existence of god
In this debate, intend to discuss the God of the Christian origin. As Con, I will be arguing that God does not exist. Thus my opponent will be arguing that God does exist.
God: A divine, supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent, personal, supreme being that is thought to have created life, moral values, and the universe.
Theist: Having the belief in a god/gods.
Atheist: Lacking the belief in god/gods.
Creationism: the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.
Evolution: the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
Omniscient: All-knowing, knows past, present, future.
Omnipotent: having unlimited power; able to do anything.
Faith: strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
First round is acceptance only. Second round will be for arguments only. Third round and on is for arguments and rebuttals.
A forfeit is an automatic loss.
My accepting the debate, you accept all the definitions and rules. If you would like to question a rule or definition, please specify in the first round.
Do not limit your duties. Many religious debaters limit their task to proving that there is a possibility that God exists. This is obviously unfair, for I am arguing God does not exist, my opponent is arguing that God does exist.
Thank you for accepting this debate Pro, and I look forward to its outcome.
“As for God, his way is perfect: The LORD's word is flawless; he shields all who take refuge in him.”
“You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
“The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul; The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple; “
From this evidence we can conclude without a doubt that God is deemed perfect. Something is deemed ‘perfect’ when it fits completely to an ideal standard of that thing, which entails that it cannot be any better. Therefore a perfect thing will have no flaws, defects, lacks, weaknesses, disadvantages; it will not possess any negative feature or lack of a positive feature that pushes it away from the ideal perfection. Since God is perfect, it cannot create imperfect things thus losing its perfection.
Things that we call "perfect" are usually exaggerations of real things. For example, you might wonder what a "perfect friend" might be like, yet no one has a perfect friend in real life. Anyone who says that they do is probably exaggerating. The same goes for intimate partners, children, pets, parents, bosses and employees, teachers, students, schools, jobs, and so on. Perfection in any of these categories tends to be an idealization of real things, where the good aspects are preserved and perfected while the bad aspects are eliminated. We can infer something said to be "perfect" is unlikely to exist because perfect things tend to be nonexistent idealizations of real things. Since perfect things are unlikely to exist and God is a perfect thing, it follows that it is unlikely that God exists.
Now onto my second point.
People seem to believe that God is the most moral being in the universe. Part of this belief is that God does not have certain kinds of feelings. Although God may have the feeling of anger, God does not have the feelings of lust or envy. Moreover, part of this ordinary concept of God is that God knows more than anyone else. In particular the ordinary man supposes that God knows (at least) all that men know. However these two beliefs, once correctly understood, are logically incompatible.
A person who knows lust and envy has at least had the feeling of lust or envy. Since God has all of men's knowledge and more, he must know lust and envy. But to say God has known lust and envy is to say that God has had the feelings of lust and envy. But this is incompatible with God's moral goodness. Hence God does not exist.
Now onto my last point.
The Christian God is defined as a personal being that is all-knowing. According to Christians, personal beings have free will.
In order to have free will, you must have more than one option, each of which is choice. This means that before you make a choice, there must be a state of uncertainty during a period of potential: you cannot know the future. Even if you think you can predict your decision, you can never know with entire certainty what the future holds since you have free-will.
A being who knows everything can have no "state of uncertainty." It knows its choices in advance. This means that it has no potential to avoid its choices, and therefore lacks free will. Since a being that lacks free will is not a personal being, a personal being who knows everything cannot exist. Therefore, the Christian God does not exist.
I would like to thank my opponent very much for accepting this debate. This is the end of my response as I have stated my three arguments. It is now time to hear my opponent’s arguments. I look forward to the next round and wish my opponent the best of luck.
The Holy Bible
A constant in debates over the existence of God is the inability to provide proof or direct evidence. This is unfortunate, but obviously true. This is a fact that has frustrated theists and atheists through the centuries and will almost certainly never be resolved. That being said, there is evidence of a divine power in the world, and more so evidence of the Christian divine power. That is the position I will be taking in this debate. I will hold all rebuttals of my opponent"s arguments for round 3, as was specified in round 1.
