Christians our illogical

Since my opponent did not break down his argument into contentions for easy debating, I'll go line-by-line. "first off I said that the Christian churches our illogical not that the people of the Christian churches" - "Christians our illogical" - topic of the debate - "Christians our illogical because most of there beliefs have nothing to back it up" - Round 1 - "Christians our illogical because most of there beliefs have nothing to back it up" - Round 2 - " Christians use the bible and it states" - Round 2 Those are all the quotes including Christians so far, the only time you mentioned Christian churches at all was when you were referring to the physical buildings that African Americans were not allowed into, not the organization of The Church. So no, not only did the resolution refer to Christians quite clearly, they are all you referred to in the round. "But it would affect your scientific abblility for example if you were studying the theory of evolution." Why? Do you actually have a reason for this? Albert Einstein hypothesized that nothing could go faster than the speed of light, but CERN broke that theory when they shot a particle that broke the speed of light. [1] Because Einstein believed in a flawed rule, did that make him any less able to use his logical processes even though he continued to benefit the world of science? No, just because you hold a false belief it doesn't mean it impacts your rational ability, and so according to the accepted definition of illogical, it does not make them illogical. "My argument is that there is no way to prove that there is a god or most of Christian doctrine. But atheism can be proved because it goes with facts and real proven things." And you have refused to list any of them. The reason there is still such a divide betwen theists and athiests is because neither side can be definately proven one way or the other, and so when you don't actually say why what you believe in is right there is no way that statement can be considered true. "now my opponent has a weak point because he has not decided if he is pro or con." You know a good way to tell what I've decided is? There's a little box in the corner of the screen which says I'm arguing the con ^-^ "He will not get to the facts of why he doesn't like my argument. " -"I negate the resolution because of the following contentions" - Round 2 I say why your argument is wrong several times, you just don't negate it :) "However I am not stating that I do not like Christians just the fact that they our illogical." I don't believe that I called you biased in any way, I simply said that this resolution is an insult to christians everywhere. "And my second point illogical means non fact" Three things: 1.) You didn't number your points at all, so I have no clue if this is your second point in your constructive, the second point your making now, etc. etc. However, considering you have one sentence in your constructive and this isn't the second point you've made, I don't think there's any way for me to figure out. 2.) We've already agreed to an accepted definition for the round. "not fact" is not the accepted definition, nor would I agree to it if it were proposed as that's not what illogical means at all. 3.) ... I don't even know what that's supposed to mean though. It isn't a proper definition. Is my thinking Micheal Jackson made good music illogical because it's opinion rather than fact? "and Christians however do not have facts to build on therefore making them illogical." Fact - Something believed to be true or real [2] They do actually. they base their logic on the Bible, which to them was written by those inspired by God. these are facts that they base their beliefs on. "my sites were webster diconary online and google" Two things: 1.) Which went to what information. 2.) One of those is a dictionary, and another of those is a search engine, which don't list information about the Bible on the web page. And neither of those tell me where specifically you find the bible quotes I disputed, so as far as I'm concerned those quotes are still disputed. I have negated everything my opponent said word for word, however he did not do the same. Here is a list of the items he dropped, and so according to the rules of every form of debate I've run across, are now considered true as you didn't rebut them: - My SpB, which stated there were famous Christians in teh past, proving the resolution wrong. - My entire second contention, which states that the resolution cannot be true because it isn't even a valid sentence. - The fact taht a discrepency in the Bible doesn't prove every Christian illogical (which I used against his segregation argument). MAIN VOTERS IN THE ROUND: - The fact that the Pro dropped my contention proves the entire resolution false. - My opponent dropped the entire SpB of my contention, which proposes that my opponent must prove all Christians in the past, present, and future to be illogical. Because he did not rebut or meet this burden of proof, the resolution fails. - His main point against my argument was that I didn't know whether to argue the pro or con... which is completely false. - At no point in his argument could my opponent successfully prove that All christians are illogical as defined by our Round 1 Terms. Because he didn't meet this burden of proof, the resolution fails. Because of the many reasons why the resolution has failed, I have successfully negated the resolution, and so I respectfully urge a negative ballot. Works Cited: 1.) http://www.washingtonpost.com... 2.) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...