Instigator / Pro
11
1725
rating
42
debates
71.43%
won
Topic

Exodus happened

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
3
9
Sources points
4
6
Spelling and grammar points
2
3
Conduct points
2
2

With 3 votes and 9 points ahead, the winner is ...

Nevets
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
History
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
20
1548
rating
31
debates
53.23%
won
Description
~ 586 / 5,000

This is not about whether or not God was involved, but about whether or not the story is true or fiction. Questions about religious themes must be discarded in favour of historical questions. Breaking this theme, for example by criticising the role of God in the story, will lead to a conduct loss -- this is a voting rule.

The expanding resolution can be summed up as so:

"The story of the Israelites leaving Egypt due to miraculous circumstances is not a made-up myth"

Miraculous: extremely unlikely and/or impossible

Myth: a story not based on real events

History: real events

Round 1
Pro
Thank you, Nevets, for accepting this debate
This round, I will only set up a solid framework on which we can build this debate, as well as clarify my position. I will then challenge CON with questions regarding his position. CON must be careful about answering my questions. If he cannot answer those questions adequately, his position as CON will appear to be hypocritical.  CON has a responsibility to create a solid position one can actually defend. "Exodus didn't happen" is NOT a valid position for CON to take. If there is no better historical position than mine, then I win regardless of how many objections CON can raise against the story. It doesn't matter how unlikely exodus is if there is no alternative path of history. 



FRAMEWORK

BoP
I am the maker of claims, and I bear the majority BoP. But the simple fact that the story is in the Bible, the book of Jewish history, should be enough to also put a BoP on my opponent. Exodus is a crucial link in the history of the Jews as told by themselves, and to reject this event as a myth begs the question: what happened otherwise? If there is a gap in Jewish history where exodus supposedly happened, and PRO cannot fill that gap with something else, it follows logically that exodus is most likely the truth. Because no other possible event is written into the Bible. Nobody in their right mind would claim that the Jews wrote stories completely detached from their real history. If you don't believe in the Jewish religion, you still can't deny the fact that the Jews has a real history, which their religious stories are based upon.

CON must show us that something else than exodus happened. Alternatively, CON must demonstrate that exodus is virtually impossible. 
If he can do neither, I must be declared the victor.

This becomes the DE FACTO bop:

PRO: Exodus is possibly true in a historical context
CON: Exodus is impossibly true /OR/ something else happened



The role of God
The Israelites typically attributed everything in nature to their God. They really believed that God controlled, among other things, the weather.

""
He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth;
Who makes lightnings for the rain,
Who brings forth the wind from His treasuries.
""

Other ancient peoples worshipped many different god's, each controlling a different aspect of life. Everything was thought controlled by these supernatural beings. To reject an event like exodus solely based on the religious story associated with it is absurd. will show you an example of a religious story with miracles that is actually true:

"the sky suddenly turned dark as the sun disappeared behind the moon. Interpreting the inexplicable phenomenon as a sign that the gods wanted the conflict to end, the soldiers put down their weapons and negotiated a truce" [HISTORY.CON]


We can deduce three criteria for a religious story to be considered "happened":
  1. Real people must be involved
  2. The story must have a measurable impact on history
  3. The alleged miracles must be possible in the real world, not only the religion of the writers
If I can demonstrate the story of the exodus to fit these criteria, then it follows logically that the story is true.



Miracles
To show that "miracles" happened in the exodus story, I do not need to prove the possible role of God, I simply need to prove that catastrophes described in the story could actually occur. I will do that next round. For this round, it will suffice to say that Egypt lays close to a continental border around the Mediterranean [an-updated-seismic-source-model-for-egypt]. Earthquakes and volcanoes in other places have the potential to affect Egypt as well, which lends credence to the possibility of natural catastrophes occurring in Egypt. Natural catastrophes do actually occur in real history. Stories about huge and consecutive natural catastrophes aren't automatically false, because such natural catastrophes can occur in real life.


Historical events vs myths:
A historical event is an event that occurred in real life. In this debate the word myth will describe an event that did not happen in real life, it is just a made-up fictional story. 

The Jews wrote about miracles and intervention by God throughout the entire Bible. However, this doesn't invalidate the Bible from being a source of historical information. Seriously; their military victory in war cannot possibly be a made-up myth. The Jews did fight wars and did win battles as described in the Bible. The fact that they framed their depictions of these events in religious stories doesn't disprove the occurrence of the events. In the case of exodus, my job is to show that the story of the exodus is a religious depiction of real history rather than being a fictional myth. This includes the three criteria I explained earlier but does not demand evidence for every single aspect of the story. There is literally not enough evidence or character count to prove or disprove the specifics of the story. To claim that the story of exodus must be shown 100% accurate for me to win would be absurd and unfair. Demanding an impossible BoP not crucial to the topic at hand is an act that would be frowned upon by voters. I only need to prove the big picture of natural catastrophes, mass migration and the creation of religion, that's it.

I have now established the only fair set up for the debate that makes victory a possibility for both sides.

I will now move onto my actual arguments.



ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE STORY BEING A MYTH

I.The story itself was written as history, not fiction
As you may have guessed, the story of the exodus was actually written down, in contrast to most folklore and telltales. The story has no known origin that isn't itself. This is to say, if exodus didn't happen, the story of exodus should not exist. The story asserts as a truth something that every Israelite with memory would be able to debunk. The story of the exodus is as important and falsifiable as the war of independence. If exodus was a piece of fiction, who was the author, and how could he indoctrinate an entire people to regard it as fact? A king certainly wouldn't make a story that shows people how oppressive monarchy can be, and nobody else than a king could force a nation to accept the story if it wasn't true. Only if the story was a piece of universal folklore could it be put in the Bible.

But then again, the story of the exodus cannot be a piece of folklore. The story contains references to Egypt, a country the common man certainly did not care about unless the exodus happened. The story explains the origin of their organized religion, and would not be made BEFORE they had an organized religion. When creating an organized religion one does not simply create a piece of folklore to explain its origin, because there exists a real origin. I repeat: if a leader like Moses didn't create the organized religion of Judaism, then who did; and why did the Jews attribute the religion to a fictional character rather than the real man behind it?  As long as these questions remain unanswered, CON's logical objections against exodus pale in comparison. To say it mildly: exodus not occurring is way more illogical than it actually occurring. The Jews obviously knew their recent history and would write it down.

The Jews wrote about the exodus, but they would never have done that if it was not their real history. So it is their real history unless CON can prove otherwise.