2.Origin of Existence
This is an extremely difficult subject and one that is hard to bend one"s mind around. Voters and Con, attempt to imagine the first moment of time or existence. How did this existence come about? Don"t be fooled, no scientific theory can account for the birth or creation of everything. It is not even possible to imagine the beginning of existence. How can something come of nothing? How can something just "exist" from the dawn of time? It is illogical and simply doesn"t make sense. And even if the latter option of understanding the universe suites one of these voters, I will call that person to remember the state of our ever-expanding universe. This very fact of expansion points toward the creation of our universe as an explosive event that had a beginning. As said by Professor Robert Jastrow of Columbia University, "The birth of the Universe is an effect for which he [a scientist] cannot find the cause." (1) The only reason I mention this is because it shows on very important thing: in this universe and in this human experience there exist things that are simply impossible to explain and things that will, if current predictions withhold, will always be impossible to explain. This is important to remember in a discussion over the existence of a God. As is, it is just as illogical to imagine that something came from nothing as it is to imagine that a divine being that is beyond human understanding created existence.
3.Birth of an Original Idea
Despite scientific justification of a God, the idea of the Christian God, or Judaic God, is largely different than religions than deities that came before. Unlike the pagan religions of old, the Judaic God promotes forgiveness and peace, rather than justice and war. What is the major distinction? The Judaic God isn't simply an extension of human characteristics like the Greek and Roman Gods that came before it, the Judaic God is something entirely different. The ideas present in the Bible are radically different from what the ancient world has seen before. This God even allowed his son to be tortured and demeaned. This is something that humans were utterly baffled at. Even in the Bible, Jesus is constantly questioned on his motive, when it is obvious that he could righteously strike back at his offenders. The point of this is that the Bible is original. It doesn't follow the precedents set by religions before it. It strikes back at human nature, denies justice, promotes submission, rewards not the warrior but the pious. Where did all of these radical new ideas come from? The answer to that is the latter portion of the title of this debate.
The Ontological argument for God is quite interesting, and rather entertaining. It attempts to prove the existence by God using only the definition of God, which is the greatest being that can be imagined, or a completely perfect being. The argument states that God certainly exists as an idea in the mind, which is undoubtedly true. It also states that of two being that are the same in every way except one exists in reality and one only in the mind, the one that exists in reality is greater. The implications of this statement are that if God exists only in our minds, we can imagine a being who is greater than God. However this is unreasonable because the very definition of God states that he is the greatest being that can possibly be imagined. If this logic is followed, God has to exist by the very definition of God. Have fun with your rebuttal, Con :).
In Conclusion: I have proved that the idea of God not existing has just as many pit falls as God existing, differentiated the Christian of Judaic God from other religions, and provided an Ontological argument for God. And I now leave it to you Con.
Rebuttal of Origin of Existence:
My opponent basically uses the Causation argument roughly saying that something can’t come out of nothing.
Following this logic, it must be applied to all existing things, including God. When applied to God, what created God? According to the logic, it must have an origin, how can something come from nothing? If God was created by something, what created it? This argument does not work for proving God, it actually does quite the opposite, and proves God can’t exist because God can’t come from nothing.
Rebuttal of Birth of Original Idea:
This argument is not really an argument at all, or I did not see at all how it proved God all. Basically my opponent says that Christianity is very different from other religions,
“Unlike the pagan religions of old, the Judaic God promotes forgiveness and peace, rather than justice and war. What is the major distinction? The Judaic God isn't simply an extension of human characteristics like the Greek and Roman Gods that came before it, the Judaic God is something entirely different. The ideas present in the Bible are radically different from what the ancient world has seen before.”
I’d like to focus on the underlined part. Judaic ideas are not radically different, the ideas of a heaven and a hell were already used in the Egyptian religion centuries before. Besides the fact that this argument is wrong, it does not prove God at all.
Rebuttal of Ontological Argument:
In this argument, my opponent attempts to define God into existence. The argument roughly follows,
Yet if you substitute something else into the equation, you still get an answer. (This is an excerpt from Gaunilo’s argument, http://www.iep.utm.edu... )
You can substitute anything into this argument that your mind desires, be it a unicorn, pixies, fairies, goblins, trolls, time-traveling rubber bands, anything. This argument proves them all. If you are willing to accept that this argument proves God exists, then you must be willing to exist that unicorns, pixies, fairies, goblins, or anything else you can imagine exists. Obviously, no intelligent person would believe these things, this argument is a fallacy.
