Too bad that, Kyle, the well-prepared, could offer no proof of the existence of God. Isn't that sort of essential to his argument?
****
You are obviously not acquainted with the protocols of debate. It was not Mr. Butt's task in this debate to prove the existence of God. It was Mr. Scott's obligation to affirmatively show, by evidence, that "God Does Not Exist." All that was necessary for Butt to do in order to prevail was to show that Scott had failed to prove the affirmative proposition that "God Does Not Exist."
If the proposition had been, "God Does Exist," then Butt would have borne the burden of proving, by evidence, that the proposition is true. But that was NOT the proposition.
At those points in the debate where Butt introduced arguments relative to the existence of God, he did so not for the immediate and direct purpose of proving the existence of God, but for the purpose of presenting evidence that challenging arguments submitted by Scott in support of the affirmative proposition that "God Does Not Exist."
This might seem narrow or arcane to you, but what I have stated above is entirely consistent with the established protocols of formal debate. I debated both in high school and in college and I am well acquainted with these matters.