Zeus exists, he is the true God

Round 1

Pro opens with a demand that Con prove (to Pro) that Zeus isn't real.

Con opens with define 'a true god' as:
"a deity possessing supreme authority, omnipotence, omniscience, and moral perfection, who also exists according to evidence and logic."

However, there is a difference between 'the true god' and 'a true god' that neither debater seems to be realising, which isn't a problem as Pro doesn't capitalise on this.

Con proceeds, in Round 1, to set up a structure for which Pro could supposedly prove to us that Zeus is a real god, even though 'the Real God' would have been a much wiser thing to force.

"Historical Context: Zeus is a figure from Greek mythology, a polytheistic belief system lacking historical evidence."
No sources given, nor for the assumed-plagiarised definition of a true god. This actually begins to support Pro.

"Contradictions in Attributes: Zeus, like other Greek gods, displays human-like flaws and engages in morally questionable behavior, contrasting with the notion of a morally perfect true god."
you can be flawed and meet the definition Con gives:

"supreme authority, omnipotence, omniscience, and moral perfection"

so long as your flaws aren't moral ones. This is something Pro also completely fails to capitalise on during the debate.

"Lack of Universal Recognition: Zeus was worshipped in limited regions and not universally acknowledged, questioning his authenticity on a global scale."
This doesn't matter because being worshipped isn't included in Con's own definition of a true god. I consider this an irrelevant point due to Con's definition of a true god.

"Scientific Understanding: Scientific advancements have provided alternative explanations for phenomena once attributed to divine intervention and gods."
So what? Which advancements? Which explanations? I presume this to be a baseless claim that leans lie because not even one single explanation or advancement is provided.

Round 2

Pro:
"So where is the proof that Zeus doesnt exist?"
While I agree with Pro that Con completely failed to address this in Round 1, Pro also is failing to explain how if Zeus does exist, he is the true god as opposed to one of many. The debate's description says 'one true God'. God with capital G is only Judeo-Christian but I'll let that slide.

Con:
"Zeus doesn't exist because the mythology he is said to exist in does not exist."
Pro has baselessly stated this, it's obvious the mythology does exist because Pro refers to it in Round 1. This is a nonsense point.

"Modern science has not found a single piece of evidence for Olympia or Hades or any of the countless wars these beings were supposedly having."
We have to take Con's word for it, Pro has indeed provided us zero evidence so far for any of it so we must default now to favour Con's assertions that science doesn't support Zeus or the stories linked to him (though this doesn't mean they disproved it either, whatsoever).

"Pro has not fullfilled his BoP to prove that Zeus is real and is the true God."
But neither side said Pro had to. Con said 'a true god' in his own Round 1.

Round 3
"Since there is no proof that Zeus doesnt exist, the only logical conclusion is that Zeus exists."
This is a brand new point in Round 3 by Pro. Though it was implied that Pro did think this way due to how he argued the prior Rounds.

I don't know what to make of it. Both sides are whining and moaning that the other side isn't proving them wrong, it's like both sides wish the other side was giving evidence to prove them wrong.

"Bro your argument is terrible."
Irrelevant borderline ad-hom but attacks the argument and is a one-time thing. He's not your bro, he's your enemy. Treat him as a worthy adversary, even when beating the shit out of his arguments.

"I can easily use the same logic against you. Since there is no proof that Zeus doesn't not exist, the only logical conclusion is that he does not exist."
Not can, did. This is what Con did the entire debate so I default it to a Con win by negative BoP-meeting by Pro.

Extend all other arguments.

Pro does not dispute BoP but does not make arguments to affirm the resolution.