It is more likely that no god* exists rather than any form of god existing.

If I critisize either side, it is not because I think I could do better, it's just my surface thoughts.

Reason for Vote Part 1

R1 Moozer325
My thoughts on Pro R1
I think Pro brings up fair questions that bother people on the existence of God.
I don't think people are unable to offer excuses or possibilities, but. . . Such offerings work better on people who identify God in certain ways or have faith.
Someone spiritually deaf or blind, could not be convinced by such, I'd think.
And even those who supposedly have the ears and eyes for it, how much do they 'truly see, 'truly hear?
Though perhaps it is enough to know 'something is there, to have a 'direction of what one should value, how one should act.
I'm still an Atheist though.
Anyway, I think Pro's round 1 would be considered decent enough arguments by most people.

Religious people often believe in an afterlife, or a reoccurrence.
Is a human lifespan that long compared to X? I say X as I don't know what an afterlife 'would be.
For reoccurrence, doesn't some version of Hinduism believe in Brahman as a God, something or other about everything being one. And people reincarnating trying to be better people each time, learning lessons, but also there's other people who are also them in a sense also trying. Just the nature of existence to have evil.
. . . Though you define God as
"God: a perfectly good, omnipotent and omniscient being that created the universe."
What does omnipotent 'mean?
People often don't mean the ability to make 1+1=3,
One could argue that God is limited by logic, while still being omnipotent.

For the Christian side though, I've always liked Job.

Reminds me of the Parable of the Invisible Gardener.
But such an argument is based on itself, and could be flipped to there being a Gardener, and yet the Atheist insisting every action is a mirage.

'Pro's ideal God, would behave as they want,
Yet my thoughts again go to Job.

'Is one more likely to have a divine visit in a different country?
If you have proof of even one divine visit, wouldn't such prove God?
If one has a more 'Deist view of God, whether a Deist God that 'has appeared or one that hasn't. Wouldn't such Deists be able to see God even in Atheist countries?
Who is to say what a divine visit 'is?

Do we 'know God is passive?
If God has some value or circumstance of the World, some self imposed rule on how they should act, does this mean they are not Omnipotent?
If I make a rule to myself not to stab random strangers in the street, it would not be true that I am incapable of stabbing random strangers in the street.

R1 Con
I thought the Socratic method was open ended questions that force the opponent to defeat themself?

I'd argue Con makes 'statements and assumptions a fair bit here.

I'm also doubtful that we are not caged into nature ourselves.

Some believers in God have nonstandard ideas of Free Will, see Calvinists.

"God doesn't make the world this way. We do.” - Rorsach
Though people disagree on 'whether God 'does or doesn't.
Hands on, people still argue God is Good or Bad,
Hands off, people still argue God is Good or Bad.

My mind returns to the Invisible Gardener,
What do we define as God, and how much can we conclude of objects that we cannot 'see.
Should it have been more likely that no X exists, earlier in history, before we could 'show them through a microscope?
Or because their definition years later would be slightly different?
Sometimes objects, laws, and people are identified peripherally, through logical necessity.
What makes something more or less likely?
(Thoughts here my own, not Cons)

My thoughts on Con R1
Con gives assertions on what God is, and seems to be identifying God as Truth?
Which I suppose is a bit of problem of Pros debate, though they 'did give a definition of God, it might be a bit broad.
Hm, is Con identifying God as a being?

While Con says what something 'is, Con doesn't say why such would exist, or what proof there is of such an existence.

Reason for Vote Part 2

R2 Moozer325
Are humans evil for creating new humans to live?
Or animals that we eat?

What did/does existence require to fulfill God's purpose?
Begging the question on my part, I suppose.

I wonder at how well a person would emphasize without pain?
One sees AI sometimes brutalized in fiction, as a necessity of sentience, but eh.
. . . There is more than physical pain I suppose, emotional pain for instance. . . Hm, if humans removed all pain from all organisms on Earth, would such 'also have been part of Gods plan?
But then, I don't think Pro 'required God to have a plan, just to be
"perfectly good, omnipotent and omniscient being that created the universe."
Which doesn't 'require plans really.
Still whether this theoretical God is hands on or not, it's not an either or. Can be a spectrum.

Does God need be responsible for every minutia?
Different Theists have different answers I'd think.

Omniquantism
http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff1400/fc01386.htm
Goes on for a few comics on the subject.

Pro R2 Concluding thoughts
"I acknowledge that the primary burden of proof rests with me. I must have sufficient evidence to prove that it is more likely God does not exist, and Con must either have sufficient evidence to prove that it is more likely that God does exist, or demonstrate that I have not provided enough evidence to support my side." - Pro R1
Hm, leaning towards Pro, but something feels off about debate.

R2 Con
Sub Gods?
Why are we Sub Gods?
I assume because of Con earlier arguments about our 'seemingly greater control other environment than other organisms on Earth.

Con seems to be taking hands off God approach.
And a bit Pantheist God approach?
Or do they maintain God is a person?

Okay, Con suggests that God exists separate of manmade religions,
But why does such prove God needs to exist?
"Con must either have sufficient evidence to prove that it is more likely that God does exist, or demonstrate that I have not provided enough evidence to support my side." - Pro R1
Hm, "or demonstrate that I have not provided enough evidence to support my side." is probably the one I'll try to factor at the end.

Reason for Vote Part 3

R3 Pro
One could argue we have pain and sorrow as training wheels.
Or that feeling happy all the time isn't everything.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/n5TqCuizyJDfAPjkr/the-baby-eating-aliens-1-8

I'm again reminded of Job.
But admit to many such can come off as God works in mysterious ways, and that such an argument can not be satisfying to people.

Hm, 'has Pro proved God cannot exist?
Big part of their argument is identifying God as all loving, and arguing if God loved us they would do more.
One can rebut that God may be all powerful, but what does all powerful 'mean?
1+1=3?
If it means something less, then there can be reasons for our pain, like a parent's action or nonaction towards child in pain, necessary experience or part of existence. Lot of religious people believe in an after,
With how long some people have been dead, has their lives ended 'there? Never learning? Never experiencing? Never being something next or more?
(I'm still a materialist)

'Does Cons counterarguments hold up?
Con is not so much proving God exists to me, so much as arguing against Cons reasons for God not existing.
Well, Pro addressed that in this round, arguing it 'does have something to do with God, depends on Cons next round arguments.

R3 Con
Currently leaning towards Pro,
Socratic method might be a bad method when there are limited rounds in a debate.
It 'also can be flawed when you assume the opponent will give you the answer you want.

votes plz