II. The exodus story is a crucial missing link
The Bible describes the departure of Abraham's family from Iraq into Palestine. It then describes Jakob's travel into Egypt with his family, and what part of Egypt his family got to live in. The next time we hear about Jews, they are invading Palestine.  Suddenly they have become a nation with clear leadership, a clear chain of command and a national religion that feels forced (because as soon as they settle into Canaan, they start practising polytheism. This change is impressive, to say the least, and requires an equally impressive chain of events to occur. How was the religion established without a leader like Moses, and how was their law written without a leader like Moses? These questions keep piling up towards an inevitable conclusion of a missing link, a hole in Jewish history that only an event like Exodus could fill.

Without exodus, the rest of Jewish history makes no sense.

To defeat this claim, CON must provide evidence that hundreds of years of Jewish history happened without being written about, and in another place than Egypt. The Jews were pretty passionate about writing their history down; and they would have written about their real origin.



III. Exodus is possible
Ancient people were overly superstitious to the point where merely a solar eclipse could make them afraid of the gods and decide to stop a war. Knowing this and considering the impacts of massive natural catastrophes easily leads us to the conclusion that the reactions of people in exodus are realistic. If Egypt was hit by natural catastrophes, their first instincts would be to make a religious explanation for the wrath of the gods. Blaming these events on the Jews is the most realistic choice in that regard.

Blaming natural catastrophes on the Jews is a historical trend.

"A local lawmaker in Washington, DC, has apologised for sharing a video based on a conspiracy theory that Jewish financiers control the weather." [BBC]

"Iran has blamed US, Israel, Jews for coronavirus" [Arabian News Source]

"Coronavirus Sparks Rise in Anti-Semitic Sentiment, Researchers Say"[Wall Street Journal]

Don't even get me started about Hitler or the middle ages.

If people in our modern era can believe the Jews cause natural disasters, don't tell me that the ancient Egyptians would not!

Also, don't tell me that massive natural disasters couldn't happen in Egypt. They totally could, and did, occur -- as I will prove next round.

As it turns out, the big picture of the exodus story is quite plausible, and far from impossible. 




SUMMARY:

Things I need to prove:
  1. The story is about real people
  2. The story has a measurable historical impact
  3. The natural catastrophes could actually have occurred, and the people could have reacted as they did in the story
If I do this, then I win.


Here are the questions CON have to answer about his position:
  • Where did the Jewish live hundreds of years, if not Egypt
  • How did the story itself come into existence, if it is not based on true events
  • Why did the Jews believe the story to be true if it wasn't? It's not like the story is unfalsifiable, or that Jews were stupid
  • Why specifically is THIS story not based on real events when other religious stories are
If CON can't answer these questions adequately, it follows logically that PRO wins due to only him having a position with some degree of backup evidence. 


Facts established:
  • Natural catastrophes can occur in real history, even in Egypt
  • Natural catastrophes would likely have been blamed on the Jews
  • The Jewish history exists, and one cannot reject exodus without proving that there exists another possible timeline of Jewish history
  • Stories about divine intervention often stem from real events

Arguments of mine:
  • The Jews would have no reason to write the story unless it was true
  • Nobody would believe the story if it wasn't true
  • The story is possible
  • If the story isn't true, Jewish history makes no sense.


CONCLUSION
It is up to the individual to decide whether or not they believe God exists and can intervene, or if they think the divine intervention is just a Jewish interpretation of events.
With that said, claiming that exodus is a made-up myth with no foundation in reality is not possible without immense amounts of evidence.
Con
Good luck Benjamin

I will firstly begin with thanking Benjamin for the debate and wish my opponent good luck.


Framework

Benjamin wrote...
PRO: Exodus is possibly true in a historical context
CON: Exodus is impossibly true /OR/ something else happened

SOMETHING ELSE HAPPENED

I will be saying that it is both impossible, and that something else instead did actually happen, and that the Exodus narrative is likely either complete fiction or at best a fictionalized account of the conquest of the Hyksos carried out by Ahmose I.

Ahmose Iking of ancient Egypt (reigned c. 1539–14 BCE) and founder of the 18th dynasty who completed the expulsion of the Hyksos (Asiatic rulers of Egypt), invaded Palestine, and re-exerted Egypt’s hegemony over northern Nubia, to the south.


Miracles

Benjamin wrote...
To show that "miracles" happened in the exodus story, I do not need to prove the possible role of God, I simply need to prove that catastrophes described in the story could actually occur.

MARTYR'S FINGER

We already know what catastrophes occurred and we know that there is a  a yearly event celebrated in ancient Egypt for two weeks every year known as The Martyr's Finger which is a celebration of their yearly monsoon season in which the Nile river floods. It is also known as the Great Inundation and an Egyptian pharoah named Sobekhotep VIII (1) waded through the waters and ordered them to recede during a ceremonial reenactment of the Egyptian story of the creation of the world in imitating the actions of the creator god Amun-Ra.

The flooding of the Nile has been an important natural cycle in Egypt since ancient times. It is celebrated by Egyptians as an annual holiday for two weeks starting August 15, known as Wafaa El-Nil. It is also celebrated in the Coptic Church by ceremonially throwing a martyr's relic into the river, hence the name, The Martyr's Finger (Coptic: ⲡⲓⲧⲏⲃ ⲛⲙⲁⲣⲧⲏⲣⲟⲥ, Arabic: Esba` al-shahīd‎). Ancient Egyptians believed that the Nile flooded every year because of Isis's tears of sorrow for her dead husband, Osiris.

WESTCAR PAPYRUS

As a quick side note I will add that according to the world history encyclopedia most historians and scholars believe stories of magic in ancient Egypt, which include a Wax crocodile being brought to life by a magician to devour people, are believed to have simply been made up stories, though as the world history encyclopedia explains, this is just an opinion and speculation. "Perhaps they were meant to be taken literally".

There were originally five stories in the manuscript but the first is missing (and, according to some scholars, so is the conclusion of the papyrus). It is assumed that the work began with some kind of invitation by Khufu to his sons to tell stories about great wonders of the past or perhaps it was a competition among the sons to tell the best kind of story. This is, of course, speculation as no internal evidence in the texts suggests its beginning.


ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE STORY BEING A MYTH

Benjamin wrote...
why did the Jews attribute the religion to a fictional character rather than the real man behind it?

I & II THROWN OUT OF COURT

This argument would get thrown out of any recognised and reputable court. Not knowing who the first historical Jew was does not prove that the Exodus might have happened, let alone "happened". 
Even if we do believe there is some historical core behind Moses, this still does not prove the parting seas, burning bushes and 2.3 million Israelites wandering through the Sinai desert.

If it is guess work, personal opinion and speculation we are after then I will come up with a claim equally preposterous. If my opponent cannot prove that it was not Jewhetibew Fendy who is the first known Jew, then I win the debate?

Iuhetibu Fendy (also written Jewhetibew Fendy[1]) was an ancient Egyptian princess of the Thirteenth Dynasty. She was the daughter of king Sobekhotep III and of queen Neni.


