There are no true Christians

For my arguments this round, I am going to switch tracks in my argumentation. It appears this debate is getting nowhere. Why? Because we do not have a an answer to what makes a Christian. Being a Christian means, as defined by pro, "one who has belief in Jesus, His words, and His promises."I have faith in Jesus. I have faith in His words. I have faith in His promises.I am a Christian.Faith is subjective. My opponent can not tell me if I have faith. Can he evaluate my actions to draw a logical conclusion from them? Certainly! But faith is an internal matter.My opponent has tried to provide tests and scriptures that, in his opinion, urge me to prove my faith. My faith is between my God and me alone. If my opponent will be skeptical of my faith no matter what, so be it. But if that was the case, why did he start this debate in the first place?My opponent stated that I'd be able to drink poison with no side-effects as a testimony to my faith. However, I'm not going to lie. I don't have sufficient faith to do this. It I had to, I would. But then again, at that point I wouldn't really have much choice in the matter!Thankfully, contrary to my opponent's belief, God does not require me to drink poison. Why? Because He knows there is such a thing as doubt. Doubt is natural, but can be fought. We, as humans, don't have strong wills when it comes to believing in things we can not prove or explain. God, being omniscient, knows this. When Peter jumped out of the boat, He was doing it because He wanted to be with God. He trusted God wouldn't let Him fall. However, as Peter got closer, he doubted. He allowed his skepticism to take over. He still had faith in God to save him, but he didn't have faith in God to perform the miracles himself... at that time.Later, however, Peter would do great things in the name of the Lord. These miracles would be similar, if not even greater, than those Jesus performed. This is yet another example of a true Christian, both by the standard presented (if we are to believe Peter's words) AND by the convoluted standard that the Pro tried to adapt his arguments towards later in this round.My opponent stated his opinion that faith was all or nothing. This is fine. It is his opinion. He has no proof, whatseoever, of this claim. Jesus didn't say to Peter, "Why didn't you have faith?". Jesus said, "You of little faith. Why did you doubt?" Little faith. Not none. Faith, as described in the bible, is quantifiable.My opponent then proceeded to try and scam me out of my money once again...Okay. I jest. This was another test for his standard. However, with the information I've revealed above, (regarding how faith is quantifiable, doubt and faith can be felt at the same time, and how faith is subjective and internal) this test is meaningless. For the record, I do have $50. And no, I'm not trying to get out of giving my opponent money. The thing is, Christians shouldn't enable sinful behavior. If I give everyone money when they ask for it, they could use it for sinful purposes. It is like having a friend, who is a habitual drinker, come up and ask you for drinking money. I don't give it to him, because it would allow him to sin more. If he came up to me asking me to but him lunch, I would. In the same manner, I have to trust but verify. (as the old Russian proverb and president Reagan stated) It is only logical.Jesus healed people who had faith in His ability to heal. There is never an account of Him healing someone who didn't believe in Him. Sorry. The original faith in Him came from His actions of kindness and mercy, and His teachings in the synagogues, as well as miracles that He performed early in His ministry (such as turning water into wine).I'm afraid doubt has stopped most of the miracles that could be performed. My opponent is correct in a sense. However, it's not just a lack of faith by the Christians performing these miracles, but by those recieving them. There will always be deaf, blind, and lame people in this world, until the day Jesus returns. Jesus never said the world will be perfect. Even by your second standard you brought up, Peter was an example of a "true Christian" correct? However, even though he undeniably had faith, there was still much sorrow and sickness during his time.As for John 3:16, the demons do believe. The demons are not souls, they can not be saved. However, my opponent can be, and anyone reading this. I have been. And if anyone else has been to, I'm happy for you. John 3:16 provides the TRUE definition of a Christian. We are debating the one my opponent first brought up in the 1st Round, but anyone who falls under the TRUE definition should also fall under the broader definition we're debating anyways.No. Love is something we all express. We can all love. I think my opponent already knows this. I'm saying that Jesus views acts of love and selflessness as greater than miracles. When He is talking about acts greater than His, He is referring to our everday selflessness.I invite my opponent to offer his final arguments and conclusion. I will do the same next round. Fantastic debating, as always.