Also, definitions only apply to things that exist, applying a definition to something that doesn’t exist, does not prove it exists.
“God has to exist by the very definition of God”
Let me give you this one.
Imagine there is a word called Realicorn: a unicorn that really exists. It exists by definition. If you were to say, “A realicorn doesn’t exist.” That statement is false, by definition. Therefore realicorns exist.
(Realicorn taken from https://www.youtube.com...)
Any intelligent person obviously sees that this argument does not hold up after examination, you can simply not define something into existence. I hope my opponent does not hold these views either.
My opponent goes onto say this,
“Have fun with your rebuttal, Con :).”
as if I would have some kind of difficulty rebutting his arguments at all. I was actually really disappointed after my opponent bragged about how good he is in the beginning of his debate,
“Beware of Malacoda: the debater who ruthlessly battled Liz (Now Madam Vice-President), had a debate rated by whiteflame as "good," and is the personal hero of Airmax who said "I [think that Luke needs to be made God of the world.]”
I actually thought that the arguments would be somewhat good, but whatever, next debate I guess.
I have defeated each and every one of my opponent’s arguments with extreme fun. I wish my opponent the best of luck, look forward to my opponent’s rebuttals and the rest of this debate, thank you!
When I first saw what my opponent's next round was, I put a scowl on my face and watched ten minutes of Game of Thrones and thought about what to reply with. After seeing Joffrey's purple face (if you catch my allusion), I imagined my opponent in a similar position: this made me happy. You see, Con has no sense of humor, which is a sad prospect for me and the other fun-lovers of DDO. Apart from his poor attitude, my opponent has also done a poor job on his rebuttals, practically disregarding two of my arguments and focusing a disproportional amount of time on the blandest one.
I will first provide my own rebuttals and then go on to rebut my opponent's rebuttals.
1st Point: Perfection
The fatal flaw in this argument is the assumption of an objective perfection. This whole argument rides on the idea that the world (or existence) isn't perfect. I combat this by saying that existence is perfect, in the eyes of God at least. True, He constructed an existence that allows for free will and this created the human-perceived imperfection that Con is referring to. Existence and the world was created exactly as God intended it and is therefore perfect. Trying to disprove God by claiming the world is imperfect is naive as it places a human's idea of perfection above the idea of perfection held by God.
My opponent is basically claiming that because bad things or qualities exist, God cannot be perfect. This is really in the same vein as his first argument and contains just as many flaws. Qualities like lust and envy are byproducts of an existence that permits free will. Making bad decisions (which is a byproduct of poor qualities like lust and envy) is the exercising of a human's free will. Remember, the omnipotent and omniscient God made a perfect existence and the defining factor of that existence is the ability for the organic creations within to make choices that wouldn't necessarily correspond with the decisions God would make. Relating back to the previous argument, this of course makes those beings imperfect in our eyes, but they are nonetheless perfect in the eyes of God, because they are exactly as he intended.
A being that is aware of what it's choices will be doesn't have choices? What kind of reasoning is this? My opponent basically claims that for something to be a choice, it's outcome has to be surrounded by uncertainty. Even a being that knows it's choices in advance, such as God, still makes those choices. Knowing what your choices will be or the outcome of those choices has nothing to do with making them. I think my opponent is trying to adapt the argument that human's lack free will because God made us and knows exactly what we will do to work for God. This third argument isn't confusing, it just lacks sense.
Defense of Origin of Existence:
The reason I included this argument is because it implies the supernatural. No, it does not prove the existence of God on it's own, but implies that there is a major break in human logic. Nothing can explain the fact that something came of nothing. As I specified in my argument, a break in human logic like this implies that there is a supernatural element present in existence, which would be God.
