Resolved: Buddhism is more valid than Christianity

My opponents first claim about catholic school is irrelevent and has shown to be false through a few ignorant claims already made. His claim about Atenism being monotheistic not henothestic is not backed up by evidence even though his sources is valid it says nothing about the ideas of Atenism so my objection to it stands. For the record in my argument Jesus was established to exist, because if my argument stands for that then a conjuration of the relationship between Christianity and Atenism is false. He also address my claim about no divine mediatior but is in Ancient Egypt the pharoahs were claimed to be divine. The Pope has never once declared his divinity, he is not exactly a meditor either he takes the role of the Apostle Peter as the head of the Church, if you are refering to ex catholico than that is another subject but it still doesn't put mediation between God and Man. His third claim is sort of funny because the Book of the Dead(also the God refers to Horus/the Phararoh rather than Atenism) was a established lone before Atenism began to exist at all. Furthermore, to establish a connection between the two you must negate the fact that Atenism doesn't regard the Book of the Dead with meaning because according to your own summary noless Atenism believes in monotheism. you must either admit henotheism or deny the Book of the Dead evidence. His forth claim is addressed first but his fifth objection to my objection is simply a complete either defiencicy in reading skills or a refutation of a claim I never made. I only claimed that they were not evangelical and it was exclusive. It never was a slave religion as Christianity was. It was not spread far and wide to very many people so it would be rare a hebrew slave heard anything about it. The Talmud was evidence for existance rather than for activities. You misunderstand the purpose. Also the 4 sources cites Flavius is work it shows nothing about any kind of reworded. You have no basis for the claim that it is widely regarded by historians as being rewritten either. My opponent doesn't address the sources in my contructive so I guess I must be completely right about those. My opponent doesn't address the reincarnation, so I guess reincarnation is false as well, even though he address the animals(for the record he says nothing about plants or the great atrocity of reproduction according to the Buddhist religion[see first rebuttal]) regardless of the amygala which MAY be linked with fear they cannot comprehend pain/sufffering due to lack of a neocortex. It can easily be claimed that the amygdala is really an intinct part of the brain considering it's function is concluded to be in the areas of fear reactivity, feeding, and sexual behavior. This clearly shows that it has no relationship to emotion at all. It was never claimed that animals don't have more instinct only emotion. My opponent claims that how do I know that my code of conduct is right and that no morality is dependant on God. But remember he addressing a claim not made. I said the that objective morality proved God existance(which has not been refuted at all) not my objective morality just objective morality. I have addressed his claims about the connection(or lack thereof) between Atenism and Christianity rather well I think and plus this is the first we hear of any contentions attacking Christianity instead of just defending Buddhism(poorly). His 4 noble truths are not established. At least the last three are far from being certain. While I may agree with two of the contention I argue that only the first noble truth is established and unescapeable. But how can you derive to the conclusion. I need only prove that the 4 noble truths which Buddhism is established on are not really based in truth and I win this debate. Since this is the last round my opponent is not allowed to bring new evidence into the case, all I will do is deny the 2nd noble truth. Possasitions are not the source of suffering rather the lack of God is. I would like to point out that without scripture there would be no means of attaining enlightenment because according to Buddhism the only way to enlightenment but Buddhism was founded by The Buddha. Without the scriptures it is invalid. Also it should be mentioned my opponent never clarifed that he was arguing for Zen Buddhism in the early rounds while I idenfified very early. My opponent doesn't hold his own BoP very high because he claims I have to prove something while he doesn't. Which even if I a hadn't proven anything(which I have) he still has his own BoP to hold up(which he hasn't). Voters: As of now I should win this debate purely on principle. I have defended and established the validity of all of them while my opponent drops my first point and has really only argued for that Buddhism exists and has philosophy behind it but doesn't really argue a certain validity beyond the intial value.