Faith is an irrational belief

A debate is a discussion or structured contest about an issue or a resolution. A formal debate involves two sides: one supports a resolution and one opposing it, (in the cause of this debate, X+Y=Z). Such a debate is bound by rules previously agreed upon. Source: http://www.edu.gov.mb.ca... Con does not negotiate or question the formal formula, or its formalities, and accepts the challenge and conditions of the challenge without reserve even if he did not understand them at first. A formal debate is the examination of tangible, imperial evidence which requires citations to examine the credibility of the evidence supporting the claim being made. Without cited evidence to address the alternatives of both sides, one is left with little more than disagreement based in emotions and void of Logic. If I walk away from a debate having lost it is of little consequence, if I walk away without learning something new (in this case Christianity and or the bible), I have failed. This is why the parameters for this debate were set up in the opening statement as they were, once the debate system in this forum was engaged, I (we) had little choice but to carry on"..losing both time and precious publishing space because the clock was now ticking even though it took up two rounds to get on topic. The Challenge was based in values set in the noted in the values assign to X plus Y equals Z (a formal formula). Con"s opening results in a lengthy collation of a redirect aimed at RE-defining the semantics that were already agreed upon, and then redefining criteria and derailing the topic matter, and this is clearly a breach of the rules and the default position assigned to the con. Con then recants and accepts and confirms the value of X and I quote, "Chase/Pro, X: Faith: the belief in something without benefit of evidence or support. (NOTE: you have provided no evidence, quotes, or otherwise that (this) is not true)" Beginner/ Con: Recants, "True, I did not deny this definition" but I do not have to. In fact, I embrace this definition with all its constraints. My closing argument for X. Con recants and concedes that the value X is correct, faith is belief without the benefit of evidence which is irrational UNLESS for the purpose of this debate valid evidence (constraints) of Jesus can be presented the argument remains intact and valid. The formal value for Y. Con"s only challenge to the properties of Y is twofold,. Con reputes the requirement to address the value of Y and run off to an unrelated tangent into oblivion, and the PS, at the bottom of the page in round two of which I"ve quoted below. Con states don"t respond to this, "What about the bible, the scriptures, all the documents and testaments written in support of his physical existence as a historical figure? Did thousands of people suddenly decide to make up a person and a religion out of nowhere? Hahahahahaha" *Please ignore the postscript as it is only a commentary to the opposition to a statement CON finds absolutely amusing Con"s emotional position is the collective works of the bible, the trouble is there are many bibles and over 38000 Christian denominations with conflicting and varying interpretations and Con fails to post which text , which book, and which bible and what Christian view he believes makes the bible a valid source of evidence for the existence of Jesus. Not all Christians believe the bible is a historical source; I listed one source and quoted her and she states even the Old Testament fails as a historical source. Con fails to list which Christian position he feels counters the argument AND satisfy the conditions of this debate. I cited a common knowledge source. This source is found in our public school system which allows for the bible to be studied, but not studied from because the bible is not considered a historical document. On the other hand, Con"s submission does not pass the test of evidence to have been even considered, nor was this supposed evidence ever identified let alone validated as Con makes no attempt to do so. Con asks Pro not respond to the unspecified retort he has given, unfortunately for the Con, this is the only time he addresses the conditions of the debate. Con"s notes the Pro"s effective "Historical Knowledge" of the bible and asks if I have debated this already (or if I was the same person he was thinking of), in short, Con validates my knowledge and accidently validates my claim as to what is and is not historical according to the bible regardless if I were right or wrong in my renderings. Con fails the test of the burden of proof in the second round which was clearly spelled out in Pro"s challenge". I repeat, the value and properties of Y remains undefeated and unchallenged. I addressed the issues of the bible as evidence and sourced my assertion even though I would normally NOT be required to. I did so just in case Con attempts another foul and tries to add new argumentations, material, references in the closing round. The formal value Z: There is no evidence of Jesus Christ (the foundation of the Christian religion), therefore the Christian religion, belief in Jesus Christ is based in only in faith". and faith is an irrational belief in something that offers no support in order to have been believed in in the first place. Remember now, X was unchallenged, Y was undefeated and not addressed by Con own admission because he believe falsely he didn"t have to, so X plus Y equals Z if and if Z is supported/validated, then there is but one choice"Pro"s argument stands. Since I have some extra room here". Con states several times he does not need to address this issue of Jesus as it is irrelevant. I fail to see how a conclusion that my FORMAL argument can be held in contempt as he claims. Con inserts his own ideas and beliefs and then attempts to Straw Mans my argument by trying to diminish the importance of Jesus Christ as it applies to Christianity. I have to admit, this is the very first time I felt like I needed to drop the Pro"s position just to defend Christianity, Jesus Christ, and the bible from further blasphemy. Con plays at appeasing the audience by making an attempt to amalgamate his beliefs based in the value of the bible. Yet Con"s disingenuous attempt fails him, because as the audience already knows, if he really believed in the bibles historical relevance, he would be a Christian striving for salvation instead of praising only the atheistic views of Buddhism. I truthfully wish that the Christian side of this debate could have been defended or at the very addressed. I would hope that our Judges (the audience, not the Christian god) will take serious consideration in enforcing the rules of debate just as much as I hope (hope a form of faith) that the Pro"s side will not be discriminated against for having the burden of an atheistic position, even though this position was truly never "exorcised""..< a little Christian joke/pun. : ) PS, Con, most Christians know the bible was NOT written by God, I guess this is because God didn"t want his signature forged on a credit card any more than he wanted atheists ( Buddhists) claiming it came from one solitary book/works. In short, in this debate Con brings a well written football to a basketball court and attempts to validate the football and re-write the game. I hope this posts correctly this time....... : S