Defense of Birth of an Original Idea:
My opponent's rebuttal to this one is rather humorous. First, he tries to prove it wrong by showing one, literally just one, similarity between the Judaic religion and the Egyptian religion. That is just lazy! And then my opponent furthers to rebut my argument by simply saying this, "it does not prove God at all." Does he say why? No! My opponent's rebuttal is lacking and quite frankly, lazy. Well, allow me to clarify for the voters: the reason this implies the existence of God is because the Judaic religion is so different from other religions of the time. I won't rehash the reasons it is so different here as they are included in my round 2 and received absolutely no critique from my opponent. Take that as you will. The fact of being so different from other religions shows that a non-worldly being created this religion. A being that proposed forgiveness over justice, piousness over forcefulness, and in the ultimate show of mercy and love, gave up his son to save his murderers. This is not akin to human characteristics or other religions of the time.
Defense of Ontological Argument:
This rebuttal vexed me greatly. The argument I present that is the most boring and used in literally every debate over the existence of God known to man is the only argument Con takes any time to actually rebut. It is also the only argument he provided any source for, but here is the catch: his source defeats his own argument. It is always rather hilarious when this occurs. I will also provide an exert from the source my opponent took his argument from. "Notice, however, that premise 1 of Gaunilo's argument is incoherent. The problem here is that the qualities that make an island great are not the sort of qualities that admit of conceptually maximal qualities."
And further on, "Anselm's notion of a greatest possible being seems to avoid the worry expressed by Broad and Guanilo." 1
Do be more careful with your sources, Con! As this source states, 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.
And then, almost as laughably, my opponent uses the argument of a youtuber to debate St. Anslem. The Realicorn. Let's just say there is a reason that youtube has not become the center for philosophy in this modern world. The realicorn does not follow the ontological argument. The realicorn simply defines the realicorn as existing. The ontological argument defines God as the greatest being imaginable, and to be the greatest being imaginable, something must exist. This source also refutes itself pretty well in the comment below the video. What a joy!
This also sort of acts as a rebuttal, but I felt that it deserved to stand as its own argument. Any follower of Kant (which is most modern philosophical thinkers) understands the idea that our reason and the evidence we use to formulate and support it is founded on a subjective view of existence. This means that we see the world based on the reason and ideas that are intrinsic to our species. The only reason I includ this argument is because it, as well as my previous arguments, point toward an existence and a universe that is far beyond the understanding of our feeble minds. What we see and what we know is all based on the formation of our brains! Yet my opponent attempts to disprove God through claiming he is imperfect by human standards and knows of sin. There are ways to debate the existence of God in the negative, but these are not them.
In closing, I just wanted to say a few things. My opponent was rather pompous with his rebuttals and even downright rude. First, his critices my early attempt at comedy. Which is surprising given his profile pic, which I found humorous.And then this line: "I actually thought that the arguments would be somewhat good, but whatever, next debate I guess." Apparently my opponent has already decided that he has won the debate. Voters, help me take his confidence down a notch and strike the fear of God in him. Ha. Now that was clever.
Firstly I would like to point this out.
“After seeing Joffrey's purple face (if you catch my allusion), I imagined my opponent in a similar position: this made me happy.”
My opponent found pleasure in the painful death of a Game of Thrones character. I watched the video myself, it was horrific. Somehow, these kind of instances makes my opponent happy, and even happier when he imagines me in his place. I’m not sure if this is a death threat, or just trying to scare me. This is very disturbing, if anyone else wants to see what my opponent thinks is happy, or what my opponent wants to do to me, visit this. https://www.youtube.com...
“You see, Con has no sense of humor, which is a sad prospect for me and the other fun-lovers of DDO.”
I completely understand if my opponent likes to bring humor into his debates, personally, I like to get as much to the point as possible, I hope my opponent can respect how I wish to do my debates, and I will respect his. I’m sorry, but I didn’t know that what you said was intended as a joke, I didn’t think it was, I apologize.
“I combat this by saying that existence is perfect, in the eyes of God at least.”
Can you prove that existence is perfect?
“Trying to disprove God by claiming the world is imperfect is naive as it places a human's idea of perfection above the idea of perfection held by God.”
Would my opponent like to state was the idea of perfection is held by God. If my opponent is to use God’s idea of perfection, my opponent must first prove that God exists. This rebuttal is based on assumption and speculation.
Rebuttal of 2nd Point:
My opponent does his rebuttal the same as the one prior, so I will use the same rebuttal as above for the same point.
Rebuttal of 3rd point:
“Even a being that knows it's choices in advance, such as God, still makes those choices. Knowing what your choices will be or the outcome of those choices has nothing to do with making them.”
