Although both sides made several strong points, I believe the defense followed through with the best argument and provided reasonable doubt that Lucifer/Satan was not guilty. I felt the prosecution's questioning of God was well prepared. God's testimony that she would go to great lengths to protect the one good person and the line of questioning surrounding the issue was very interesting. The testimony and questioning of Lucifer/Satan was very persuading to my vote. The obedience privilege argument was particularly strong. The defense asked why Lucifer would give up the privileges of being in good with God for fire and brimstone if it were not for the principle of the matter. Lucifer knew what God was capable of, as stated many times in the trial, and so he knew that the revolt against God would not be easy. The reference to The Tenure of Kings that discussed how things might not have been bad if God had not defined it as such was also very persuading. Both of the closing arguments were spectacular. It was evident that the prosecution put a lot of time, effort, and creativity into the closing. The defense's closing argument I thought countered the prosecution's well. The analogy of the revolution of Satan and the forging a new life in Hell to the American Revolution was extremely persuasive. Both teams put together wonderful presentations. The arguments have made me think and challenge my own personal thoughts. Well done.
BACK TO COURSE SYLLABUS