Christians are illogical

Before I begin my rebuttal I will provide sources since my opponent asked me to [1] [2] The above source merely gives statistics about non denominational churches. If one looks upon the "Preaching" section they will find that only a minority of these churches mention "revelations" or "the end time" and most nondenominational churches leave that portion out. [2] Which means it is possible to leave religious text out and still be considered a church. I will prove how they are a church with the next source. "There are many independent, non-aligned or non-denominational Trinitarian congregations that may take any one of these or no particular position on baptism." [3] Under the protestant page the Protestants accept these churches under their sect, thus proving they are legitimate followers of Christ. Now on to my rebuttal Brief road map 1rst I will solve this definition debate (yay… semantics) 2nd Explain the conditions of my opponent's "voters" 3rdThe con case 4th the pro case 5th voters 2. Christian-One who follows the teachings of a Christian Sect, as defined by their holy text This is a compound sentence Phrase1 One follows whose teachings? A Christian sect's teachings Phrase 2 As defined by whose holy text? Theirs Theirs - a form of the possessive case of they used as a predicate adjective, after a noun or without a noun: Are you a friend of theirs? It is theirs. Dictionary .com There are 3 nouns in the definition of Christian Text – "their" is describing who this is defined by One- "their" cannot be describing this because then it would not fall under a Christian sect Sect- this is the only thing the "text" can define. thus the text is defined by the Christian sect. Not by the literal bible but by the selected text of the sect. [4] Since the sect chooses which text to follow and the Protestants do not have a uniform text throughout all the denominations under it [3] then protestant non denomination al churches may pick any text they want and still be considered a legitimate church 2nd definition Illogical-not observing the principles of logic; not following logical processes We both concur on this definition However my opponent constantly states that having 1 illogical thought process makes a person completely illogical. An illogical person according to the definition does not use logic. It does not give a restraint so it is presumed that an illogical person does not use logic at all 2nd my Opponents voters 1.) I haven't proven the bible logical. That is not my job, I am to prove that Christians are logical, not the bible 2.) Because Christians are using a single illogical process they are illogical as a whole. I have constantly disproven this. Which he dropped 3.) This entire debate he's been trying to win off definitions alone and I have proven him wrong every single time. 4.) He states I have only stated 1 thing: that Christians have reason although I have proven that with the faculty of reason they have used logic in the past and are now using logic 5.) He really hasn't taken it down line by line we don't have enough characters for that. He's saying that to sound smarter 6.) My case still stands because all of his attacks were related to the definitions which I have beaten him on If you were to vote pro it would be terrible since he has not fully countered anything nor really argued anything beyond definitions 4. THE CON CASE Contention 1. My opponent's arguments against A.I never said Christians are devoid of logic B.Christians are illogical because of their belief in the bible C.They believe in one illogical process so they are illogical as a whole. D.This contention has nothing to with my case so it has nothing to do with the round. MY DEFENSE A.Yes my opponent never said Christians cannot use logic. I concur this was never stated. But what was stated was that they do not follow logical processes. So I presume that because they don't follow one logical process according to the definition and my opponent essentially is saying they do not us logical processes at a level that it corrupts them enough to use no logic at all. That they never use a logical process because they are illogical. My opponent states they can use logic, they just never do. This is proven wrong in C2. B.And C. These two attacks are simply the same. "-then all Christians constantly believe in at least one illogical thing at any one time. Because they did not follow logical processes to prove the Bible wrong, according to the definition they are illogical." However having one illogical thought process does not make someone illogical as a whole. Human use thought processes to stay alive. Christians use many more than thought processes to live than those that involve their belief in god. Secondly According to Pro having one thought process makes you illogical. So that means everybody before Gregor Mendel (the man who proved genes exist and how they work) was illogical. Or every scientist and human being that believed Pluto was a planet was also illogical. That is impossible. d.My 1rst contention proves two things. That Christians have the capacity for logic (the pro is in concurrence) and that we use logic to survive and since Christians are living they are using basic logical processes so they are logical. This was not against Pro's case it was against the resolution specifically. Since this idea (and if you look at pro's case it is not) is never countered it is true. C2 Pro's attacks A.Even though Christians have used logic in the past they are still illogical. B.The definition of illogical still proves there illogical regardless C.All my attacks against con in C1 are added here too. My defense A.Illogical doesn't mean that having one thought incorrectly means you do not use logic. My opponent has failed to properly understand the definition he put forth. An illogical person does not use logic. Christians use logic I've provided many people that have used logic. B.This seriously is one of his only attacks against everything. I have covered this C.Since I defeated his repetitive attack against C1 this attack does nothing My opponent says Christians have used logic there just illogical. That is his only attack. One thought does not make you illogical. He never attacks the fact I provided Francis Bacon who created the logical process every scientist still uses to this day. That extends. C3 Pro's attacks A.Christians use the bible B.Definitions A.As stated above sects chose which parts of the bible to use and are still Christian according to the definition that apparently is hard to understand. And some as shown above emphasize morality and practical needs. Their minds are not as illogical as Pro would presume. B.Non denominational churches are not churches according to the definition. I have provided sources at the very top of this rebuttal to disprove that. They are churches The pro's case It's only his attacks and that's it if I refute his attacks then I refute his case by extension. Which has been done. Voters 1.)One illogical thought does not make you illogical 2.)All of the Pro's attacks are about definitions (refuted) and how Christians are constantly illogical (Refuted) 3.)Christians use logic to survive thus they use logical thought processes, so they are logical. (It is never refuted by opponent) 4.) Pro never negates how Francis Bacon invents a logical method that is used by all of the most logical people on the planet. Thus making Sir Francis logical 5.) Pro never my evidence on logical Christians 6.) My interpretations of the definitions are correct thus all of his references to them are incorrect 7.)I have removed all attacks against my case proving Christians are logical and leaving my opponent no ground to stand upon Sources http://www.debate.org... [1] http://hirr.hartsem.edu... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.chompchomp.com... [4]