Yes it does, 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.
Origin of Existence:
“No, it does not prove the existence of God on it's own, but implies that there is a major break in human logic. Nothing can explain the fact that something came of nothing. As I specified in my argument, a break in human logic like this implies that there is a supernatural element present in existence, which would be God.”
Ok so my opponent starts off by saying that his argument does not prove God. Then he goes on to repeat what I already defeated (in bold), and can be turned back on itself to prove that God cannot exist because something cannot come from nothing. Then, after these two faults, goes onto use the God-of-the-Gaps argument, which does not prove God’s existence of all. It is not reasonable to assume that just because something cannot be explained, that God must have done it.
Birth of Original Idea:
Let me explain, I thought that it did not prove God at all because it just explained that Christianity was different from other religions, I did not see at the time how this proved God. My opponent goes on to explain this,
“The fact of being so different from other religions shows that a non-worldly being created this religion.”
Thank you very much for that, now that I know what the argument is, I can actually rebut it. I will use the same rebuttal I started and elaborate on it since my opponent got very angry, (frankly I would be too, I apologize, I should have provided more) so I will show how Christianity is actually not so different from other religions, and therefore defeat it. Here are some similarities:
Both the Judaist, and the Islamic religions believe in only one god.
Both the Judaist and the Islamic religions believe in angels.
Both the Judaist and Islamic religions believe in prophets, or divine relations.
Both the Egyptian, Greek, Islamic, Judaic and others all believe in a heaven or a hell.
Both the Islamic and Judaist religions believe in circumcisions.
Both Judaic and most other religions believe in prayer to their god/gods.
Both Judaic and most other religions believe in some type of afterlife.
Both the Judaic and many other religions believe in some kind of holy book.
Both the Judaic and many other religions believe in animal sacrifice.
Both Judaic and other religions such as Hinduism believe in the confession of sins.
These are only a few examples, I am sure that there are much more, but I believe I have stated enough to defeat the argument.
As I read through my opponents rebuttal, all he does is make fun of my sources (except at the end about the realicorn, but it still wasn’t even a full argument.) And if you look carefully, does not even defend his argument at all. This makes me think that my opponent did not actually have a rebuttal for the argument and instead tried to distract me with the false argument of my sources. And to defeat it anyways, I cited those sources because that is where I got information for my rebuttal, not sure how those defeat me. In the future don’t make fun of your opponent’s sources as a rebuttal.
“The realicorn simply defines the realicorn as existing.”
Yes it does and so does the ontological argument according to you.
“It attempts to prove the existence by God using only the definition of God…”
“Yet my opponent attempts to disprove God through claiming he is imperfect by human standards and knows of sin. There are ways to debate the existence of God in the negative, but these are not them.”
I think that this is a rebuttal because it does not prove God at all and is an attempt to defeat my arguments.
My opponent says that my arguments are false because I’m using human standards for God. I ask my opponent this then, what other standards are we supposed to use then? We cannot use God’s standards because you have to prove he exists first. If you mean the definition of God, definitions only apply to things that exist.
“Apparently my opponent has already decided that he has won the debate.”
I did not make that assumption at all, I apologize if it came off that way but that was not how I meant it.
“Voters, help me take his confidence down a notch and strike the fear of God in him. Ha. Now that was clever.”
I don’t think trying to get voters to vote against me just to make me not confident in myself. Voters should vote on who they think had better arguments, conduct, etc. Voting should not be teaching someone a lesson on the assumption that I am arrogant.
My opponent has either sent me a death threat, or states that he likes to envision me dying. 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. Sources should either be tied or I win for we each used citations, except in the response I just replied to my opponent did not use any citations, so I guess I could win in that category since I always cited my sources while my opponent did not, up to interpretation. Spelling and grammar should be tied, and I believe I won convincing arguments, but that is up to voter interpretation. This debate is over for me now, and in the voters hands, I hope they will make the right decision. I would say I have enjoyed the debate, but thus my opponent tells me that he enjoys envisioning me choke to death, so that kind of ruined the experience. Anyways, thank you!
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.
Rebuttal 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?"
"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.
Origin 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.
"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.
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.
I won't bother addressing this.
"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.
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.