissapointed in this debate. Especially in this last round. My opponent spends more time begging for conduct points than he does actually debating me. And trust me, if you knew Joffrey, his face would have given you pleasure as well, haha. For the most part I won't remark on Con's petty quarrels for conduct points, as they hardly pertain to this debate. The voters know that my comparison of him to Joffrey was a joke and will take it as such I'm sure. Luckily for most of us, DDO debates are known for their occasional humor and lack of formality. Perhaps Con does not know this. Anyway, onto the arguments.Final RebuttalsRebuttal of 1st Point:My opponent's only defense for his first two points (the majority of his argument, mind you) is this: "Can you prove that existence is perfect?" and"If my opponent is to use God’s idea of perfection, my opponent must first prove that God exists"The former of these defenses is the worst. Can I prove that existence is perfect? Yes, I can prove that existence is perfect in regards to God. Anyways, I would simply counter back, can you prove that existence is not perfect? Of coure not! One human's idea of perfection may be a world in which he can be with all the women in the world. Another's may be a world in which there is no war. Humans' ideas of perfection are purely subjective! There is no perfect because everybody's criteria are different. However, as Con pointed out, something imperfect cannot come from something perfect. Meaning the world must be perfect because God is perfect. As for my opponent's second point, I say this: I do not have to prove God's existence to "use" his idea of perfection. The Bible has told us that existence is exactly as God wished it to be: an existence in which human's have free will. Nothing could be more perfect than this. If we didn't have free will, we would be robots. The fact that we have free will leads to violence and hate, but these are byproducts of the greatest and most perfect gift God could give us. Which is our power of choice. And asking me to prove that God exists before using this idea of perfection is ridiculous. That is like saying a philosopher cannot theorize about a concept before a concept is proven to be 100% infaulible. I can still use God's idea of perfection, which is objective perfection, to rebut a poorly contructed argument. Rebuttal of 3rd Point, Free Will: "if the being knows what it will choose in advance, it has to make that same choice, it is fixed to the same path and has not ability to change it, no free-will"Pay attention to this line: "it has to make that same choice". What is forcing it to make that choice? Is some higher power stopping this being from making a choice? No. The definition of free will is not making choices without knowing what will occur as the consequence. If a being knows what choice it will choose, it still makes that choice. If I know I will order a pizza later today, do I not have free will? I am still choosing to order that pizza. I would have ordered that pizza even if the day before I wasn't fully aware I was going to order that pizza. If my friend looks into a crystal ball and tells me I am going to order a pizza, it was still me who chose to order it. Sure, a being is fixed to one path: the path of the choices it will make. The being has no reason to differ from that path, why would it? Those are the choices the being will make at one point or another. They are still choices, and they still constitute free will.Final Arguments/DefensesOrigin of Existence: The whole point of my argument here was showing that because science cannot explain this quandry, perhaps we should look to the Bible, which explains the quandry perfectly. The Bible basically claims that a transcendental being, that is beyond human logic and outside the boundary of time, exists. This being created the Universe and subjective existence as we know it. The fact is, science has run up against a wall, a wall that Christianity bounds over. Birth of an Original Idea:My opponent tries to rebut this simply by showing similarites between the Judaic religion and other religions. This would be sufficient if I hadn't already pointed out what the primary differences were: "It strikes back at human nature, denies justice, promotes submission, rewards not the warrior but the pious." These were some of the differences I pointed out. My opponent completely ignores them and instead makes a long list of similarites that are completely irrelevant. He completely dropped the main substance of my argument. Ontological Argument: "As I read through my opponents rebuttal, all he does is make fun of my sources" This is completely untrue. I didn't make fun of your sources, Con. For heaven's sake, they weren't even yours! You copied mine, haha! I made fun of the fact that your own source contradicted your argument. You took your pilland argument from a source that basically said the pilland argument was a load of bull. "And if you look carefully, does not even defend his argument at all." Not sure how my opponent can justify this one. Part of my defense was using your own source against you, which claimed that your rebuttal was invalid. The other part was this: "anything with qualities that have no intrinsic maximum are not eligible for the ontological argument. This would include all of my opponent's funny little examples, like time-travelling rubber bands and such." Yet this is completely ignored by my opponent. Instead he tries to convince the voters that if they look really closely, I have no defense. My defense is very much real.The problem with the realicorn argument is that the definiton of a realicorn is literally just a unicorn that exists. This would be a proper rebuttal if the definition of God I used was an all powerful being that exists. However, the definition of God does not specifically claim his existence, differing from the realicorn definiton. The whole point of the ontological argument is using the idea of God to prove that if God didn't existence, he wouldn't be the greatest being imaginable. Take this as you will, but it is not disproved by the realicorn.Additional:My opponent again claims that something cannot be considered untill it is proven, and etc. This is completely rehashing what has already been said and I will not go over it again.Other: I won't bother addressing this.Conclusion: "This is scary and should be docked from conduct, yet I feel that a death threat should deserve more docking of points so should be used inflicted in some other category."I found this very amusing. The whole thing with Joffrey was very obviously a joke. The whole things with me glorifying myself was very obviously a joke. This if the first time I have ever been accused of sending someone a death threat in a debate. And the first time an opponent of mine has spent more time pleading with the voters for conduct points than actually debating. Unlike my opponent, I will not tell the judges how to vote in each category. This debate speaks for itself. Thanks to anybody who actually read this lackluster debate all the way through and happy voting. P.S. Don't make me angry or I will compare you to Joffrey. This practice has been known to frighten 14-year olds who are more confident than they should be.