The sacrament of the Eucharist is reasonable based on the scriptural and historical evidences.

"Dropped Argument"My opponent cites wikipedia as a source that states that a dropped argument is a concession. However, this is not the case. First, I deemed this particular argument irrelevant, as my opponent cited a protestant historian. If the Protestant historian has evidence that is supposed to convince others of the Eucharist, then why does that historian remain Protestant? It's a non-argument. Secondly, I have the entirety of the debate to refute all of his arguments. I need not refute all of them in a single round. If, on the other hand, I had never addressed the argument throughout the entirety of the debate, only then could my opponent claim my concession. But this is not the case.The Point of the DebateWe are debating the resolution "The sacrament of the Eucharist is reasonable based on the scriptural and historical evidences." It is true that we must look to the early Christians to see how they interpreted Scripture. But the resolution states two purposes- the scriputral and historical. So just because there are evidences of early Christians practicing something, it does not mean that it is based on Scripture. Many early christians did many things that were not scriptural. So, this debate focuses on both, not just one aspect. Literal Vs. MetaphorIt is simple how this can be viewed metaphorically. Jesus is the door, and this metaphorically means that he is the way to God. It does not literally mean that he transforms into a door and we must open him. So also is it that Jesus is the bread and wine, and this metaphorically means that these two substances represent his body and blood and the price that he paid for us. My opponent cannot make the argument that the Eucharist is real without also arguing that Jesus is a literal door, lest he remain inconsistent.Communion as a MealIn order for Jesus to be two places at once, it would have to be noticed by people. However, nowhere in the Gospels do we see anybody writing down the miraculous event of Jesus being in two places at once during the first Communion. You would think this would be very important. Why would all the writers fail to remember this? This would be even bigger than the Transfiguration! Original Sunday WorshipNot only was there a true discussion in the early church, but we must also realize that they did not all go up to sip a tiny sip of wine or eat a piece of a little cracker. The early christians truly broke full loaves of bread, had wine, and shared meals together while they had discussions. This is nothing like how the Catholic church worships today. This is the point that I am making- the orignal christians worship nothing at all like the Catholics nowadays do. This is important because Catholocism has taken simple and wonderful things and turned them into superstitious rituals devoid of real human interaction.Clement of Alexandria and other Church FathersMy opponent seems convinced that because the church fathers say that the body and bread is the blood and wine, then they believed it was literally true. But if we go back to Jesus saying he is the door (and Jesus doesn't use the word figuratively, we just must use our common sense to realize that he is talking figuratively), we know that people can say things that are only meant to be taken metaphorically, even if they don't use the word literally.So even though my opponent continually shows church fathers saying they believed it was the body and blood, it is because they did, but only figuratively.Clement of Alexandria is a big deal. He specifically uses the word figuratively. Something cannot be both literal and phsyical. It is either one or the other. A literal thing can have philosophical implications, like Adam and Eve sinning, but that is different than metaphor. And, as Clement was a teacher of Christians, that is, he taught doctrines to the children, and his writings were passed around for many to read, it is major that this Christian who specifically teaches a figurative interpretation is definitely somebody who reflects the whole of belief at his time. If he believed it was metaphorical, yet everyone else believed it literal, as you claim, why did nobody challenge Clement? Why wasn't there an uproar in the Church about this? It's because all the Church fathers understood it to be metaphorical, even if they didn't specificially use the word "figuratively" or "metaphorically" just as Jesus did when he claimed to be the door. Jesus expected mankind to have common sense.John 6This is not the only time where Jesus doesn't explain something. He does this multiple times throughout the Gospels. He does this to weed out those who are not strong enough in their faith. John 10 is an example of this. Jesus says he is the door, and the good shepherd, and the Pharisees think he is crazy, and Jesus lets him leave. Because Jesus didn't explain himself to them, does this mean that Jesus is literally a shepherd, and literally a door? No, Jesus expects people to have common sense.New Arguments/ More of the Same Early Church Father QuotesHippolytus calls the Communion a memorial, this is symbolic language.Origen is comparing Old Testament baptism and manna with New testamen baptism and manna (communion). In order to compare them, they must both be symbolic. Origen is only saying that we understand these two concepts better.