Without exodus, the rest of Jewish history makes no sense.

Benjamin wrote...
To defeat this claim, CON must provide evidence that hundreds of years of Jewish history happened without being written about, and in another place than Egypt. The Jews were pretty passionate about writing their history down; and they would have written about their real origin.

8TH CENTURY BCE

The earliest allusions to the story apparently date back to 8th century BC.

although some traditions behind it are older since allusions to the story are made by 8th-century BCE prophets such as Amos and Hosea.

THROWN OUT OF COURT

But my opponent has yet again came up with an argument that would definitely be thrown out of court.
Quite simply, is it fair that I present my opponent with a question "why did the ancient Egyptians not write about The Exodus" and then claim that if he cannot answer this I should win the debate? But, my opponent should answer this question anyway.


III. EXODUS IS POSSIBLE

Benjamin wrote...
 If Egypt was hit by natural catastrophes, their first instincts would be to make a religious explanation for the wrath of the gods. Blaming these events on the Jews is the most realistic choice in that regard.

PROOF

This may or may not be so. However there is something really lacking with this statement, and that thing is proof.
Please provide proof that the ancient Egyptians were anti-semites, and also explain how proving they are anti-semites proves that the Exodus happened.
I can point you to a small list of Papyri that might be a good start (2).



Where did the Jewish live hundreds of years, if not Egypt?

The earliest trace of the Hebrew language comes from the Jewhetibew Fendy inscription on the Proto-Sinaitic script found at  Wadi el-Hol in ancient Egypt.
This suggests that the Hebrew language has its proto roots in Egypt.
It does not however prove that there was a biblical Exodus, and a more historical conquest of the Hyksos could better explain how the script evolved in to Canaan.

However the discovery of the Wadi el-Hol inscriptions near the Nile River shows that the script originated in Egypt. The evolution of proto-Sinaitic and the various proto-Canaanite scripts during the Bronze Age is based on rather scant epigraphic evidence; it is only with the Bronze Age collapse and the rise of new Semitic kingdoms in the Levant that proto-Canaanite is clearly attested (Byblos inscriptions 10th–8th century BC, Khirbet Qeiyafa inscription c. 10th century BC).[10][


HOW DID THE STORY ITSELF COME INTO EXISTENCE, IF IT IS NOT BASED ON TRUE EVENTS?

Take Braveheart as an example. Is it based upon a true story? Yes. Is it 100% factual? No.

Stories become fictionalized over time, and this is also apparently the majority view of many historians and scholars that still do believe that the story likely does have some historical core.

 The majority position is that the biblical Exodus narrative has some historical basis, although there is little of historical worth in the biblical narrative.[7][6][1] 


WHY DID THE JEWS BELIEVE THE STORY TO BE TRUE IF IT WASN'T? IT'S NOT LIKE THE STORY IS UNFALSIFIABLE, OR THAT JEWS WERE STUPID

Believing does not prove knowing and is not the same thing.
You need to establish that they knew it was a real event, not that they believed it.


WHY SPECIFICALLY IS THIS STORY NOT BASED ON REAL EVENTS WHEN OTHER RELIGIOUS STORIES ARE

You first need to clarify exactly which religious events you are referring to that you believe are based upon real events.


NATURAL CATASTROPHES CAN OCCUR IN REAL HISTORY, EVEN EGYPT

It still does not prove that the Exodus happened.


NATURAL CATASTROPHES WOULD LIKELY HAVE BEEN BLAMED ON THE JEWS

This claim is outlandish unless it can be supported by writing from a papyri or stele. And even then you still need to establish how this proves the Exodus happened.



THE JEWISH HISTORY EXISTS, AND ONE CANNOT REJECT EXODUS WITHOUT PROVING THAT THERE EXISTS ANOTHER POSSIBLE TIMELINE OF JEWISH HISTORY

The earliest attestation to Israelites comes from the Merneptah stele and dated to 13th century BC.(3)
This still does not anywhere near prove the Exodus and its parting seas and burning bush.


STORIES ABOUT DIVINE INTERVENTION OFTEN STEM FROM REAL EVENTS

This may or may not be true. But it nowhere near proves the biblical story of the Exodus.



References


I thank Benjamin for a good round 1 argument.

Look forward to round 2
Round 2
Pro
FRAMEWORK:

BoP:
CON accepted my definition of the BoP. I must only prove that exodus is possibly true, and my opponent needs to prove the opposite, that exodus is virtually impossible. 


True story:
Last round I laid forward three criteria on which you could deem a religious story "true". CON did nothing to challenge these criteria, so they will be our reference frame.



ARGUMENTS: 


IV. The exodus prologue is historically accurate
I will formulate my argument in the form of a logical syllogism.

P1: Research suggests X
P2: The Jewish story states X
C: The Jewish story is accurate in its prologue

P1:
There is solid evidence of a great famine forcing people into migrating to Egypt, and that this created a society of immigrants.

Throughout antiquity, Egypt was known as the breadbasket of the world. The annual flooding of the Nile produced rich harvests, and when famine hit neighboring lands, starving peoples often made their way to the fruitful soils of Egypt. [haaretz.com]
 Furthermore, new evidence suggests the Hyksos did not even invade the territories they inhabited.

Popular lore suggests the Hyksos, a mysterious group of foreign invaders, conquered the Nile Delta around 1638 B.C. and remained in power until 1530 B.C. But written records of the dynasty are scarce, and modern archaeologists have found few material signs of the ancient military campaign.

Now, new research lends weight to an alternative theory on the Hyksos’ origins. As Colin Barras reports for Science magazine, chemical analysis of skeletons found at the Hyksos capital of Avaris indicates that people from the Levant—an area encompassing the countries surrounding the eastern Mediterranean—immigrated to Egypt centuries before the takeover. The Hyksos dynasty, then, was likely the result of an immigrant uprising, not a hostile outside invasion.
 
...

Per Science, historians have previously speculated that when the pharaohs reclaimed the territory, they exiled the Hyksos rulers to southwest Asia—a move that may have inspired the biblical story of Exodus.

This evidence is based upon radiometric dating, not some weird speculation. 

Expert theorising along with scientific evidence points towards the Hyksos people being immigrants, not conquerors. They peacefully grew in numbers in Egypt.


P2:
What does the Biblical book of exodus tell us in its prologue?

7 but the Israelites were exceedingly fruitful; they multiplied greatly, increased in numbers and became so numerous that the land was filled with them. 8 Then a new king, to whom Joseph meant nothing, came to power in Egypt. 9 “Look,” he said to his people, “the Israelites have become far too numerous for us. 10 Come, we must deal shrewdly with them or they will become even more numerous and, if war breaks out, will join our enemies, fight against us and leave the country.” [Exodus 1.8-10]
Exactly the same story as told by new research.


