Christianity has no valid basis to exist.

RebuttalsI. "Again my opponent sees the need to tell Christians what they believe through faith and what they actually believe to be factually true. There is little to add here other than he continues to be wrong."I haven't TOLD Christians anything. I explained how it is impossible to determine if the miracles and occurrences that take place in the stories of the Bible are true or not because we were not there to observe them happening. The reason Christians believe these stories to be true without themselves having been there is because they have faith that such stories are true and accurate.My opponent has based his entire argument off of his belief that such stories are not true, and that therefore Christianity has no valid basis to exist. I have shown several times how this is both an impossible and poor standard because:1) There is no way to validate whether those stories are true or not.2) This would then mean no religion has a valid basis to exist. 3) This would mean that any and every - myth, story, tale, legend, belief, and ideology that isn't completely true in all its elements would then have no valid basis to exist. This would includes tales like the Epic of Gilgamesh, Romeo and Juliet, the roman/Greek/Egyptian mythologies etc., all of this would have no valid basis to exist according to my opponent. 4) Because of 2 & 3, we would stand to lose vast amounts of extremely rich history, cultural traditions, and knowledge that can be gained and applied in our own lives from studying such things. II. "It is very possible to prove that they are not true, as stated in my OP. If my opponent refuses to read the OP and create not only his own Christianity but also his own version of the OP to argue against, there is little I can do at this point."To be clear, I have read the OP several times. I have shown in my Round 1 response how your first point is invalid from the start based off of a false premise leading to an incorrect conclusion. I have shown how the assumption that serves as the foundation for your second point is also invalid since it is impossible for you to ever know what actually happened the night of Jesus' conception aside from having faith in the way the story is presented. I have shown Biblical verses to answer the question posed in the third point you raised. I also applied my reasoning for the second point to this third point in the sense that there is no way to ever know what actually happened during that span of time. To say I refused to read the OP is another incorrect assumption based on the fact that I responded to the OP. I couldn't have known what I was responding too unless I read it first. I have created no "version" of Christianity nor have I created my own "version" of the OP. Literally every point you raised I responded too accordingly as evidenced in the previous rounds and right above. III. "I will not address any further points because my opponent is just repeating arguments based on his double straw man argument. As I pointed out earlier, he stated: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. And again, I point out that if my opponent sees that Christianity is not a religion, then he has to state what Christianity is in order to properly continue."My opponent has continuously accused me of committing fallacies throughout this debate. Every time he has done so I have presented my case and still remain standing unchallenged due to a lack of any evidence from my opponent. He accuses me, yet fails to provide evidence. I have shown the audience, every time, that I have committed no such things. The reason I brought up what the resolution was and was not, was because my opponent claimed that if the miracles and stories aren't true, that everything the religion is based on is a lie and therefore has no valid basis to exist. I have shown that the religion is based on faith and has a valid basis to exist because humans act as the agency which gives meaning to the teachings found within the stories of the Bible. I have also shown how Christianity has a valid basis to exist because it is meaningful information that is encoded by language in either oral or written traditions and kept in those forms by creatures (humans) who themselves exist. Christianity is a part of the very existence we have found ourselves in, and therefore, exists itself. I have also shown how it has a valid basis to exist due to its role in shaping our modern laws. This point was never counter-argued by my opponent after I rebutted his initial criticism, and still stands. Of course Christianity is a religion, and therefore I can understand why my opponent would get so tied up in this particular point. But we were not debating whether Christianity should exist as a religion, just simply if Christianity should exist at all - no matter what title we wish to ascribe it be it religion, cult, ideology, etc... That was the biggest mistake my opponent committed and what he got stuck on for the majority of the debate. IV. Bizarrely, in the bolded quote above he claims that the debate is not about Christianity being a religion and at the beginning of the last round he admits that "Christians believe through faith that the miracles ..." which is pretty much what a religion is; and now claims never to have said otherwise. So at this point, my opponent seems to be arguing as much with himself as me (or rather a strawman version of me).I clarified in round 4 how I acknowledged that Christianity was a religion, and that regardless of it's standing or title it still has a valid basis to exist. So somehow, through this, my opponent gathered that I was saying that "Christianity is not a religion" but that is something I NEVER said in this debate. I said the resolution wasn't about it being a religion or not. My opponent can view it in any manner he pleases, but the fact remains that I never committed a straw man fallacy and have proven myself every time I've had an accusation raised against me. The only thing I am arguing against is someone incapable of understanding my position due to getting caught up on one particular aspect about this debate while remaining incapable of seeing the true nature of his own resolution. V. I think we have been talking at cross purposes, the same cross-purposes as I stated in the first round. We have spent the debate disagreeing what the debate is even about, nevermind the topic itself. And we have run out of time, so any voting on the matter isn't even about the debate but about the topic of the debate!I have been debating this topic the entire time. The fact that my opponent failed to understand his own resolution is of no concern of mine. I believe I was clear enough for the audience to understand my position and feel that I have upheld my BOP to the fullest throughout this debate. Also, the voting is most certainly about the debate. Please vote according to the information presented in the debate.ConclusionI defeated all of my opponents contentions, and have presented rebuttals to every point my opponent raised. I have extended several arguments which remained unchallenged throughout the last two rounds and they remain standing. I have presented rebuttals which proved the inaccurate assumptions made by my opponent and have also shown that my opponent bases claims off of lies about things I have never said. I have also used sources throughout this debate to provide strong evidence for any claims that needed it.Most importantly, as Pro, my opponent failed to uphold his BOP. Whereas I have presented why Christianity has a valid basis to exist, as well as the potential harm of letting my opponents' standards be recognized or allowed for practice. I want to thank my opponent for starting this topic and look forward to any and all challenges in the future. Thank you.