If Satan exists then we as a people should not follow the teachings of the bible.

I am not sure if my opponents new argument is a joke. If it was not intended to be, then I will still act as if it is. For, if it is not a joke, it's probably offensive. Regardless, let's analyze my opponents arguments as a whole. My opponents opening speech had no clear argument presented. He had four sentences. The closest thing to an argument is "If [G]od would allow Satan to exist then no one should follow the teachings of the [B]ible." My opponents first rebuttal clarifies what he REALLY meant by the topic: "Jesus is an embodiment Satan". Apparently, all of my arguments become "logically fallacious" since they don't really respond to his "real" argument. I had no idea where "Jesus=Satan came from". It is not a "logical fallacy" to fail to predict that. Alas, my opponent is a tricky devil. (hah, and by that I don't mean Jesus) To clarify the debate and prevent further advocacy shift. The topic is "If Satan exists then we as a people should not follow the teachings of the bible". The debate is not about the problems of God's creation of evil as my opponent "clarified" in his last speech. It is not about whether the Bible is a good document in the first place, for we are only debating Satan's potential existence in relation to the Bible. What we are debating about, as my opponent clarified, is my opponents new argument: Jesus is supposedly an embodiment of Satan, so the Bible should not be followed. Let's look in general at the main issues. I will take the issues slightly out of order. I. My opponents argument, that Jesus is an embodiment of Satan, is an amusing story. Unfortunately, there are too many (often offensive) assumptions. 1-"Satan has created many different religions in order to... mislead people into hatred". That is probably the most ethnocentric piece of garbage I have ever heard. It is because of closed-minded statements like these that there are religious wars and genocides. To say that followers of faiths like Buddhism and Judaism are, in fact, worshipers of Satan is absolutely unacceptable in academic discussion. Regardless, this claim is totally unprovable and unwarrantable. I do not know how it is possible to speculate the actions of metaphysical being like Satan. 2-"Satan sends himself to earth far more often than god does." ... I ask my opponent, "How do you know this?" Did you text Satan? Email him? ... pull him up on the phone? Did you... poll all the major leaders of the "religions of Satan" (which normal people refer to as Hinduism and Buddhism etc)? There is no way to prove silly things like this. At the least, the judges should prefer my well warranted arguments over his totally unprovable and highly offensive assertions. 3-"Satan's goal, being to mislead people from the true god, would be best fulfilled by sending someone who appears to be an embodiment of love to earth... it would therefor[e] follow that Jesus Christ was actually an embodiment of Satan". Woah! Logical leap! There is no reason why Jesus Christ is the only person who loves the earth. I'd say many other humans have done the same. The Dalai Lama loves the earth. I love the earth too. So does the Green Club president at my school. There is no reason why Jesus is Satan based on this logic. Though he says that it is "probable" since he has created many false religions, that argument is taken out above. II – My old second argument: It is irrelevant if the creator of the Bible is bad. Even if the creator of the Bible is bad, its teachings have the potential to be good. While my original argument talked about God, I think it is fair for me to recharacterize my argument to re-suit the (essentially) new topic. Even if I concede my opponents ridiculous assertion of an argument that "Jesus is an embodiment of Satan", my second point proves it totally IRRELEVANT to the debate. I gave the not-responded-to example of a police officer arresting a man for DWI. Even if the cop is a bad person, that does not mean that the arrested man should refuse to listen to the DWI laws. That's ridiculous. The nature of the teacher does not effect the nature of the teachings. You can have a bad teacher but have good teachings. So, it is relatively irrelevant whether Jesus is an embodiment of Satan – regardless, he produced a good book. The Bible still has the potential to be uplifting and helpful to many people. My opponents arguments are totally nonresponsive. They merely establish this weird JesuSatan theory. The closest he comes to answering the argument is the mere assertion that reading the Bible is "probably not be... desirable". Unfortunately, that was not a developed argument. III - I thought my argument about whether hate is necessary for love was pretty good argument. Sadly, it does not disprove the accusation of Jesus's secret devilish ambitions. Regardless, I do not need this argument to win the round, since I had separate disproofs of the topic. The same goes for my old third argument: that the Bible has changed a lot from its origin. IV. My opponents other possible argument – the Bible is bad. He mentioned in his last speech that he will argue this. This is a bad and irrelevant argument. The judges should not let him get away with this red herring. 1 – As I previously stated, the debate is "If Satan exists then we as a people should not follow the teachings of the bible." My opponent has to defend a very specific line of reasoning. Saying the Bible is bad is not relevant. The debate is not "Is the Bible good or bad". 2- Even if the Bible has some silly things in it, people can ignore those parts. Though he asserts elsewhere that I have to defend all the teachings of the Bible, that's ridiculous. Our understanding of words in language comes from common usage. His interpretation is certainly not common usage: I don't know a single person who follows ALL the teachings of the Bible (Deuteronomy 21:18-21 says to stone disobedient children to death. No Christians do that). His reason was that "I argued people meant all people", so plurals mean "everything in existence". That's ridiculous. Plurals do not mean everything. If I say "two crayons", that does not mean "all the crayons in the world". Words are decided by common usage, not by ridiculous arguments made for online debates. Let's sum up the debate so far I – My opponents new argument is that "Jesus is an embodiment of Satan" but fails to provide sufficient evidence for this (rather odd) claim. His main proof for the topic is completely and utterly false. II – Even if Satan had influence over the Bible (which is obviously not true), it is irrelevant. Dear opponent and readers: even if the Bible is a book of fire and brimstone, it wont burn you – I promise. III – Though I had to scrap some of my old arguments, it was only because of the huge advocacy shift my opponent made in his last speech. Regardless, I have sufficient and separate disproofs from arguments I and II. IV – He tries to shift the debate from the topic by merely arguing that the Bible is bad, however not only are his reasons for doing so poor, it is also not relevant to the topic.