Mormonism is Irrational and Flawed

This is quite interesting. Pro has cherry-picked parts of my arguments to respond to, while ignoring the rest and simply stating that they are irrational. Pro makes some huge concessions which make it practically impossible for him to win. Burden of Proof & the ResolutionI contend still that the larger end of the BoP lies on my opponent. I explained my reasoning in Round 2 thus: "I can't affirm that Mormonism is perfect by not debunking flaws that have been pointed out - I would instead have to search the entire religion for every possible inconsistency, which is hard to achieve. Also, the only way I can affirm that Mormonism is rational without comparing it to other religions is to provide objective evidence of it being true, which isn't as easy as my opponent pointing out things they may not think to be logical. "This was never responded to, meaning it was conceded. Thus, as a reader, you must assume that Pro has the larger end of the BoP, since such was asserted by both sides. Since our cases revolve around the validity of Mormonism, I will show the two possibilities that could occur from the claims shown:-If Mormonism is likely true, then there must be a rational base for believing in it, and it probably isn't flawed. -If Mormonism is likely untrue, then it is probably flawed, and there may be illogical reasons to believe in it. However, this does not fulfill the burden of proof, as Pro needs to show that Mormonism is deprived of reason. Even if he shows that it is flawed, he cannot affirm it being irrational unless it is apparent that there is no reason to believe in it. This burden is impossible to fulfill because many of my arguments on the rationality of this faith have been dropped. By doing such, Pro concedes that there are reasons to believe in Mormonism. One of the important ones is the argument I made about the BoM likely having a Semitic origin, meaning that it was probably translated. Since this was a reason to believe in the faith, and was never answered, then it is utterly impossible for Pro to affirm that Mormonism is completely deprived of reason, (as is the definition of irrational). Thus, as the BoP has failed to have been met, you must vote Con by default. Although it is needless to respond to Pro's responses based on the nature of the resolution, I will do so anyway. RebuttalsR1 makes no argument. It is based on the assertion that my arguments are irrational, which is a bare claim in itself. Dismissed. R2 is based around discussion of the existence of God, with two contentions made: the existence of evil and the omnipotence paradox. The existence of evil is permitted because of free will given to all men, meaning that all people have the ability to choose between good and evil, and some will inevitably choose evil. To allow evil is to allow one's agency, for to prohibit it is to restrict the ability to choose. Since free will is a good in itself (which I'm sure my opponent will agree), then it is important to uphold goodness to allow it to happen. The omnipotence paradox isn't a problem either: God could create a rock and then restrict his power so that he would not be able to lift it. To not be able to restrict oneself would be a contradiction of omnipotence, so this scenario can exist. R3 is a branch off of the infinite regression argument, responding only to one of the remarks I made in that contention and ignoring the rest. Stating that "God is above human comprehension" doesn't negate anything, because such a statement isn't strictly specific. God's existence is comprehendable, but not the entirety of his being or his nature. R4 makes assertions while dropping everything I said in the last round. I showed how rational inquiry is a legitimate base for evidence, and how faith is the precursor to that. Extend these arguments. R5. Extend all rebuttals on DNA evidence. I showed why the results of DNA testing ought not to be trusted. Pro responded by simply stating "I trust science". That's great, but I've shown why not to trust it in this case alone. I am not denying all science, just showing why it shouldn't be trusted in this instance. This is personal bias. R6. "Proving the Book of Mormon's linguistic properties as veritable does not prove the plausibility of the content. " Yes it does. Another face value bare assertion made again by Pro. Extend all arguments on BoM. R7. Pro used a new argument to deny the validity of the BoM in response to my argument about its validity. That is a direct violation of the rules, as stated in Round 1 that no new arguments are to be made in round 3. R8 commits the Genetic Fallacy by attempting to dismiss my source simply because of its origin. . https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...Also, if someone claims to be a prophet, and makes prophecies that come true, then that person is likely a prophet. If I said that the Baltimore, Marlyand riots from earlier this year is a prediction of a civil war erupting, I would be thought of as crazy. The tensions between the North and South do not indicate the eruption of a civil war, especially when such a war has never occurred in the history of the US up to that point in time. Dropped Arguments- Blind Faith & Rational Inquiry- Infinite Regression- Logical Improbabilities- DNA Evidence responses- Writing of the BoMConclusionThe end result is plain and simple: the BoP on Pro's end was never fulfilled. I fulfilled my end by showing how there is evidence for the validity of Mormonism, which was never refuted by Pro. Belief in religion comes from personal inquiry of that which is supernatural, and is not mutually exclusive with science. There is plenty of objective and subjective evidence for Mormonism, and I believe I've made myself very clear on it. Although I think Pro is passionate about his beliefs, I don't think that his arguments are good enough to refute Mormonism.