God, as portrayed in the bible, cannot reasonably exist to the words of the bible.

The description is also a trap, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Because it has limited the verses to only being taken at face value and ignoring underwritten context which is both a significant part to the Bible as well as Con’s case. This completely strips Con’s side of any power and is a clear auto-win for Pro because Con will not be able to argue their side if I assume the rules apply. I know this is a trap because my debating is a nit-picking, trap-setting style.

Pro’s 1 Case:
God has infinite, unyielding mercy. (Lamentations 3:22-23). But this is inconsistent with the fact that God sends people to Hell.
God can do anything, as he has limitless power/omnipotence. (Ephesians 3:20-21)

Pro attempts to make the case that God couldn’t exist by appealing to his inconsistent morals, but argues that God cannot simultaneously show absolute mercy and ruthless punishment while also contradicting himself by pointing out God’s ability to do anything.

This is such a weak argument from Pro, that is irrelevant to anything the title says.

Con’s 1 Case:
Does not have to prove that God can exist, just has to refute Pro’s case.
Just because God is a loving and kind father does not mean he will tolerate disobedience. (A retort that says God can be merciful while also enforcing the rules.)
God does not automatically rescue people, as he already gave everyone a free pass to make the right choice. It is everyone’s own responsibility to take the path God intended for them.

Okay, this is a good starting argument from Con, but I would’ve liked to see more pushback on the description. Namely, the fact that the rule only allows for a “literal” interpretation. Con should have REALLY used a Kritik this round and while I liked seeing Con state he will only focus on retorts. Perhaps, he should have clarified Pro’s burden a little more.

Pro’s 2 Case:
God has a moral obligation to stop evil people from getting into Heaven.
God is a hypocrite and lets 6 million people burn while enabling murderers and letting them get away with their atrociousness scot-free.
Therefore, God does not exist.
I would not love my child if he was a killer.
God is all-powerful and wants everyone to be saved, so he should show himself to everyone instead of leaving it up to free will and being surprised there are skeptics.
God can do anything, so he can send people to Heaven. Therefore, he should send non-believers to Heaven.

Once again, Pro is NOT arguing the resolution. Pro, you’re supposed to be citing passages and arguing that God does not exist, based on the verses in the Bible. You could give a perfectly legitimate monologue about how God is unjust, and the monologue could be considered irrefutable. And it still wouldn’t win the debate simply because you went off-topic.
Okay, Pro’s argument about God not appearing to everyone is actually a solid point that casts doubt on whether God exists, but it doesn’t prove anything because what Pro is arguing is an absolute.

The point about God’s omnipotence and power, as well as Hell is also another point. This puts the debate back on equal footing.

Con’s 2 Case:
(Forfeit)

Pro’s 3 Case:
Extend.

Con’s 3 Case:
Belief requires action.
Love does not mean approval.
God has shown himself to people and they refuse to believe. If direct transparency cannot convince people, most skeptics would brush it off as delusion.
God wants people to love him of their own free will, not because he forces them to.

Con has done a great job retorting Pro’s arguments and it’s a good thing Pro opted to extend because if he brought in more arguments, it might’ve scaled the debate in Pro’s favor because Con would be overwhelmed with the flooding of text. Now Con’s response here is effective because it shows that God is not responsible for making up the minds of people and they have the freedom to decide.

The weak retort is when Con says God wants people to love him of their own free will and not through force, which is ironic because God is indirectly threatening them with hellfire if they choose not to come to him, and God being an almighty being has the power to stop this as pointed out by Pro. So if God truly wanted this, then why wouldn’t he stop it? Is he incapable or unwilling? If he is unwilling, then perhaps he isn’t as moral as he could be.

Pro’s 4 Case:
Forfeit.

Con’s 4 Case:
Extend.

Okay, really interesting argument.
I went into this expecting it to be a trap debate and it really could have been, but it was so poorly set-up and sloppily executed, that I'm unconvinced Pro was intending to do that. Based on what Pro is arguing, the resolution is also poorly formatted, the debate topic should have been, "God's portrayal by the words of the Bible is inconsistent." If that was the debate title, then this would've been an immediate win for Pro, but that wasn't the subject.