The Grim Reaper is more powerful than God.

"Powerful" will be left undefined.

Pro and Con will suggest their definition/frameworks. And argue the debate, using their framework.

This is an either-or situation, and the audience can only accept one framework. Whichever framework they like more is what controls the debate.

So, the victory of this debate is not decided by comparing or measuring abilities. That is too easy. It is decided by who uses a certain definition of 'powerful,' convinces the voters to accept that version of the word and then substantiates it.

To give an example. Here are the rules of this debate.

Since it is a thought experiment. Here are the two basic things to keep in mind.:

1. The Grim Reaper will refer to Thanatos from Greek Mythology.
2. God is the Judeo-Christian God.

So any arguments can only use evidence from Greek Mythology or from Judaism-Christianity. For example, Pro cannot use evidence from Celtic Mythology for The Grim Reaper, as his version of The Grim Reaper is from Greek. That same rule applies to Con for God. As he may only use lore from Judaism & Christianity.

But for this debate, we shall have two exceptions in mind. In this thought experiment.:

1. Thanatos has the ability to kill God. But God cannot kill Thanatos.
2. But in the chain of command, Thanatos is still subordinate to God. Thanatos is obligated to fulfill his duties, according to God's will.
3. And this last rule is just for clarification. Thanatos is not omnipotent and cannot create worlds or do things that God can. Thanatos is still bound to the powers he has in Greek Mythology, with only these two exceptions.

Hopefully, this provides a clearer understanding. This debate is not a discussion of who has more power. It is a contest of who can define what 'more powerful' means and why their definition is better. This leaves Pro and Con more freedom of how they wish to argue.

For example.:

1. Pro can argue that being more powerful means whoever has the ability to end someone's continued existence permanently.
2. Con can counter that being more powerful is whoever has the higher authority, and diversity in ability.

The term 'power' in this case shall be relative. And voters will judge, based on whoever makes the stronger appeal. This is 100% about semantic tricks.

With that in mind, this debate is on-balance.