Jesus did not rise bodily from the dead

I'm sorry that he decided to resort to character attacks by expressing his disappointment in me. I don't think condescension is necessary to sway voting opinion. The debate was about the resolution, not my ability,my form or Pro's fragile sensibilities. Otherwise, I was quite happy with the results of the debate. 1. >My opponent attacks my debate style, by complaining that I issued new arguments every round. The rules only prohibit new arguments during the final round because these arguments cannot be addressed. There is no demerit in posting new arguments in every other round. I find no resource on debate. org or in the resolution that prohibit me from attacking my opponent with arguments. I simply debate with an offensive posture. Chess players do the same. If my opponent felt he was overwhelmed by my arguments, he could have taken more time to respond. His average respond time was less than an hour. I committed no conduct violations, as per any standing rule. Nor would I beg the judges for free points, which my opponent has clearly done in his character attacks (if seen through the right eyes could actually border on ad hominem ). I would ask my opponent to resort to his debating ability to win a round. 2. >My arguments against my opponent stands. He keeps protesting that the resolution is not based upon the Bible. Immediately after, he concedes that the Bible is the source of the resurrection. He is trying to separate the source from the argument. That is no more possible than separating law from lawyer. The central source of the resurrection claim is the Bible, if we are to discredit the resurrection, we must discredit the source. It would be similar to discredit the intent of the founding fathers, but now allowing the signed declaration of independence to be reviewed for scrutiny. What my opponent has done is called a straw-man argument. He engineered an argument to exclude the only viable evidence. It would be similar to proclaim:"Explain the origin of the computer, but you can't use human intelligence as the source. " It's a silly tactic and I made it a clear point to circumvent his attempts to control the debate with legalism. His only response has been protests like:"This proves nothing. " 3. > My opponent admitted defeat. Quoting ". .. .thus casting doubt on the resurrection. "Bearing the burden of proof, we require more than doubt. Pro claimed the Bible was wrong and that Jesus did not rise from death. Pro must show proof, not doubt. A case is made by absolute facts.4. > My sources show that the Bible has significant historical value. The amount of data that has been verified as true makes it more credible than incredible. The only response my opponent offered to my list of verified Biblical characters was:"This proves nothing. "Actually, it proves quite a bit. It proves the Bible is a document of historical significance. It also means that Pro has failed to discredit the 101 sources that followed. Conclusion: I would agree that neither of us proved anything conclusively. That, however, is not my problem to deal with. The burden of proof lies with the man who claims to be able to discredit the Bible and the resurrection. Thank you to my opponent and the voting public. I learned a lot.