I(Mikal) am a Christian

Before I begin, I would like to note the following arguments which my opponent has not responded to. *That, under my opponent's first definition of 'Christian', many famous nontheists would be considered to be 'Christian' when they clearly are not.*That faith without good deeds is dead.*That my opponent has mostly argued against Christianity, with the occasional devil's advocate in favor of it.*That, since finishing the CCM debate, where he claimed to be Christian, my opponent has participated in two debates on the subject of Christianity: one in which he argues against the existence of God and the accuracy of the Bible, and one in which he argues against the reliability of the Bible and the existence of Jesus.*That my opponent's touted argument supporting the crucifixion of Jesus was within two weeks of debates denying the existence of God.*That he 'converted' just in time to accept the CCM debate, but didn't edit his profile to match until a few days later.Because this is the final round of the debate, my opponent has effectively ceded these arguments.Definition of ChristianMy opponent, evidently noting the absurdity of his first definition, has given a second one from The Free Dictionary. So even though he accuses me of playing semantics with a definition, he is in fact doing what he accuses me of. In fact, he is arguably the one playing God here - my opponent cherry-picked his definition one of four definitions from the Collins English Dictionary and from eleven definitions on the page in total.[1] The one he chose is in fact an adjective,[1] which is not suitable but would not be suitable to meet the debate resolution (that my opponent, I will add, created), where the word 'Christian' is used as a noun. Because my opponent's definition is not a noun, it is unsuitable for this debate - thus, the definition must default to the one I offered.Additionally, I would like to note the Bible never actually defines the word 'Christian', aside from noting the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch.[2] The moment you accept Christ you are following himApparently not having read my previous round, my opponent continues to insist that if you are saved, you are Christian forever. This clearly clashes with the only acceptable definition that has been provided in this debate,[3] as well as the Bible itself where it requires faith be followed up by action.[4] Oddly enough, after criticizing me for defining 'Christian' as 'follower of Christ', my opponent quotes from Matthew 16:24-25, where it says "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow me".[5] In other words, my opponent directly supported my definition with a Biblical quote that says if you want to be Christian, you need to follow Christ.Further, my opponent looks directly into the meaning of 'deny yourself', which my opponent asserts means to offer your soul to Christ. I agree with this, and I appreciate my opponent proving my point: if you wish to become a Christian, you must first offer your soul to Christ and secondly follow him. This directly debunks my opponent's claim that salvation equals being a Christian, and directly supports my arguments and definition.After this, my opponent equates Fruits of the Holy Spirit (love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control) with the good deeds needed for faith to not be considered dead. While I do indeed agree that these fruits do not appear immediately, they are no excuse for bad deeds. Simply put, as soon as you accept Christ, God sends you the Holy Spirit,[6] which essentially functions as a helper in times of weakness.[7]Next my opponent claims I said that Christians cannot play devil's advocate. This is a lie. Never once in my debate do I say that you cannot play devil's advocate if you are Christian - go back and check it yourself! Instead, I simply noted that when my opponent has played devil's advocate, it has always been from the perspective of an atheist. Whereas my opponent often specifically notes this in debates he's played devil's advocate as an atheist on,[8][9] he never once mentions this in the two debates he claims to have taken devil's advocate on since his supposed conversion.[10][11] In fact, in one of these he repeatedly refers to 'Christians' in the third person.[10]After this, my opponent returns to reinforcing his definition of Christianity. Because I have already debunked it, I'm not going to respond further - it would just be repeating myself.Salvation can happen anytimeFirst off, my opponent denies his profile labeled himself as an atheist. I do not understand why he won't fess up when insurmountable evidence has been provided he did[12] and circumstantial evidence offers that he did so as recently as yesterday (at the time of writing this).[13] My opponent against makes his bizarre argument that 'follower of Christ' is not a legitimate definition, despite proving this argument himself. He argues that I have to acknowledge several things: that he can convert at any time, that his profile isn't a reflection of who he is, and that if you are recently saved you aren't Christian. I don't acknowledge these and instead raise the following:*You can indeed convert at any time, but if you did you have to have noticed your profile says otherwise. It's one thing to leave it up for, say, and hour - it's another to not even edit it for a couple days after a professed 'conversion'! If I was an atheist converting to Christianity, I would change my profile - especially to avoid a spat with another user on whether or not I am Christian.*If you profile is not adequate evidence to reflect who you are, why did you admit your profile as evidence of who you are in round 2?*If you are saved, you are a Christian until you stop following Christ. There is no evidence you've actually followed Christ in the first place aside from your word - which you actually argued against the accuracy of!I am not saying you cannot be saved - instead, I am saying that the evidence does not corroborate a claim of being saved.Conclusionon/ending pointOnce again, my opponent returns to the same recycled points I have disproved repeatedly. This includes attacking my 'follower of Christ' definition (despite the fact my opponent himself has proven it) and accusing me of judging salvation (using his disproven claim salvation and Christianity are the same thing). The fact he must resort to ad homenim attacks shows how weak his arguments are.Now, in conclusion, I have established my opponent does not meet the definition of 'Christian'. His actions in the wake of his 'conversion' simply do not add up to his claim - he has not changed the ways he had when he claimed to be an atheist. Actions are required to complete faith, and thus my opponent has not demonstrated through his life and actions he is indeed Christian. In fact, there is reason to believe my opponent has simply claimed this to get an easy win in the CCM debate to bolster his win total. Because my opponent has failed to prove the debate resolution, and I have disproven it, a vote for Con is warranted.I would like to thank my opponent for an interesting, thought-provoking debate.References:1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...2. http://www.biblegateway.com...3. https://en.wikipedia.org...4. James 2:14-265. Matthew 16:24-256. John 14:267. Romans 8:268. http://www.debate.org...9. http://www.debate.org...10. http://www.debate.org...11. http://www.debate.org...12. http://web.archive.org...13. http://www.debate.org...