Christians are illogical

I was half expecting a debate like my last one, but I'm ecstatic to see how worthy my opponent is! I'd also like to clarify once again that even though I'm athiestic, I also disagree with the topic. I just wanted to see what it would be like to argue the pro. Let's move on to the debate. I will begin by adressing the definitions, then move on to negating my opponent's case, and end with defending my own. DEFINITIONS: I agree with the definition of Fallacy as defined by opponent. Although my opponent is correct that every sect has its diferences (although I'm sure there are many more sects than 5), the part of the definition that ties them together is "as defined by their holy text". The holy text of Christianity is the Bible, therefore Christian is defind as anyone who in a Christian sect and complies to the teachings of the Bible. MY OPPONENT'S CASE: Contention 1: I accept that logic is neccesary for a human's existance, however I never stated all Christians are completely and totally devoid of logic. The agreed upon definition of illogical in the round is "Illogical-not observing the principles of logic; not following logical processes" [1]. My stance in this debate is not that all Christians never have, do, or will use a logical process, simply that they are illogical. According to the definition, an illogical person is someone who does not follow logical processes, or one who does not obvserve the principles of logic. As the Bible is illogical, and because for this round every Christian is considered one who accepts the Bible as true, 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. So it's not that my opponent's contention falls, it just doesn't apply to anything within the round. Contention 2: Although I agree that Christians have used logic in the past, according to the definition of illogical as accepted in the round, they are still illogical. Cross apply the arguments made against his first contention into his second contention, as they both adress the same thing. Contention 3: "This means that each sect chooses their own text to follow. And through proper research one comes to the conclusion that there are many different denominations that have completely different ideologies and theories." I have seen no Christian sect that does not follow the Bible, and without any evidence to the contrary It has to be assumed that they do. Even Mormans (even though I do not personally believe them to be Christian I didn't put them in the description/definitions) follow the Bible as well as the Book of Mormon.[2] "Non denominational churches adhere to their own views and according to the definition would follow their own text. Some of these churches (Lake wood Church Houston TX, Church of Living Water Prattville AL.) only believe in a Jesus and a god. They accept only certain teachings that prove not to be catastrophic to their way of life." Two points: 1.) Sources Please, otherwise there's no way to tell for sure it's real 2.) Even if they do not accept the Bible, according to the definition of Christian (that you accepted) non-denominational churches are not Christian churches, nor are the people who worship there Christians, so they would not be counted in the round. "If one were to vote pro they would find a paradox since there are various branches of Christianity that only accept certain ideals. That since there are churches that only accept "Jesus" and a "God" there logical mind sets are not as corrupted as one may think. They may only perceive these two beings as an answer to the creation of the universe and in no way does one single subject make a human being totally irrational." As I have stated earlier, Christianity as a whole beleives in the Bible. Any who do not believe in the Bible will not be considered Christians for the purposes of the round according to the accepted definition. We are not dissecting each and every belief each church has to determine their Christianity, according to the definition we are looking to the fact that they follow the Bible. And like I stated against your first contention, The constant belief in the Bible provides a constant illogical belief, thus corrupting their logical thought process according to the definition of illogical. This disproves your third contention as a whole. MY DEFENSE: I will include the fallacy argument in the defense even though it was not specifically under my case. "If you are to accept TheOrators case, you are in fact saying that one-third of the earth's population are not capable of using logic, a tool that average human inherently has, which is impossible. Firstly because they have the faculty of reason and secondly they can still make sound judgments." This is where my opponent claims my fallacy lies, in A.), I claim all Christians to never be able to use logic and B.) Christians must use logic in order to live. However, I will restate what I have stated throughout the round: The definition of illogical does not state at someone never has used logic, simply that they follow illogical processess. The constant belief in the Bible provides for a constant belief in an illogical process (as my opponent has not contested that the Bible is illogical), and as such makes the Christians illogical. The rest of the attack on my case is one paragraph, which states: "My esteemed opponent's entire case simply states that all Christians believe in a book that does not reach his rules of logic. Thus according to him every Christian lacks the faculty of logic (reason) and appropriate judgments. My entire con case will be to prove that in fact Christians can use logic and be logical within their actions." However, this paragraph is false, for the same reasons I have repeated multiple times in the debate 1.) I never claim that Christians cannot reason, simply that they hold illogical processes, whichmakes them illogical 2.) Therefore, the claim that Christians can be rational has no impact on the round. VOTERS: 1.) It has not been refuted that the Bible is illogical 2.) As Christians constantly hold the Bible as true, they are using an illogical process 3.) According to the definition of illogical, this proves all Chrsitians illogical. 4.) The negative case has only stated that Christians can reason and that there have been Christians who have reasoned in the past, but that does not make any impact on the resolution according to the definitions. 5.) I have negated my opponent's case line by line, so he has nothing to negate the resolution with 6.) I have negated my opponent's argument against my case, so he has nothing to negate my case with. Works Cited: 1.) http://www.debate.org... 2.) http://mormon.org...