One could logically follow a majority of these guidelines

First, a general argument against the fallacies he has strewn throughout his case. I am a tour guide in Orlando, Florida, and I explain to tourists which attractions they should and should not visit while in Florida. Among the many guidelines I give them are: A. You ought to visit each Disney World park. B. You ought to ride the Spiderman ride at Islands of Adventure theme park. C. You ought to go souvenir shopping. D. You ought to watch the killer whales at Sea World. I ask you, are these clearly logical guidelines for the average tourist? I should hope so. Now, look at CONs arguments: 1. For these guidelines to be logical, one must follow every single one. 2. For these guidelines to be logical, they must all be followed simultaneously. 3. For these guidelines to be logical, they must always be the best option. Common logic should be enough to prove that these claims aren't true, but apply those to my above example. My example violates all 3 of CONs arguments, yet it remains that the guidelines could all be logically followed. Clearly violating these rules that CON has imposed does not make a guideline illogical. ==== Contradictions ==== A & B) There is no reason why every single option needs to be followed simultaneously, or even followed at all. You can look to the above example, or even a more specific one here. Two ways to avoid car crashes are: 1. Only travel by plane. 2. Do not travel from your house. While these certainly cannot both be done, it remains true that they are both effective ways to prevent car crashes. In the same manner, while one might not be able to hide in a ditch and a storm shelter while running like hell and shooting a gun, they are all logical ways to be safe and this supposed contradiction does not make that any less true. C) Refer to the 3rd rule I outlined in this debate. Even if CON proved that 'the only safe place is my loving arms' is false, it doesn't help him in the slightest. We are debating whether the commands made in these guidelines are logical, not the truth of the statements on which they are based. My opponent needs to prove that accepting Christianity would be hazardous to one's health to disprove my P6. Accepting Christianity is completely possible even if one chooses to follow the other guidelines. ==== The Mundane ==== 1. You can refer to that general argument I made about guidelines. The bulk of his attack on my point one is based on those faulty assertions. While there may at times be better options, or times where lying in a ditch might be bad, that does not change whether or not lying in a ditch, as a general rule, would be logical. He doesn't refute my source ADVISING that those seeking shelter from tornadoes lay in ditches, so lying in ditches as a general rules is a safe way to avoid a tornado, and thus Guideline 1 is logical. He does make brief attacks on the safety of ditches, but they are completely unfounded. A. "a culvert in a ditch MAY be a good choice if there is no rain, but if there IS rain, flash flooding may be more dangerous and likely than the tornado. " This is a culvert: . http://en.wikipedia.org... A culvert is clearly a bad place to hide. It remains, though, that a DITCH is a good place to hide. B. Tetanus 1. Requires direct contact between an open wound and the dirt; and 2. Is completely preventable through vaccination that's from his own source: . https://www.google.com... For 9/10 people, there is little to no chance of getting tetanus. This isn't a legitimate threat. 2. He concedes this one to me. I would suggest to my opponent a similar plan of action on the other 7 guidelines in his next rebuttal. 3. Read Rule 3. Whether tornadoes have fear is irrelevant. A. adding a single, small piece of metal to a tornado that has picked up houses, trees, stones, etc. hardly if at all increases the chance of harm. The possibility of saving the lives of those who were unaware outweighs any harms, anyway. B. Most people, particularly out in the country, have ready access to a gun (. http://gunowners.org...). Thus, this applies as a general rule. 4. My opponent assumes that this rule applies strictly during tornadoes. He has no justification for why this is true. My argument stands that far more often than not (the 999 of 1,000 days when a tornado is not an imminent threat) this guideline would benefit one's health. 5. It is commonly known that tornadoes cannot currently be prevented. My opponent claims that telling people to do so would cause an exponential increase in suicide. This is a very slippery slope: . http://www.fallacyfiles.org... single impossible claim --> confusion --> frustration --> stress --> depression --> rage spirals --> mass suicide Rather, as the saying goes "necessity is the mother of invention. " A call to action such as this is what stimulates the ideas for new inventions. Who knows? Maybe within 10 or 20 years someone will already have a prototype tornado prevention system in place. 6. My opponent says my interpretation is that people should commit suicide. I in no way said that. Guideline 6 clearly advocates converting to Christianity. My opponent hasn't rebutted my arguments as to why, so you can accept this as true. Second, it is a guideline, not a mandate. This in no way forces someone to compromise their beliefs, it simply suggests to them to do so. CON says having guidelines leads to a feeling oppression, which will lead to suicide. We have missionaries, we have outreach programs, we have billboards and TV shows advocating Christianity. People who don't agree often simply ignore them; they don't commit suicide as he claims they would! Third, Christianity might not provide divine protection, that much is obvious. However, my opponent casually ignores my claim that Christianity has a measurable positive impact on health. At that point, this guideline is still logical if one wants to increase health and safety. Finally, 1. My opponent has absolutely no reason why people would interpret the command that way. I'm the only one with any evidence to justify my assertion. 2. Hugging a loved one, or anyone for that matter, would very likely boost morale. 7. Examine the two statements made: [If a tornado strikes your home, even a basement could be dangerous] This is true, my opponent hasn't denied it. [so construct a basement for your basement. ] This is logical. Knowing the above statement, it makes perfect sense that I would construct a basement for my basement in preparation. My opponent's only argument is that they would be constructing the basement after the tornado has been spotted. 1. I see no reason why any sane person, reading the above guideline would interpret it as such. 2. Even if they did, they would have to be in the basement to construct a basement for their basement. Assuming they don't have a basement for their basement already, the basement is the safest place they can be. In that regard, it is still logical anyway, because following command 7 would put people in the most safe place to hide. 8. A. My opponent doesn't deny that pointing to the tornado is logical. B. Point proven, we can't outrun tornadoes. Remember, the benefits of running are 'threefold' as a I claimed and he has only refuted one of those 3. C. He doesn't say yelling is bad, just at times redundant. Remember: 1. The tornado siren might not be functioning (the tornado could have destroyed it. ) 2. There might not be a nearby siren. 3. People may not take the siren seriously until they see you pointing, yelling, and running like hell. 4. They might be deaf, in which case pointing and running might be the only warning they get. ==== Maybe you can find 1 argument you don't think I've rebutted, by some stretch of the imagination, 2. My opponent needs to win half to win this debate, and he clearly has not.