Conclusion:
The context of Exodus, as described in the Bible, fits perfectly with modern research. The overlapping claims my modern science and the ancient Jewish tale suggests the tale is indeed not a mere myth, but an actual account by a people that remembered their history. This supports the theory of the Jews having an organized life in Egypt, with a leader like Moses being quite likely. Because of this evidence, we can be fairly certain that the Hyksos people were the Biblical Jews and their fellow immigrants.



V. Semitic slavery occurred in Egypt
First, let us prove the occurrence of slaves being sold by their own people, similarly to what happened to Joeseph in genesis.

Some of these Semites came to Egypt as traders and immigrants. Others were prisoners of war, and yet others were sold into slavery by their own people. A papyrus mentions a wealthy Egyptian lord whose 77 slaves included 48 of Semitic origin. [haaretz.com]

Now, let us prove that Semitic slaves worked in Egypt.

Thirty incised graffiti in a "Proto-Sinaitic script" shed light on the history of the alphabet.[1] The mines were worked by prisoners of war from southwest Asia who presumably spoke a Northwest Semitic language, such as the Canaanite that was ancestral to Phoenician and Hebrew.  [Serabit_el-Khadim]
This strongly suggests that the slavery imposed on the Jews in the Biblical story is realistic, especially after a conquest. CON is now put in a no-win situation:
  • If Ahmose really conquered the Hyksos, then many Semites would be prisoners of war and become Semitic slaves, validating the Biblical slavery.
  • If there was no war between the Hyksos and Egyptians, then CON's argument is based upon false assumptions.

Either way, we still have evidence of Semitic slaves. But did these Semitic slaves cry out to god(s) for help?

YES!

First of all, any religious person in slavery would cry to their god for help. Secondly, these cries have been found written in stone:

Serabit el-Khadim turquoise mine, a labour camp in the Sinai with a Semitic alphabetic inscription that reads "O El, save me from these mines." [ibid]
The word "El" is the Semitic word used to refer to god/deity. This word evolved with the different Semitic people, and the ancient Israelites also used this word for God. [El].

To conclude, these different pieces of evidence suggests that the prologue to exodus is historically accurate -- even more so than CON's version of the story.

There is in fact much historical worth in the Biblical narrative.





ARGUMENTS EXTENDED


"This claim is outlandish unless it can be supported by writing from a papyri or stele.":
CON claims that I must prove with papyri or stele that natural catastrophes would have been blamed on the Jews. This argument shows a complete disregard for my argument. I presented real evidence that current day people blame natural catastrophes on the Jews. Human nature doesn't change immediately, and any quick google search shows that the Jews have been constantly blamed for catastrophes throughout history. The Egyptians would need a scapegoat on which to blame the wrath of the gods. All of these elements point towards the fact that the Egyptians would have blamed the Jews for natural catastrophes.

Hecataeus tells how the Egyptians blamed a plague on foreigners and expelled them from the country, whereupon Moses, their leader, took them to Canaan.[86] 
In this version, Moses is portrayed extremely positively.[83]


"Why did the ancient Egyptians not write about The Exodus":

Writers in Greek and Latin record several Egyptian tales of the expulsion of a group of foreigners that were connected to the Exodus.[83] 
These tales often include elements of the Hyksos period and most are extremely anti-Jewish.[84]
In other words, the Egyptians DID write stories that confirm the exodus narrative of an expulsion. It also shows that the Egyptians had a negative attitude towards the Jews. This supports the Jewish story of natural catastrophes being blamed on the Jews. If the Egyptians blamed the Jews for catastrophes, then that explains their negative attitude towards the Jews.


"You first need to clarify exactly which religious events you are referring to that you believe are based upon real events.":
I already showed an example, in which a sign of gods turned out to be a solar eclipse. The sign of gods stopped a war and became a legend, but was still a true story.
The same is true about the exodus.


"Believing does not prove knowing and is not the same thing.":
CON's semantical argument is not valid. The difference between knowledge and belief is nonexistent in this case. What you know about history is what you believe about history. Perfect knowledge about anything is virtually unachievable, we only have different degrees of belief. Therefore CON's argument falls flat. The Jews believing the story to be true means that they had reason to do so, which means real evidence or real history made the Jews believe in the story.


"although some traditions behind it are older since allusions to the story are made by 8th-century BCE prophets such as Amos and Hosea."
The truth is, the only reason these prophets only alluded to the story because it was an important part of Jewish history. The Torah lies at the heart of the Jewish religion. 3 of 5 books in the Torah describes Moses's speeches and the different rules and customs implemented by Moses. The Jews celebrate the exodus every year, even at the time of these prophets. The story must be as old as the celebration of it. The story must thus be older than the earliest allusions to it.


I extend all arguments as CON could not defeat a single one of them with adequate logic or sufficient evidence.
 



OBJECTIONS:


"Is it based upon a true story? Yes. Is it 100% factual? No.":
To claim that I must prove exodus to be 100% factual is a moving-the-goalpost-fallacy. This is the expanded resolution:

"The story of the Israelites leaving Egypt due to miraculous circumstances is not a made-up myth"
I need not prove every single aspect of the story, and I don't have to prove it "100% factual". When I have space for it, I will prove the actual occurrence of many natural catastrophes in quick succession that led to the Egyptians blaming the Jews. But the story need not be 100% factual for me to win. Forget a burning bush and a divided sea: Even if these events occurred, evidence would not be found. I need to show that the exodus is not a made-up myth, not that the Bible is infallible.


"This argument would get thrown out of any recognised and reputable court":
Pressuring the opposition into releasing crucial information that might destroy their case is actually a viable strategy in a court case. My arguments showed how absurd it would be if the story of exodus was a myth. Unless CON can explain the Jewish history in a way that makes sense his position falls apart, similar to how an incoherent and suspicious alibi would be a big part of you losing a court case. I don't see where my questions would be thrown out of court. They are not directly arguments, just questions to show that CON's arguments make no sense.


"If my opponent cannot prove that it was not Jewhetibew Fendy who is the first known Jew, then I win the debate?":
CON commits a logical fallacy directing a straw-man version of my argument back at me. First of all, Moses is not said to be the first Jew, he was merely the creator of the official Judaistic religion. Secondly, there is a massive difference between a random princess and the literal creator of the Jewish religion according to their own religious texts. 4 out of 5 books in the Torah describe Moses as the creator of the Jewish religion. To deny the existence of Moses would be like denying the existence of Jesus or Muhammed. The existence of these people is evident in the religions they created. CON would need some serious evidence to deny the existence of Moses. Who was Jewhetibew Fendy? Who knows? Who cares? Her identity has no impact on the debate. CON still needs to address my argument.


