Prayer is a failure to reason honestly and is the perfection of narcissism.

Let me state that I am completely aware of what I am typing. I have no intention to mislead this audience. My intention is to clarify this resolution. My opponent is correct, those who believe in something do exhibit some form of logic to get there (to include flawed logic). However, this is not a debate on whether those who pray were able to come to their conclusion, it is centered on the way they came about their conclusion. It is a debate that acknowledges the conclusion, and attacks it for being flawed reasoning skills.This resolution is, "prayer is a failure to reason honestly and is the perfection of narcissism."To reason honestly would mean to reason without lying. The perfection of narcissism would mean that the person praying would not think of anyone else other than himself in any circumstances whatsoever. So by the very words pro used in the resolution, it would mean we are debating whether those who pray are not being honest to themselves. If they are not using honest or proper logic so say. The latter part would mean we are debating if those who pray are perfect narcissists. This is what we are debating and what I am refuting. Now pro did make this flawed statement earlier. they are enacting in a practice that allows for them to momentarily borrow narcissistic characteristics without the guilt or convictions of doing so.If this was true those who pray cannot possibly pray for the benefit or recognition of others ever. For if they did they cannot possibly borrow perfect narcissistic characteristics. To be a perfect narcissist would mean to care only for oneself and to give praise only to oneself. They would never have any concern for anyone but themselves. Same thing applies even if someone has perfect narcissistic qualities. We know this statement is false because I have already proven that atleast some people who pray pray for others or pray to give praise to their gods. Since this happens, those who pray cannot possibly match the conditions to become or even borrow narcissistic qualities. As we see this part of the resolution fails.However, this is not a debate on whether those who pray were able to come to their conclusion, it is centered on the way they came about their conclusion. It is a debate that acknowledges the conclusion, and attacks it for being flawed reasoning skills. So now your saying those who pray don't use reasoning skills to pray? First of all lets recognize that belief in religion is always based on inductive arguments. They can't prove why there god exists but can prove why he probably exists. Arguments based on probability are formed using sound reasoning skills. So are deductive arguments. The only difference is that deductive reasoning is more proven to be true because there is a definite way to test ones theory. There are arguments that can neither be perfectly rejected or determined to be absolutely true. These arguments are some inductive arguments. The reason is explaining this is because religious people are convinced that it is highly probable that their creator exists. Some simple ways they are convinced in Christianity is the fact that a good majority of the prophecies in the bible have come true, It describes scientific problems that humans later found to be true, it is one of the few books that list long lines of genealogy and describes creation,It has philosophy that are very helpful to people. So do people have logical reasons to believe that their god probably exists? Yes. Let me remind the audience I'm not defending any religion but simply providing facts and POV'S. So since people believe their god probably exists and that god probably provided the bible to people for their benefit,then at some level it is reasonable for them to think when it says god listens to their prayer that he really does. It is also reasonable at some level for them to believe that human logic is not correct logic and that the logic influenced by the bible is the only logic they should follow to receive the gifts the bible says they will receive after death.So then that brings us to this question. How are we to determine the correct kind of logic for a Christian or religious person to follow? They believe any human logic that disagrees with there creators thinking is flawed reasoning. So with that being said how does someone expect for then to listen to anything different from what they believe. It may sound insane and stupid to others that don't believe what they believe however, it is reasonable and soundly logical for them to believe what they believe and believe their creator when he says he listens to prayer. As I said earlier their arguments are based on probability. We cannot determine if there argument is 100 percent true or 100 percent not true because none of us without a dought can prove god exists or not, we can neither prove if there manuscripts are the words of their creators. They believe what they believe. It is not insane or illogical for anyone to follow their beliefs at all. If their religion is not true then they are still justified in doing what they because they are not aware. A lie is not a lie if the person does not intend to tell a lie when they say it.Lie- a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.http://dictionary.reference.com...I'm sure we can all agree that a lie is he opposite of being honest. Since I have proven that religious people do not lie to themselves with cognition that would mean they cannot be possibly not reason honestly or in other words lieing as this resolution suggests. There is a difference that my opponent is trying to cloud over....etcThis is a false accusation.sound reasoning-compelling reasoning, convincing logic,accurate assessmenthttp://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...With that being defined the third refutation I made of my opponents statements in this round proves that those who pray base their beliefs that prayer is a real thing based on convincing logic or reasoning therefore rebutting this claim my opponent stated effectively so I will move on.To suggest that the one deity is active but only among people who share a certain opinion and not on the virtues of specific people is an illogical and unreasonable viewpoint.As I stated earlier I'm focusing on Christianity. How is this unreasonable? The bible does say those who don't believe in god will be condemned. (1 john 5:10) However pros statement is flawed. God does not cease to be active according to the bible just because some people don't believe in him. He is still active regardless of peoples beliefs or not. Also the bible says those who don't believe have the influence of the devil. Wouldn't it be a contradiction if god helped out his enemy to further defame him? So again why is god not helping out those who are willingly under the devils influence illogical?( again I am explaining the reasonableness of the religious POV, my beliefs are not included.)I have already proven the position of religion and belief in prayer is reasonable and based on sound logic so I'm not going to talk about this anymore unless pro brings it up again next round. Lets not make this debate about proving if religion is right or not because that has nothing to do with the resolution. We are supposed to be talking about if those who pray are being dishonest and narcissistic. Lets not make this debate about attacking or defending religion. someone who lives their life based off of sound logic and reason, yet their belief system defies the very logic that they exhibit on a daily basis....etcThis is not true and does not happen with those who pray. I have already refuted a claim similar to this.My characters have run out. So I will finish refuting the rest of pros case next round. Don't get to relaxed pro i have alot more tearing up of your case to do. Just not enough characters to finish all of it this round.