To Be Decided During The Debate

**Quick reminder to my opponent. As you were PRO in this debate, your final round is to be forfeited** I am very disappointed. My opponent's counterargument to all of the flaws I have found in his fact-finding was simply to redirect me to the article on Civil Wars fought by Constantine, and to reiterate without any sort of citation that Constantine's support of Christianity was used to gain power. My opponent has not only failed to defend himself against those corrections, but is deliberately attempting to mislead the audience in the hopes that they will not read the article. The article on Civil Wars says nothing to support my opponent's claim that his support of Christianity was used to gain power. In his first response to the lsit of things I said, he says "He did all of this to gain power. At that point, Rome was in a Civil War . http://en.wikipedia.org...... and Constantine's support of Christianity was his key to victory". I was referring to the Edict of Milan, which occured BEFORE the first Civil war in the article and was the REASON why he went to war the second time. In order to defend the Edict of Milan, he went to war with Licinius. Thus, his support of the Christian faith was a liability to his power, not an asset, and my opponent has failed to state his case. In his second response defending against my counterpoint, my opponent says again: "Although the Council of Nicea occurred later, his actions to support Christianity were used to gain power. . http://en.wikipedia.org...; Again, he is attempting to insult the intelligence of the audience. This link goes to the "early Rule" section of Constantine's Bio and does not even CONTAIN the word "Christianity". Moreover, it states that his power came from his military strategies and building projects. "Constantine's military skill and building projects soon gave the panegyrist the opportunity to comment favorably on the similarities between father and son, and Eusebius remarked that Constantine was a "renewal, as it were, in his own person, of his father's life and reign" I also criticized my opponent for giving faulty information as to what the council of Nicea was about. "My opponent also declares that the Bible was put together during the Council of Nicea. This is also a complete untruth. The Council of Nicea was called to come to terms with several issues, including the relationship between God and Jesus, the date of celebration for Easter, and the legitimacy of baptism by heretics. ' He merely responds: "All of which are reflected in the canonical bible. " Not only is this an irrelevant response, but he also glosses over the fact that he made up faulty information and refuses to acknowledge it. Furthermore, I also criticized his notion that the Council of Nicea set forth to develop the canon Bible when historical truth dictates this did not occur until over 1000 years after my opponent stated. "The canon "bible" was not developed until over a millennium later in 1545 during the Council of Trent. " He merely responds "Based on the determination of the Council of Nicea. Which was influenced by clouded interests. Furthermore, it was still written by men with conflicting interests and opinions. It cannot be considered holy. " Which is incorrect. There was no determination of the Council of Nicea to hold another council. This decisionw as made by the Catholic Church over 1000 years later. My opponent then tries to redirect the argument knowing he made another factual error. "Even if some of my facts were false, my point is not moot. " Not some, most/nearly all. Audience, my opponent offered a good argument in the beginning, but supplied a very hefty load of flawed information that he never ended up supporting. He even tried to support those illegitimate claims with trickery. All his evidence for the notion that the Bible was a tool for power have been disproven. I now make my response to my opponent's only remaining argument: "As you said, the Bible was put together by the Council of Trent. They were still men. They do not make it holy. .. As I said, men do not have purely holy interests. Even if they are filled with the Holy Spirit and inspired to write it, the canonization and the wording reflects their interests. For example, even though slavery is seemingly contradictory to Christian beliefs, parts of the Bible support it. " The bible need not be put together by God himself in order for it to be Holy. I argue that the Bible can be considered Holy even if that is the case. The Bible is not a word for word document. Similarly, the American Flag is not simply white cloth painted red and blue. The inherent meaning of the Bible, which is the true meaning of the Bible, is a Holy message. There are plenty of Contradictions my opponent can point to, as with slavery. Times have changed because men have changed, and yes, men have penned the Bible. However, the pure message of God is in the Bible as well. Each and every chapter of the bible, though possibly tinted with human interests, was penned out of faith and for the faith. This is why a millenia old piece of literary work is relevant to billions of people today. Because no matter what the time period, the message of God, stored within the Bible, is ETERNAL, and thus, HOLY. Thus, I have made my case for the Holiness of the Bible while also offering more than enough counterexamples for my opponent's erroneous points.