"It still does not prove that the Exodus happened.":
My opponent used this line constantly. It is not about the individual arguments, but how they together form a solid case. Since CON did not refute my many arguments, and my many arguments are coherent and support each other, I think my case is way more solid than CON's disconnected arguments with questionable impact.



CONCLUSION
I have shown that the story of exodus has:
  1. Real people involved
  2. Real impact on history
  3. The events are possible from a historical perspective
This fits all of the criteria for a religious story being true. When I next round prove the natural catastrophes to have occurred I have effectively won the debate.
Con
Good luck in round 2

Thank you Benjamin for posting your second round argument, and good luck in round 2.

FRAMEWORK:

Benjamin wrote...
CON accepted my definition of the BoP. I must only prove that exodus is possibly true, and my opponent needs to prove the opposite, that exodus is virtually impossible. 
Actually, in your description you actually wrote that all I have to prove is that it was "extremely unlikely". And that is what I am arguing.

Benjamin wrote in description...
Miraculous: extremely unlikely and/or impossible

First round framework said I could also argue for something else happening

And in your first round framework you also added that I could argue for something else happening instead. 
Therefore you will be required to offer rebuttals regarding the conquest of the Hyksos.

Benjamin wrote in round 1...
PRO: Exodus is possibly true in a historical context
CON: Exodus is impossibly true /OR/ something else happened

Solid evidence of migration in to Egypt is not evidence for the Exodus narrative

Benjamin wrote...
There is solid evidence of a great famine forcing people into migrating to Egypt, and that this created a society of immigrants.
Wahkare Khety's expulsion of Asiatics

We already know that Asiatics were all over the Nile delta area and that expulsions of Asiatics from Egypt happened as early as the Egyptian 9th or 10th Dynasty under Wahkare Khety. But expulsions are nowhere near the same thing as "the Exodus" narrative, and just because there are Asiatic immigrants in the Nile delta does not in anyway shape or form provide proof for the Exodus, nor the existence of Moses.

From the Instructions, it is known that Wahkare Khety, in alliance with the nomarchs of Lower Egypt, managed to repel the nomad "Asiatics" who for generations roamed in the Nile Delta. Those nomarchs, although recognizing Wahkare's authority, ruled de facto more or less independently. The expulsion of the "Asiatics" allowed the establishment of new settlements and defense structures on the northeastern borders, as well as the reprise of trades with the Levantine coast.[9] 
Non argument from Benjamin, nothing to do with the expulsion of the Hyksos

Benjamin wrote...
Furthermore, new evidence suggests the Hyksos did not even invade the territories they inhabited.
How the Hyksos arrived in Egypt is nothing to do with this argument.
The argument is not how they arrived in Egypt, but how they left Egypt we are debating.

Benjamin wants evidence for Asiatic migrants in to Egypt when it is evidence of the parting seas and existence of Moses that is required - Please provide

Benjamin wrote...
This evidence is based upon radiometric dating, not some weird speculation. 
We already know there were Asiatics in Egypt. But what you require is radiometric proof of the parting seas. Please provide archaeological evidence in your next round.
Please also provide Archaeological or Scientific evidence for the existence of Moses

I will provide some Scientific evidence for the existence of Ahmose I.
In the link below is a photo of his mummified corpse.
Please do likewise for Moses.

The mummified head of Ahmose I at the Luxor Museum.
Benjamin using bible as proof

Benjamin wrote...
What does the Biblical book of exodus tell us in its prologue?
New york times says no evidence

We already know what the bible says about the Exodus. It is not a secret. However there are too many stories in the bible that cannot be corroborated by archaeological evidence to accept the bible as a 100% historically factual document.

Did the Red Sea Part? No Evidence, Archaeologists Say

Benjamin makes a claim but provides no source or citation - Required for next round along with Scientific evidence for the parting seas and existence of Moses

Benjamin wrote...
Exactly the same story as told by new research.
It is no good just saying it. You need to support your claim with sources and citation, unless you are claiming that it is your own independent excavations and studies that brought you to this conclusion?

Slaves in Egypt is not proof of the Exodus

Benjamin wrote...
First, let us prove the occurrence of slaves being sold by their own people, similarly to what happened to Joeseph in genesis.
We already know that the Egyptians took slaves from Libya, Nubia and also Canaan. However, this still does not in any way support your argument for an Exodus.

Benjamin is providing proof of Canaanite slaves in Egypt when he should be providing proof of the Exodus narrative

Benjamin wrote...
Now, let us prove that Semitic slaves worked in Egypt.
We do not require proof that Semitic slaves worked in Egypt. We already know this and it is almost fact.
Please provide evidence for the existence of Moses and the parting seas.

Benjamin has wasted an entire round due to his misunderstanding of what "the conquest of the Hyksos" is

Benjamin wrote...
This strongly suggests that the slavery imposed on the Jews in the Biblical story is realistic, especially after a conquest. CON is now put in a no-win situation:
  • If Ahmose really conquered the Hyksos, then many Semites would be prisoners of war and become Semitic slaves, validating the Biblical slavery.
  • If there was no war between the Hyksos and Egyptians, then CON's argument is based upon false assumptions.
How does any of this prove the parting seas and existence of Moses? And there was a war between the Egyptians and Hyksos. It happened during the expulsion of the Hyksos.
I think you have misunderstood what the "conquest of the Hyksos" is. It is not the Hyksos invading Egypt, but the Egyptians expelling the Asiatics from Egypt. You have completely wasted an entire round due to misunderstanding what the conquest of the Hyksos is.
I will reveal below what it is. And it was the expulsion of the Asiatics.
This still does not support the Exodus narrative however.

Ahmose began the conquest of Lower Egypt held by the Hyksos starting around the 11th year of Khamudi's reign, but the sequence of events is not universally agreed upon.[25]
Analyzing the events of the conquest prior to the siege of the Hyksos capital of Avaris is extremely difficult. Almost everything known comes from a brief but invaluable military commentary on the back of the Rhind Mathematical Papyrus, consisting of brief diary entries,[26] one of which reads[27]
Evidence that the Egyptians blamed Moses for the parting seas required 

Benjamin wrote...
I presented real evidence that current day people blame natural catastrophes on the Jews.
Current day people blaming Jews for things does not prove the parting seas nor existence of Moses.

Asiatics, not Jews - Please provide proof there was any group in Egypt regarded as Jewish during the Hyksos

Benjamin wrote...
In other words, the Egyptians DID write stories that confirm the exodus narrative of an expulsion. It also shows that the Egyptians had a negative attitude towards the Jews. This supports the Jewish story of natural catastrophes being blamed on the Jews.
Asiatics

There were no peoples in Egypt during the Hyksos that were known as Jews.  The Egyptians were anti-asiatic, not anti-jewish, and they blamed the Asiatics for political matters, not partings seas, as we can see below from Kamose, the brother of Ahmose I, and his reasons given for partaking in the conquest of the Hyksos.

