Transubstantiation

First off, I'll present my argument for transubstantiation in this round. Afterwards, I'll rebut my opponent's arguments in Round 3. 1) The Bible clearly states that Transubstantiation is true.- Paul's Eucharistic teachings in 1 Corithians clearly state the peramiters of transubstantiation. "For this is what I received from the Lord and in turn passed on to you: That on the same night as he was betrayed, the Lord Jesus took some bread, and thanked God for it, and broke it, and he said, 'This is my body which is for you; do this as a memorial of me.' In the same way he took the cup after supper and said, 'This cup is a new covenant in my blood. Whenever you drink it, do this as a memorial of me.' Until the Lord comes, therefore, every time you eat this bread and drink this cup, you are proclaiming his death. And so anyone who eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be behaving unworthily toward the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone is to recollect himself before eating this bread and drinking this cup, because a person who eats and drinks without recognizing the body is eating and drinking his own condemnation" (1 Cor. 11:23-29). This leaves us without doubt that the substance of the bread and wine has changed, seen when Paul states that a person who "eats and drinks without recongnizing the body is eating and drinking his own condemnation." In the previous chapter of Corithians, Paul also tells us of what the bread and wine become."The blessing-cup that we bless is a communion with the blood of Christ, and the bread that we break is communion with the body of Christ" (1 Cor. 11:16).The only possible meaning is that the bread and wine at the consecration become Christ's actual body and blood. In fact Christ was not merely saying that the bread was his body; he was decreeing that it should be so and that it is so. - Jesus himself tells us in the Gospels of communion in the Last Supper. "And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many" (Mark 14:22-24)."And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (Matt. 26:26-28).Jesus is very clear when he states that the bread is his body, and the wine is his blood. This is not a figure of speech, analogy, etc., instead, it is instruction to his disiples. 2) Transubstanisation makes logical sense.My opponent has not told me whether or not he accepts the Bible, in its entirety, to be true. However, I assume he stipulates to this, as he has used Bible verses in an attempt to prove his contentions, showing that he is willing to use it as a source. With this in mind, I'll present a logical argument for the doctrine of transubstanisation.a) The Bible is true (stipulated by Con).b) The doctrine of transubstanisation is included in the Bible (Argument 1).c) Therefore, the doctrine of transubstanisation is true. This is an AAA-1 logical sylogysm. Provided I am able to prove my two premises (a and b), the conclusion must be accepted as true, and you must vote Pro.Sorry if my argument is shorter than normal, I have been told by Con to keep it short "as to not bore the readers," so I will conclude here. Rebutals to Con's R2 arguments will be made next round.