Debating the morality of a deity, and degradation.

Debating the morality of a deity is surprisingly easy. I have decided to do a quick inert about how to disprove an argument that uses the idea that the deity is moral.

There is a single key argument I shall try to rebut before it becomes apparent in a debate, and the opponent can articulate it: God being moral as he is God, and he "sets the rules". The first thing to bring up is Euthrypro's dilemma. Does God command the good because it is good, or is it good because it is commanded by God?

Very simple topic, but hard to disprove, unless you know of the debate format of a disadvantage. A disadvantage means that your position is inarguable by the definitions the opposition has set out -- your opponent's position is axiomatic. If your opponent is arguing God is good because he is God, then rebut with this:

"If God's actions are good because they are God's actions, then you've set up an impossible standard. This means good is whatever God does. So you wish for me to disprove that God's actions are God's actions. This is axiomatic. The argument is inarguable, and unjustified. Therefore, the only correct position left is that good exists and is not subject to God's will."

Now, this is useless in an informal debate, but in a formal or marked debate, it is a great point to make -- as a judge of debating, I can tell this is a degradation. This is an inarguable position, as the opponent cannot justify a definition which has no value except stifling thought. If you wish to take it further, then you can bring up the God Complex, and the idea that someone knowing everything, including morality, and bring up Plato's analogy of the statesman and the politician, (that the politician who lies and cheats will make himself similar to you while the statesman who knows more will have differing opinions but can justify them), to continue that train of thought informally. However, just showing it is a degradation in a real debate is perfectly applicable.