Faith is an irrational belief

Obviously my opponent has experience debating the existence of Jesus Christ as a historical figure. In fact, I remember reading this very debate last year (was that you? :))Apologies for the digression.My opponent seems to think I haven't addressed the issue presented, but my contentions were very relevant. My opponent's proposition states that the belief in Christianity, a form of faith, is irrational. This opening argument functions as an explanatory setup of the resolution and its parameters, effectively telling CON what CON's position is. If we are to enter the semantic arena and conduct a debate in which both sides enforce a pedantic adherence to the resolution, then I believe CON's argument's in round 1 are still in the green.PRO proposed Christianity as a representative of faith, CON takes Christianity and applies it widely to all religion. Since Christianity, as a religion, is, as my opponent states, a 'belief in something without benefit of evidence or support', other religions fall under the same category. My opponent does not deny this.Consequently, my use of faith in religion as a rational backup to the potential events of an eternal afterlife proves that a belief in something without the benefit of evidence of support (this something being religion in this case) clearly has logical foundations. PRO completely ignored this form of correlation and digresses into a tangential argument which is, I believe, much more 'offtopic' than CON's premises. A substantial portion of this round's refutal by PRO is against PRO's digressive comment which, one, has nothing to do with the resolution and, two, should have been ignored (per CON's request). Jesus Christ's existence is completely irrelevant as CON's contentions center around faith in any religion, not solely Christianity. My assertions are based on Jesus' (God's, Buddha's, etc.) potential existence. I think it would be prudent to attempt an assault through this medium.Direct Refutation"The argument is not a philosophical debate on whether there are possibilities that exist as interactions between faith and intellectual/education and logical. The default position and burden of proof that you accepted and rebuke is against this"The first sentence is slightly unintelligible, but here I address my audience: Have I not directly contended within the resolution's boundaries? Consider the resolution: Faith is an irrational belief. My opponent proposed Christianity as a subset of faith to represent faith, but faith ultimately should not be limited to Christianity, but religion. The case CON elicits by assigning logical reasoning to the very specific faith of Christianity, while relevant, could also be diversified within debate parameters. I simply am not able to see how I am debating on an irrelevant tangent. PRO has no burden of proof and argues CON to be guilty of complete digression when, in reality, PRO has been digressing his refutations on a should've-been-ignored postscript commentary. I would like to ask PRO to create solid relevancy between the postscript & its subsequent refutations to the resolution at hand."X: Faith: the belief in something without benefit of evidence or support. (NOTE: you have provided no evidence, quotes, or otherwise that it is not true)"True, I did not deny this definition, but I do not have to. In fact, I embrace this definition with all its constraints. If you haven't caught on, my premise claims faith, the unevidenced, unsupported belief in something, is rational. Round 1 establishes several cases for this premise. Take the word irrational out of the resolution (Faith is an irrational belief) would leave: 'Faith is a belief" which is redundant since faith is, by definition a belief. Basically: a belief is an irrational belief. I'm becoming lost in your redundancies.It is obvious that CON did not establish his premises the way PRO had expected, but that does not debase CON's very relevant contentions into the area of irrelevancy. Every point CON has established has been, thus far, relevant while PRO's round 2 refutation has argued completely insubstantial points toward CON's premises.Nice try, but I don't see: "Jesus Christ most probably never existed as an/the actual, physical historical figure" so I see no reason to base my debate on the probable existence of Christ. I extend everything I didn't reiterate from round 1.*Just for fun (don't reply to this unless you have extra space, seriously. >.>)* " fallacy argumentum ad populum. In other words an "Appeal to the people or gallery". This is where you attempted to win acceptance of an assertion (the bible is historical) by appealing to a large group of people believing in the unsupported dogma of popular doctrine about Jesus"Isn't that what all facts are? THe masses assert something is true, then it is true. How is it not true? Let's look at it this way: Language is an agreement by the people to categorize certain things into a conceived sound. So milk is only milk because people agree it's milk. If 99% of the world claim that the thing you are typing on, that which we currently call a keyboard, is milk, wouldn't you, not the masses, be wrong in saying otherwise?"In short, if there is no one true God exists until the yokes of Jewish polytheism was subdued and IF only god"s plural are mentioned in the Jewish bible (&O/T), then no son of the one true god exists and thus any history or interaction with.."What are you trying to say? God =/= Jesus. God is a supreme entity that, granted, exists only in the human mind thus far. Jesus is a physical being who was actually 'alive'. Or so they say. Nothing is sure. It is impossible to be sure of anything. Surety is based on probability. If there is a 99.99999999999999% chance that your computer is really just that, a computer, then you would be sure it's a computer. However, there is a 1x10^x% (put any number on x) probability that your computer is a super cyber-robot hamster ninja transformer who is sent to earth to spy on you everyday, when you're at home, asleep, awake.. when you're eating.. kind of like Santa Claus, but I digress. This infinitesmally small possibility, since probability is based on possibility, creates the chance that your computer is, indeed a super cyber-robot hamster ninja transformer. You can't know 100% that it is not. It is possible is it not?It's very unlikely and very improbable, but the possibility exists, thereby creating an alternate condition to your computer that may or may not be true. What I'm trying to say is that, although there is no absolute evidence Jesus existed, there is evidence nonetheless, and the evidence exists. The evidence exists in more than one place, it exists in many MANY places: the probability of Jesus' existence is thereby increased manyfold over the probability of a computer being a super cyber-robot hamster ninja transformer. Everyone's existence, even yours, is based on claims. Let's say you claim.. Napolean exists. I claim he does not since there are no real historical records. You claim he does since people have recorded his many actions into documents. Testimony to his existence exist in which people say they saw him. I reassert his nonexistence since these are other people's words. Since they are other people, their claims aren't proven to be true. People have actually seen him you say. SO the saying goes, but that's not proof enough, since they're only saying. You are denying Jesus' existence based on lack of absolute evidence, but absolute evidence is impossible since nothing has absolute evidence. 100% authenticity does not exist. You can claim it exists, but that doesn't make it any more true. *blergh* vomit of words.*remember {who you are and what you have become}, don't respond to this unless you feel you've adequately addressed the issue at hand and have extra space.*