Christianity has no valid basis to exist.

My opponent has accused me of committing a Straw Man fallacy. I will gladly show the audience why my opponent is mistaken. The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. [1]Example of a Straw Man fallacy: After Will said that we should put more money into health and education, Warren responded by saying that he was surprised that Will hates our country so much that he wants to leave it defenseless by cutting military spending. [2]My opponent says that I am not using 'his words' in this debate. What words are that? That Christianity has no valid basis to exist because the stories it shares in the Bible are not true and just myths? That's what your argument is! This entire debate, I have been responding accordingly by showing the audience the weaknesses of your arguments and the terrible standards you present for judging whether something should exist or not. I have shown how whether a story is true or not holds no ground for determining the existence of the story itself.[1] http://www.nizkor.org...[2] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... RebuttalsI. "OK - Jesus's sacrifice is a myth..."My opponent is saying that because the sacrifice is a myth, and that it is presented as a truth, that Christianity shouldn't exist. Assuming the story is a truth or is a myth is foolish because we honestly have no way of ever knowing if the story is true or not since we didn't witness the actions within the story ourselves. Christianity requires faith. Christians believe these stories to be true and present them as truth because they have faith that these stories are true. I was aware of the logical fallacy of making unprovable assumptions from the very start of this debate. That is why I transcended beyond such elementary arguments and began presenting arguments that show how Christianity has a valid basis to exist based on the fact that: Humans exist -> Humans carry on the tradition of Christianity via oral and written language -> therefore Christianity has a valid basis to exist because humans exist and practice Christianity in their daily lives. **Humans, in this example, are acting as the valid basis for Christianity's existence. Furthermore, just because I am not currently Christian doesn't mean that I never was or don't know what I'm talking about. Once again, my opponent is basing his arguments off of nothing but incorrect assumptions. II. "If Jesus did not resurrect..."I am defending my position that Christianity has a valid basis to exist with arguments that do not require me to have a "version" of Christianity. I am defending Christianity as a whole with the Bible as it's holy book. It seems my opponent is focusing solely on whether the stories in Christianity are myth or true once again. I have already shown several times that regardless of the subjective value we place on these stories, Christianity still has a valid basis to exist. III. "Yes, it can exist but certainly not as a religion, which is what Christianity is..."Ladies and Gentlemen, my opponent agrees with me that my position is correct by saying, "Yes, it can exist"My opponent goes on to counter-argue after agreeing with me on the validity of my position by saying "but certainly not as a religion..."The Resolution of the debate IS: Christianity has no valid basis to exist.The Resolution of the debate IS NOT: Christianity has no valid basis to exist as a religion. My opponent tries to alter the resolution to include the words 'as a religion' which I've made clear just above. This inclusion and manipulation of additional words is NOT part of the original resolution and has no place in this debate. There is no burden on me to prove that Christianity has a valid basis to exist as a religion. The only burden I have is to prove that Christianity has a valid basis to exist. MAJOR DIFFERENCE. Hopefully my opponent can see that difference and refrain from using such methods in the future as they hold no grounds nor place in debates. **The additional questions in that response are answered by rebuttal #II. IV. "I addressed in my previous post, and rebutted your point throughout this one, but let's repeat..."First, I've addressed the myth/truth issue above and will not expand on it again here. Second, My opponent makes another unprovable assumption that there would be no reason for people to kill or die for what they take to be a myth. This is invalid because there is no way of knowing if someone will never kill or die for something like a myth. There have also been recorded killings and deaths over myths in the past. Even if the biblical stories are considered myths, they would still conflict with other stories and cause fighting between those who believe in one myth over another which can easily lead to killing or death. This point is defeated based on the fact that it is an invalid claim on your part. Lastly, my opponent claims I am not focusing enough on the religious aspect of Christianity. I've already explained above about the role faith and belief plays in the religion of Christianity. I am 'parsing' out exist because that is the term used in the Resolution, the term was and is 'exist' not 'religion'. I have made this point clear as well in rebuttal #3. V. "Err, no! Discussing something doesn't mean it still exists in the real world..." Another baseless accusation of me committing a straw man fallacy. Please refer to the beginning of this round to see the error of your ways in making such an accusation against me, as it is just as applicable in this case as well. Please refer to the definition of the term 'exist' that I presented in Round 1. It exists in our reality as a spiritual concept and as material information that has meaning attached to it. The reason it exists as a spiritual concept is because we place that value on it. By discussing Christianity with one another, by encoding that information in oral and written language and by continuing to practice is as such to this day most certainly validates its existence. For something to not exist, it would have to void of a valid basis according to the resolution. Humans are that valid basis, we are the agents which keep that spiritual concept alive and ever-present in our own existence, thus it can exist. Most importantly, my opponent ends by saying, "which of course only exists metaphysically." This is still 'existing', thus once again, my opponent is agreeing with my position on this resolution at hand. VI. "Strawman... (3rd accusation) & Misunderstanding"Another accusation, third time, again with no justification. I never expected anything from or about Christians. This entire point is illogical and is based on nothing but more assumptions on my position which are incorrect. I also understand that Christians believe the NT miracles to be true. VII. "You are confusing common sense laws..."My opponent is incorrect. The 10 commandments are an incredibly strong basis of Christianity and they most certainly still hold as much value in the modern world as evidenced by modern laws of the exact same nature such as murder or stealing being illegal. Christianity encompasses both old and new testament as evidenced by the inclusion of both testaments in the holy book known as the Bible. ConclusionMy opponent has dropped several points I've made throughout my rebuttals in previous rounds, so I wish to extend all dropped points. I've also shown how I have committed no straw man fallacies. I have not invented my own version of religion and believe my opponent to be incapable of comprehending most, if not all, of my arguments. I ask the audience to please consider the fact that just because my opponent fails to comprehend my points, does not mean that I am failing at responding to them accordingly nor does it mean I am committing any fallacies. Thank you.