I should like to know what serves this strength of mine, when a chieftain in Avaris, and another in Kush, and I sit united with an Asiatic and a Nubian, each in possession of his slice of Egypt, and I cannot pass by him as far as Memphis... No man can settle down, when despoiled by the taxes of the Asiatics. I will grapple with him, that I may rip open his belly! My wish is to save Egypt and to smite the Asiatic!"[11]
Apparently debatable evidence for one thing is conclusiv evidence of another

Benjamin wrote...
I already showed an example, in which a sign of gods turned out to be a solar eclipse. The sign of gods stopped a war and became a legend, but was still a true story.
The same is true about the exodus.
This has absolutely nothing to do with Moses nor parting seas. 

Resurrection of Jesus, exodus, and other stories are not "fact"

Benjamin wrote...
The Jews believing the story to be true means that they had reason to do so, which means real evidence or real history made the Jews believe in the story.
Resurrection

Many people believe many things, including the resurrection of Jesus. It does not automatically mean it is a fact, and to claim it does, is incorrect.

The biblical Exodus is central in Judaism, with it being recounted daily in Jewish prayers and celebrated in festivals such as Passover. Early Christians saw the Exodus as a typological prefiguration of resurrection and salvation by Jesus.

The title says "exodus happened".

Benjamin wrote...
I extend all arguments as CON could not defeat a single one of them with adequate logic or sufficient evidence.
Your main source of evidence is the bible and the historical veracity of the stories within are widely debated and not considered fact by many objectors and to say that "exodus happened" is a very hard statement for you to support. 
If you are wanting to support a fact, then begin using facts, instead of assumptions.

Out of characters

I have ran out of characters, but having read Benjamins final two arguments there is nothing there which supports his argument anyway.

Thank you Benjamin, good luck
Round 3
Pro
Thank you, Nevets, for your argument.


FRAMEWORK

"Actually, in your description you actually wrote that all I have to prove is that it was "extremely unlikely". And that is what I am arguing.":
Read the description:
The expanding resolution can be summed up as so:
"The story of the Israelites leaving Egypt due to miraculous circumstances is not a made-up myth"
CON is here to prove that the story is a made-up myth. I am here to argue that the story is based upon real history, a real expulsion.


BoP
CON has taken the privilege to challenge me to provide radiometric dating proof for the parting seas and Moses. This falls outside my BoP, I only need to provide evidence that the general story is correct -- that there were natural catastrophes leading up to the expulsion of the Jews, and that their leader led the Israelites through the desert. Burning bushes and likewise don't leave any trace detectable with today's technology. Again, I don't have to prove the story 100% accurate, just that it is not a made-up myth.


Your main source of evidence is the bible
Last round I showed why the Biblical account of the Hyksos being immigrants, not conquerors, is supported by radiometric dating. Solid evidence also supports the Biblical tale of people being sold as slaves by their fellow men. Solid evidence supports the existence of slavery on a large scale, and Egyptian fear of revolution. In short, the authors of the exodus story had correct knowledge about many aspects of ancient Egypt. If the story of the exodus was a made-up myth, we would expect it to contain a lot of factual mistakes with regards to Egyptian history. Since the opposite seems to be true, there is serious reason to doubt CON's claim regarding the Bible not being a valuable source.


Admissions
CON has managed to admit these assertions of mine to be real historical facts:
  • Semitic slaves worked in Egypt
  • The hyksos lived in the lower part of Egypt (which means, further from the coast)
  • The Egyptians used military might to expel Asians in Egypt to southern Asia
  • The Egyptians were anti-Asiatic
  • Apart from that, CON made no attempt at rebutting 


"This has absolutely nothing to do with Moses nor parting seas":
It seems like CON thinks that the exodus story is solely hinging on the parting seas. This is not the case. If everything in the exodus story is verified except the parting seas and the burning bush the main story is still intact. I say the story is DRAMATISED, not fictionalised. Dramatising includes over-exaggeration, not making up a myth.  Whether or not you believe in the "impossible" parts of the story hinges on your worldview. Again, the Bible and exodus book must not be 100% correct for me to win.
If I can prove that there were a lot of natural disasters happening, but not that the seas parted, I still must be declared the victor.


"It is no good just saying it."
CON ignores the scientific report I quoted, in order to devaluate the conclusion I wrote LITERALLY after comparing the article and the Biblical story to show that they agree.



EVIDENCE
Do you think that the 10 plagues were a Jewish made-up myth? Do you think that this chain of natural catastrophes just doesn't occur in real history?

If you do, let me change your mind. 
The plagues were really the fallout of volcanic eruption on the island of Santorini in the south of Greece around 1620-1600 BCE.

Winds would have carried the volcanic ash to Egypt at some point over the summer, and the toxic acids in the volcanic ash would have included the mineral cinnabar, which could have been capable of turning a river a blood-like red color, Trevisanato holds. The accumulated acidity in the water would have caused frogs to leap out and search for clean water. Insects would have burrowed eggs in the bodies of dead animals and human survivors, which generated larvae and then adult insects. Then, the volcanic ash in the atmosphere would have affected the weather, with acid rain landing on people’s skin, which in turn caused boils. The grass would have been contaminated, poisoning the animals that ate it. The humidity from the rain and the subsequent hail would have created optimal conditions for locusts to thrive. Volcanic eruptions could also explain the several days of darkness — which means nine plagues are accounted for. 
(There were also 2 other theories. This is a scientific, not religious, mystery)
These plagues were not necessarily the divine actions of God, they could be explained by merely natural causes. This means that the occurrence of these miracles can be analysed independently from the religious perspective needed to believe in a speaking burning bush. As this microbiologist explains in his book, the occurrence of these natural catastrophes WOULD be caused by a volcanic eruption in Santorini. 

Did that volcanic eruption occur?

Yes, it did. We know because this eruption caused GLOBAL impacts. Let me cite an article by expert P.E.LaMoreaux describing the event.
The eruptions of Thera (Santorini) between 1628 and 1450 BC constituted a natural catastrophe unparalleled in all of history. The last major eruption in 1450 BC destroyed the entire Minoan Fleet at Crete at a time when the Minoans dominated the Mediterranean world. In addition, there had to be massive loss of life from ejecta gases, volcanic ash, bombs, and flows. The collapse of a majestic mountain into a caldera 15 km in diameter caused a giant ocean wave, a tsunami, that at its source was estimated in excess of 46 m high. [link.springer.com]
A global catastrophe generating highly dangerous ash and a giant tsunami. How far could the impacts of this catastrophe travel? Going solely by the Biblical book of exodus, we would expect the catastrophes to selectively hit the Egyptians while leaving the Jews mostly unharmed. The Bible describes: "total darkness covered all Egypt for three days. 23 No one could see anyone else or move about for three days. Yet all the Israelites had light in the places where they lived.[Exodus 10.23]".

