It is more rational to believe the Easter Bunny exists than the god of the Jews/Christians/Muslims

1. RebuttalMy opponent takes issue with the arguments I presented, suggesting that whether or not God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe is irrelevant with regard to our debate. My opponent goes on to state "I'm going to simply dismiss Con's argument". What my opponent fails to understand is that the argument itself is of complete relevance to our debate topic, which is "Is it more rational to think that the Easter bunny exists as opposed to Yahweh? " God's being the best explanation for the origin of the universe is evidence of His existence. The argument I presented lends credibility to the rejection of my opponent's assertion that "it is more rational to believe the Easter bunny exists than God" because it demonstrates God's existence. In order to show that "it is more rational to believe the Easter bunny exists" my opponent must give some sort of sound argument in defense of this radical proposition as well as knock down any argument I propose which attacks the proposition, such as the ones I presented in the last round. It is wishful thinking on my opponent's part to think that he/she can "simply dismiss" any arguments without addressing the critical issues they present to my opponent's own argument. Once again, to win this debate, my opponent must knock down each argument I give which shows that God's existence is more rational than the Easter bunny's existence (i. e. the argument that God is the best explanation for the origin of the universe) as well as present at least one sound argument of his/her own in defense of the claim made in the resolution. If my opponent is unable to do each of these things, it seems to me that he/she cannot win the debate. As for my response to the faulty argument presented by my opponent in the previous round, it seems that each of the points I made were ignored by my opponent. Recall that my opponent's entire argument hinged on the idea that in order to hold rational belief in something, that something must hold a certain number of natural characteristics. I pointed out that it is impossible to judge God on this scale, as God is by definition supernatural. My opponent's idea of comparing God and the Easter bunny and deciding which being is more rational based on the number of natural characteristics is nonsensical. It is analogous to comparing a musical record and a portrait, and deciding the winner based on the quality of sound. This is clearly a poor scale to judge on, as portraits do not make sound. In the very same way, using the scale of "natural characteristics" to judge God vs the Easter bunny is clearly wrong, because by definition God does not have any natural characteristics. This seems obvious enough to me, but it is clear that my opponent does not understand the fault in his/her own logic. 2. ConclusionRecall that in order to shoulder the burden of proof and win the debate, my opponent was required to justify his/her assertion that "it is more rational to believe the Easter bunny exists than God". In order to accomplish this, my opponent must have presented at least one sound argument in defense of the proposition in additional to knocking down any arguments that attacked the proposition. It is clear that my opponent has failed to do either. There has not been a sound argument provided by my opponent in defense of his/her position, and my opponent chose to ignore the arguments I gave which attacked his/her position. We can then reasonably conclude that it is NOT more rational to believe that the Easter bunny exists than God, and that my opponent has failed to shoulder the burden of proof in this debate.