Id like to thank Sum1hugme for this debate, now ill move into my opening argument
The fine tuning argument
Premise 1: There are finely-tuned factors in the universe
Premise 2: These finely-tuned factors are either from necessity, chance, or design (feel free to add any other possibilities)
Premise 3: Its not of chance, or necessity
conclusion: The universe was designed
Lets define what finely-tuned is;
Premise 1 seems more plausibly true than false, to justify it i'll point out 2 examples
1 - If the initial explosion of the big bang had differed in strength by as little as 1 part in 10^60, the universe would have either quickly collapsed back on itself, or expanded too rapidly for stars to form. In either case, life would be impossible.
2 - Calculations by Brandon Carter show that if gravity had been stronger or weaker by 1 part in 10^40, then life-sustaining stars like the sun could not exist. This would most likely make life impossible.
 for source
2 follows logically, and the conclusion follows 3 logically, the justification for 3 is that there is no good reason to believe it was so by necessity, the cosmological constants I sourced arent determined by any laws of nature or anything of the sorts.
As for why its not by chance, to say its by chance is a irrational position that no one could reasonable hold.
Argument from change
Premise 1: change is real
Premise 2: Change is the actualization of a potential
Premise 3: A thing cannot actualize itself
Premise 4: Actualizes that need to be themselves actualized cannot ultimately account for change
Conclusion: So, a pure actual actualizer must exist to account for change, this actualizer is god
I dont think any reasonable person would deny premise 1 or 2, take for example a coffee cup it is real that it could change, and that change is because its a possibility, for example if it was on a magical heater that made it impossible to get cold, then it could not change as that's not a possibility for it, so it seems as if 1 & 2 are more plausibly true innit of itself
Premises 3 & 4 also seems reasonable, take for example there is a giant bolder and there is a possibility that it could be on top of a MT, it wont actualize that potential itself, as its just a potential, no you must push it up there, and the reason premise 4 can be affirmed through this is what actualized you? Your parents, so there's a chain (possibly infinite chain, although id disagree with infinity) that leads us through your ancestral line, through Darwin's evolutionary tree all the way back to what caused the potential of the big bang to actualize, the reason the conclusion follows logically from premises 1-4
Argument for the resurrection of Jesus
Premise 1: There has been many theories to explain what happened after an alleged resurrection, without reference to the resurrection
Premise 2: All of these theories have failed
Premise 3: The most rational theory to accept because of this is that the resurrection actually happened
Premise 4: If a resurrection happened god is real
Conclusion: God is real
In premise 1 what I mean by many theories is for example the hallucination theory, the conspiracy theory, the swooning theory, etc, so what I want you to do is point out which theory you think happened according to the facts we know of the early spread of chrsitianity
Premise 2 will be explained in my closing argument, according to the theory you present
Premise 3 & 4 follow logically
The conclusion follows the premises.
Argument from logic
Premise 1: Laws of logic exist
Premise 2: Atheism cant account for the laws of logic
Premise 3: You must be able to account for the laws of logic to be rational
Conclusion: Atheism is not rational
Premise 1 is nearly undeniable, there cant be true contradictions for example. Premise 2 seems more plausibly true than false since the laws of logic are transcendental
Premise 3 seems logical, you need to be able to account for your views to be rational.
 - THE FINE-TUNING DESIGN ARGUMENT By Robin Collins From Reason for the Hope Within (1999)