debate dazzle me

I notice that my opponent appears to have dropped my incredibly relevant case. For that reason, I urge a vote for Con as all my arguments are to be extended. My original argument fully addresses all the irrelevant contentions he raises this round, however I will (try to) humour him with responses. My apologies in advance for the horrible misinterpretations I am liable to make. Con writes "debate but I bet you dont even open 2 suggestion whould i shock you if i said christianity had a chance had till me who claimed to be of God didnt preach good ethics in self control and play on people emotions lowering the bar cause they arent converted. "I postulate that the only relevant response to this is the Quantum Cosmological Differentiation, which parially summarizes how the supposed conflict between early neolithic polytheist religious beliefs combined with the eventual evolution to a monotheistic one at a time preceding the scientific advances of the Morphological age of humanity could potentially cause confliction in the argument that there is a clear and single path to the conclusion that there is a resolution to the creator-endeavor paradox. Con writes "I know ill never be perfect But I cant live as a caranal person . you my friend got the smarts to mabye shed some real light on some areas,"Fiat lux! Con writes "now people dare speak of religion or rightous living which all claim but cant admit it to theirselve muchless anybody else. God reveals himself the holyspirit working is the only proof your ever gonna get sent law from heaven to moses rebuked by man the sent holyspirit into a man to show its stronger than. "I advise that my opponent endeavor to study the morphological age more thoroughly. Con writes "Everybodys right their belief. to show you im just tryn to show u a new way of thinking. old testament enough if you deny self follow his statutes. solomon and the ladys claiming to be the true mother and the baby he commanded to divide between them. the tru mother humbled herself to do right and deny herself for the good of another, the baby is the worlds religion in my eyes and instead of living how every man knows he should but says let the divide it into kills our reason for exiestance but the humble obedience will be destroyed for the weak ans insane. "I disagree, and my opposition is summarized by the Thadeau-Thompson Equation, which states '1- there is what exists, 2 - what exists around us is seen by us, 3 - what is seen by us is believed by us, 4 - what is believed by us must be understood by us for us to have peace with it, 5 - for something to be understood it must be theoretically be proven true, 6 - for something to be proven true its basics must be understood, 7 - if the basics cannot be understood but can be explained, it can be believed, 8 - if something is believed but then be proven otherwise, confusion can be inflicted, 9 - with confusion comes conflict, 10 - such conflict cannot be easily remedied, 11 - the natural laws of unexplained and complex logic behind paradoxes exist, 12 - these laws in their basic form can solve other paradoxes, 13 - these paradoxes that can be explained can solve previous conflicts, 14 - therefore these logical truths can solve conflicts between beliefs and contrary sciences. 'Con writes "people in all religions dont humble completely christians worship the graven image of jesus but the spirit kept him from sin to acomplish something The Father was pleased to kill the only obiedient 1 of ever and showed how to do it. sinless sacrifice not a ram or bulock animals cant suffice God will not have sin be just in his kingdom and he owes men nothing and the will be cut down. "In counter to my opponent, I write that to answer the faith based confusion often brought on by the possibility of using the rules of a paradox to defeat a paradox in itself naturally raises questions that conflict with ones own personal beliefs. The faith based questions that may have arisen yourself can be answered by the idea that all that does exist at one time existed before but does not exist anymore, and what exists today is only a different version of what existed before. So to clarify any natural conflictions currently colliding between ones own faith and the scientific explanations can be solved by the fact that what once was, is no more, and that what is now, is based off of something that once was.