IF the story of the exodus is true, THEN its description of where the plagues hit will fit scientific data. If it is a made-up myth, the opposite will be the case.


According to volcanodiscovery.com/santorini, the ash from the volcanic eruption would hit upper Egypt, but not lower Egypt. As CON has already admitted, the Hyksos people lived in the lower regions of Egypt. The Biblical description of where darkness hit (the Egyptians, not the Jews), matches the modern understanding of where Santorini's ash travelled, carried by the wind. This proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the Biblical darkness was indeed the ash from the Santorini eruption. Furthering this argument and providing more evidence, I present to you the own words of the article.

The deadly gases probably reached the shores of north Africa. [ibid]
Northern Egypt was affected by deadly gasses, while the Hyksos living lower in Egypt went mostly unharmed. This is the exact story told by the exodus: natural catastrophes hitting the part of Egypt dominated by Egyptians. Once again, the Biblical story seems to at least be accurate with regards to its description of large scale events like the plagues. Whether or not their leader reached out a staff before every plague remains to be your religious view. However, these plagues definitely occured.

Do you need more proof? The Egyptians DID write about the plagues.

Six medical papyri document how Santorini's volcanic ash from the Bronze Age biphasic eruption, otherwise attested by material retrieved at the bottom of lakes at the edge of the Nile Delta, severely affected the health of the inhabitants of Egypt as well as their society as a whole. [ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

The Tempest Stele was erected by pharaoh Ahmose I early in the 18th Dynasty of Egypt, c. 1550 BCE. The stele describes a great storm striking Egypt during this time, destroying tombs, temples and pyramids in the Theban region and the work of restoration ordered by the king.[1] Egypt was affected by the atmospheric effects of the Minoan eruption[19][20][21] and was struck by an earthquake.[Templest Steele]

These plagues were natural catastrophes proven to have occurred by different fields of science and attested by both Jewish and Egyptian writings. THEY DID OCCUR!
Claiming that these plagues didn't occur would be insanity. The question is whether or not they could come in quick succession. If you remember this article, you know that the plagues WOULD come in quick succession if caused by the Santorini eruption -- which was indeed the case. 


THE ONLY REASONABLE CONCLUSION IS THAT THE TEN PLAGUES OF EGYPT WERE NOT MADE-UP MYTHS, BUT REAL HISTORICAL CATASTROPHES!


Regarding the split sea, it is scientifically possible for such an event to have occurred. As my sources stated earlier, the volcanic eruption created a giant tsunami.

This wall of water finally arrives at the coast travelling at 30 to 50 km/hr (30 mph) causing massive destruction.
Why does the water level drop before the tsunami hits? Because it is like a tide, the tide goes out before it comes in
Regardless, the parting seas are not a requirement for me to win. The story need not be 100% accurate for me to win.


ARGUMENTS
Once again CON has not refuted my arguments logically. He just asserted that I lacked concrete evidence. Well, now I don't. Every single one of my arguments now stands even stronger with our factual base now firmly established. The story can't be a made-up myth since whenever we have concrete evidence for something, the evidence agrees with the Biblical tale. That is to say, the only parts of the exodus story not confirmed by science are those science can't study. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and CON's only argument until now is thus worthless. My many arguments must be addressed by CON immediately.



SUMMARY
I now have more than five comprehensive and logical arguments for why the story isn't a myth. I also have scientific evidence for the occurrence of plagues and natural catastrophes explaining their objective occurrence. Additionally, CON has admitted the central themes of the story to have historical validity, such as slavery, Semitic origins in Egypt and expulsions of Asians to southeast Asia. The last point, which CON himself admitted in his second round, is actually a concession:
It is not the Hyksos invading Egypt, but the Egyptians expelling the Asiatics from Egypt
There was an expulsion of Asiatics from Egypt --- coming in the same generation as the great storm described by Ahmoses own Steele. Furthermore, the events leading up to the storm caused a rapid chain of natural catastrophes similar to the plagues as described by the Bible. There is even evidence for the fact that only Egyptians in Northern Egypt were hit by these catastrophes. Even if these events weren't the main motivation for expelling the foreigners, it certainly was a good excuse. There is literally no counterarguments against the Egyptians blaming these plagues on their "rivals" the Hyksos -- which included the people that would call themselves Jews and conquer Israel. The religion of Judaism attests to all of these facts, and attribute itself to the religious and political leader, Moses. I have disproved the claim of Moses being fictional, and CON ignored the issue.


CONCLUSION
I have fulfilled my BoP beyond a reasonable doubt -- the story of the exodus is about real events, real people, and have a real historical impact. Exodus is not a made-up myth
Con
Welcome back Benjamin an good luck

Welcome back, thank you for posting your argument, and good luck.

Benjamin's very own article refuted his claim about the Hyksos being Jews

Since I ran out of characters in the previous round, I will begin with showing how Benjamin's very own wikipedia article that he produced to support his claim, actually refuted him.

Benjamin quoted wikipedia...
Writers in Greek and Latin record several Egyptian tales of the expulsion of a group of foreigners that were connected to the Exodus in the Ptolemaic period.[85] These tales often include elements of the Hyksos period and most are extremely anti-Jewish.[86] 
Not Jews

Benjamin was willing to quote the sentence above, yet was willing to leave out the bit that explained that the Hyksos becoming Jews was something added much much later in time, and that the story of the Hyksos most likely had absolutely nothing to do with the Jews.

Assmann suggests that the story has no single origin but rather combines numerous historical experiences, notably the Amarna and Hyksos periods, into a folk memory.[94] There is general agreement that the stories originally had nothing to do with the Jews.[85] Erich S. Gruen suggests that it may have been the Jews themselves that inserted themselves into Manetho's narrative, in which various negative actions from the point of view of the Egyptians, such as desecrating temples, are interpreted positively.[95]
Benjamin insists I am here to prove the story is a made up myth, despite his round 1 framework

Benjamin wrote...
CON is here to prove that the story is a made-up myth. I am here to argue that the story is based upon real history, a real expulsion
Actually, as I already established in round 2, you are here to argue that "Exodus happened", and I am here to argue that something else may have happened. This is what "you" wrote.

Benjamin wrote...
CON: Exodus is impossibly true /OR/ something else happened

My opponents BoP amounts to cherry-picking.
In round 3 my opponent has already dropped any mention of Jews and has now replaced the words Jews with the correct word Asiatics. 
My opponent is wanting to suggest that the conquest of the Hyksos and the Exodus are the same thing. But whilst the Exodus narrative "may" or "may not" be a fictionalized account of a real expulsion, the historical Hyksos narrative is not the same as "the Exodus" narrative.
My opponent wants to "remove" everything from the Exodus story which does not support his claim and then somehow "claim" that he has proven that "Exodus happened". You simply cannot do this. To prove "Exodus happened", there are a number of things need proving.


