God exists.

Roadmap: Refute PRO, Extend CON, Prove how I win. "In my definition, I did not specify the extent of influence something must have to exist; I specified a qualitative property about the object discussed, but you are arguing with me about a quantitative property. " Influence is both a property with a qualitative and quantitative aspects, and true you merely decided to point out it must have influence you leave me the initiative to determine what is and what is not enough influence. But this is not as completely arbitrary as it may seem because remember in order to have a political effect it must be vocal, therefore I further assert that the amount of influence given out is more than God can create. And because even God's supposed influence does not match up the criteria I listed then clearly the lowing being that is I could never which once again contradicts the definition of existence. And so once again we may look to the CON's definition, and because my opponent has not showed how God is animated God does not exist therefore we vote CON. "My original meaning of the definition of "existence" could be explained very simply with the well known question: If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one around to hear it, does it make a sound? I understand the scientific arguments that would prove the answer to be "yes" for this question - however when we're discussing the existence of God, we must not look to scientific arguments but rather to philosophic arguments in order to have a fair debate - and in those existential terms, it would be very easy for me to argue that, really, the answer to the above question is "no." " This statement is grossly unfair, you state that earlier the debate must be skewed in your direction when I pointed out the extreme abusive nature of your premise, yet it is fine for you to specify what kind of arguments may be made it skewed against me. The only time you may state what kind of arguments may be made, if ever, is at the beginning of a debate and seeing as you didn't scientific logic is permitted. Due to this fact you have blatantly stated that God does not exist, no matter any context you can interpret this statement you have conceded the round, which leads us to yet another clear indignation of why CON is the appropriate side to vote for in this round. "Do you truly believe that the beliefs of 6 billion people have no influence on society?" First off this number is wrong, second this is assuming two drastically incorrect things, A) Everyone who believes in a god believes in one God, this is incorrect because the biggest religion in the world believes in multiple Deities, and B) This is further assuming that every judgment individuals make is mirrored by their faith, be it strong or weak, to a deity. Therefor we can drop the slippery slope you engineered manipulating data. "This statement does not make sense as it is self-contradicting. Religions are simply variations of what "God" is, but they all derive from the same single idea of God; therefore, your sentence: "However being that these different variations of God are the ones effecting politics not God this argument collapses." ...does not make sense." The only support I could see to support this broad and incorrect statement would be the three abrahamic faiths and how they all believing in one central deity, otherwise religions vary drastically. In the instance I was suggesting I was compensating for a variety of religions, Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, and in the context I use them I imply that they each have separate agendas they are trying to pursue under the guise of a or multiple gods. Also religion is not just a variation of what God is it is a variations of cultures and customs stemming from a common belief within a certain society, therefor this argument stands. now extend all the original arguments ========================================================== we may extend the following and assume that my opponent agree because there were no attacks: Definitions Influence: a person that exerts influence. Through this definition alone we ought to vote CON in this round. My attack on his second premise: The statement a great majority of the people instantly negates my opponents entire argument. They say that god must influence on both the individual and collective level, yet looking at the definition of collective (dictionary.com) forming a whole, we can see that God has not influenced Atheists, thereby making this aspect of the second premise false, and yet another reason to vote CON. ========================================================== The CON ought to win this round because it solidly proved through definitions, refutation, logic, overall concessions made by the PRO, that God does not exist. Finally i would like to leave a few remarks to my opponent, To the abusive nature of this debate, it is not supposed to be unfair. Therefore, we should all vote Pro, right? Just kidding; waiting for your replies with bated breath :) be a little more careful if i didn't know you were trying to be humorous i would assume you just forfeited the round by saying just kidding, we shouldn't vote for me. And finally i apologize for my rudeness in this round and ask for your forgiveness.