God exists.

Ok so lets see how the round boils down. There are basically 3 places of contention in the round. There is, who has the burden of proof, the Kalam argument, and the Ultimate Boeing 747. I'm going to show why I'm winning at all 3 of those points. So first of all, again, the burden of proof is not assigned to my opponent. He enters the debate with it already on his shoulders. By proposing to defend the existence of something like God, it is his job to prove his side. Again, you look to Russel's teapot. You Look to my Russell evidence to show why this is true. Just on the strength of link evidence you would prefer my side of the argument, because I have a well known author and philosopher supporting my side, while we merely have the rhetoric of my opponent to try to believe his side. I didn't start this debate with the assertion that God does not exist. As the instigator of the debate, all it means is that I've started something. Doesn't mean i start the debate with a specific advocacy that I'm defending, in fact I even state in my first speech that I'm allowing my opponent to make his advocacy first, because of the inherencies in the topic. The BOP argument my opponent attempts to make is pointless and counter productive because he's trying to assign an impossible burden of proof to the Con in this debate. It is nigh impossible to prove that something does not exist. On top of that, the resolution isn't worded in a negative fashion. It's not that I've opened the debate by saying that God does not exist. I invited someone to defend the statement "god exists" and that I would be attacking said advocacy. Enough on that. //Regardless of if it is yellow or not has no bearing on it's existence. // It actually does. Being omnipotent was part of your definition. And I quote " For this reason I suggest an interpretation of this definition to mean that this god is all powerful. " His own interpretation of what "God" is includes all powerful. It would therefore seem to be necessary to warrant in your "proof" that God exists that "god" is also all powerful. So no, don't let my opponent just attempt to exclude this argument. //Again, it follows logically that for something to create time, it must exist outside of it. // Where's the warrant that the universe created time? That's not a warrant that's ever shown in my opponent's argumentation. That's just a premise he chose to accept, and hoped that we would too, but there's no reason for us to even grant him that statement, especially since I've shown that that premise isn't even the only theory out there. // However, would the existence of other theories does not itself disprove my own. // But it doesn't prove your theory true. The Big Bang theory is also just a Theory. The existence of this theory does not itself disprove my own. See the problem when arguments don't have warrants? //It began to exist as I stated earlier and logically for something to begin to exist it must exist in relation to time and thus needs a cause. God is immune from this premise in that it never began to exist as it is the creator of time and therefore is not held by it but exists outside of time. // Who said the universe began to exist? Where's the warrant? It's clearly just a theory that you've just asserted to be true, but I've provided evidence that suggests an equally plausible theory. There's absolutely no reason to believe your theory over mine, which is more than enough to mitigate any offense of yours. //My opponent has repeadetly claimed that god needs a cause. This conclusion however is fallacious in that I have covered why god is immune from this premise in that it never began to exist. The universe needs a cause because it began to exist while god never did. I hate that I have had to repeadetly explain this to my opponent but I hope that I have been clear enough as to persuade voters to vote Pro. // Hm. .. wrong. You've made the assertion that the universe needs a cause, with no warrant to back up your assertion. Let's conclude the debate. My opponent makes a very simple, quite elegant argument, really. He starts with the UNWARRANTED premise that the universe needs a cause. I've already given you other theories to disregard this premise or at least call into question the validity of this claim. He then moves on label that the "cause" is God. He doesn't answer my answer to this that just labeling something God isn't enough to say that it exists in any way that is perceivable and follows our definition of exists, which is CONCEDED by my opponent. ~~~~ On top of all this, if you've disregarded every thing that I've said so far, you can vote for the CON based off of one piece of offense that my opponent fails to answer AT ALL. If a God has been proven to have existed by my opponent, clearly the "cause" for the universe no longer exists, since I think it's a reasonable assertion to say that universes aren't being created at every moment all the time. Granted, there are theories that dispute that, but it's not my job to answer my own argument. Don't let my opponent pull out some new theories in his last speech saying that universes are constantly being created. Why is that important? because unless Universes are constantly being "caused" the "cause" for the universe no longer exists. And therefore the "god" that my opponent has "proven" doesn't exist. So how do you vote. CONDUCT: TIE. Both me and my opponent were pretty nice to each other, in my opinion. If you have to vote one way or the other, you would give me the point because if you read closely, my opponent clearly failed to realize that the debate was premised on the Judeochristian God, and proceeded to argue for a deistitc God. S/G: TIE. I don't think either of us had major transgressions. .. . Arguments: CON. I'm winning the burden of proof argumentation, and I've sufficiently proven my opponent wrong with his Kalam argument, and why his argumentation is not only insufficient, but wrong. On top of that, i'm generating offense from my argument that even if such a god did exist, he no longer exists. Don't let my opponent garner any evidence off the Boeing 747 argument, since I'm dropping it, its not generating offense for either of us. Source: CON. I provide stronger source for my definition, to the point where my opponent has conceded my definition. I also win this point based on breadth of evidence since I canvass multiple authors and multiple sources. I also provide evidence whenever possible for my argumentation, while my opponent relies on unwarranted rhetoric to try to answer my arguments. Thank you