  • The pharaoh also orders the slaughter at birth of all male Hebrew children.
  • One Hebrew child, however, is rescued by being placed in a basket on the Nile.
  • Burning bush
  • The Pharaoh demands for Moses to perform a miracle, and Aaron throws down Moses staff, which turns into a tannin (sea monster
  •  600,000 Israelite men were involved (Exodus 12:37)
As Benjamin has made it illegal to bring Yahweh in to this, I shall not mention all the other unbelievable claims made in the Exodus narrative supposedly perpetuated by Yahweh him/herself.

My opponent has misunderstood the meaning of upper and lower Egypt throughout round 2, and this "is" a bad mistake

Benjamin wrote...
The hyksos lived in the lower part of Egypt (which means, further from the coast)
In actual fact, lower Egypt is the the most Northerly part of ancient Egypt closest to the coast. Upper Egypt is Nubia (modern day Sudan).

Lower Egypt (Arabic: مصر السفلى‎ Miṣr as-SuflāCoptic: ⲧⲥⲁϦⲏⲧ Tsakhit) is the northernmost region of Egypt, which consists of the fertile Nile Delta between Upper Egypt and the Mediterranean Sea,
Benjamin's geography is all wrong

Benjamin wrote...
The Egyptians used military might to expel Asians in Egypt to southern Asia
This debate is not going to make it to the debate stages as my opponent is failing to get the most basic fundamental facts correct. Quite simply, the Asiatics were expelled from Egypt via Canaan, which is in the middle east, not Southern Asia.

The Middle East is a transcontinental region in Afro-Eurasia which generally includes Western Asia (except for Transcaucasia), all of Egypt (mostly in North Africa), and Turkey (partly in Southeast Europe).
Benjamin has dropped his argument about the ancient Egyptians being anti-Jewish

Benjamin wrote...
The Egyptians were anti-Asiatic
Minoan eruption

My opponents claims that if he can prove that natural disasters occurred means he wins, is frankly preposterous considering we already know that natural disaster occur and occurred and we do not require this proving to us.

But, let us take a look at some problems in the presentation from Benjamin. Benjamin quotes that a natural disaster occurred sometime between 1620-1600 BCE, and wants to use this to suggest that this corresponds with the conquest of the Hyksos.

Benjamin quoted...
The plagues were really the fallout of volcanic eruption on the island of Santorini in the south of Greece around 1620-1600 BCE.
Yet the conquest of the Hyksos is believed to have taken place between 1549–1524 BC. Therefore it cannot even be concluded that any or all natural disasters that actually happened, and got included in the Exodus narrative, even happened during the reign of Ahmose I.

c. 1549–1524 BC (Egyptian chronology) (disputed)
25 years and 4 months in Manetho (18th Dynasty)
Lower Egypt is Northern Egypt, not southern

Again Benjamin exposes his lack of geographical awareness regarding ancient Egypt. 

Benjamin Wrote...
Northern Egypt was affected by deadly gasses, while the Hyksos living lower in Egypt went mostly unharmed. 
I am sorry to say, but the Hyksos "were" based in Northen Egypt as Northern Egypt and Lower Egypt are the same place, and I repeat my earlier claim that this cannot go ahead as a debate until my opponent is correct about fundamental facts. And it goes without saying, that being wrong about this, totally negated everything else he said regarding to people effected by those disasters.

Hyksos (/ˈhɪksɒs/Egyptian ḥqꜣ(w)-ḫꜣswtEgyptological pronunciationhekau khasut,[4] "ruler(s) of foreign lands"; Ancient Greek: Ὑκσώς, Ὑξώς) is a term which, in modern Egyptology, designates the kings of the Fifteenth Dynasty of Egypt[5] (fl. c. 1650–1550 BC).[a] The seat of power of these kings was the city of Avaris in the Nile delta, from where they ruled over Lower and Middle Egypt up to Cusae. In the Aegyptiaca, a history of Egypt written by the Greco-Egyptian priest and historian Manetho in the 3rd century BC, the term Hyksos is used ethnically to designate people of probable West Semitic, Levantine origin.[1]
Here is a map of Lower Egypt and Upper Egypt in the link below. 

Avaris was the Hyksos capital, and we can clearly see in this map that Avaris is in Lower Egypt (Northern Egypt).

Reasons the Kermals came up from upper Egypt to expel the Hyksos

Benjamin wrote...
These plagues were natural catastrophes proven to have occurred by different fields of science and attested by both Jewish and Egyptian writings.
Despite Benjamins claims that it was the lower Egyptians that expelled the upper Egyptians, it was actually the Egyptians from the south (Upper Egypt) that came up to the North to expel the Asiatics. 
Benjamin throughout round 3 continues with his argument that the Egyptians did this because they blamed Asiatics (in the previous round it was Jews) for natural catastrophes. But let us take a look at the real reasons. Below is a list of things that Hyksos pharoah Apepi done to upset Ahmose and Kamose.

  • Rather than building his own monuments, Apepi generally usurped the monuments of previous pharaohs 
  • Apepi is thought to have usurped the throne of northern Egypt after the death of his predecessor, Khyan
  • In the Ramesside era, Apepi is recorded as worshiping Seth in a monolatric way:
Now do we see, there is no mention of Apepi being blamed by Egyptians for causing earthquakes and Tsunamis?

ARGUMENTS

My opponent has dropped his claim about Jews existing during the Hyksos period.
My opponent has gotten the most fundamental and crucial geographical facts wrong.
My opponent is using catastrophes that he himself attests to happening up to one hundred years before the conquest of the Hyksos to prove the Exodus narrative.
My opponent wants to dismiss everything in the Exodus story which does not suit him and then claim that what remains proves that the Exodus must have happened.

Benjamin has disproved Moses being fictional?

Sorry I must have missed this. Please provide the source again which makes you the first person in history to prove this? You have proven nothing.

Thank you Benjamin and good luck next round
Round 4
Pro
CONCESSION
In lack of a better word, I am screwed. No amount of logic or debating skills could ever combat the lack of evidence for my side. It was a fun challenge to debate an absurd proposition. I now agree with CON that the exodus narrative takes inspiration from multiple real events, and is fictionalized to fit the Jewish worldview. Hopefully, the facts provided by me and CON helped you readers learn something about history.

I concede. Vote CON.
Con
I will thank Benjamin very much for this debate and will make no further arguments.

Good luck with your future debates.

All the best.
Round 5
Pro
Thank you very much for the debate, Nevets.
Con
Thank you