This House believes that Jesus of the Bible is Messiah

My opponent does not know what special pleading actually implies ' my opponent makes special pleading that this debate be approached from an atheistic viewpoint rather than a theological one ' . That is not what special pleading is. If a presupposition is false or unfounded without evidence, it does not matter what argument you build upon it, unless you clearly back it up with actual evidence, It is special pleading to allow you to claim the bible is infallible and all other books are fallible. That is special pleading. 1. God exists is a wild unfounded presumption. 2. Biblical inerrancy is a nonsensical claim, with huge amounts of clear evidence to oppose that. 3. Both your presumptions are ungrounded, unsupported and you have made no actual attempt to prove any of the claims you have made. The Evil God hypothesis is not based on standards of evil, they are based on two arguments about the nature of reality. I never claimed God doesn't exist because evil exists, that is not the argument, re-read it. Disease is not the absence of health it is the deterioration of health. These sorts of claims on biology are unfounded and absurd. Now my standard or ethical claim to know evil is not actually a good objection to the evil god hypothesis. If God is good like the theist claims, then in fact he is saying evil exists as a comparative. If evil does not exist, then how can something be good? In an attempt to place the Burdon of where I have an ethical standard of good and evil you have conceded good and evil exist, and that is all the argument needs. 1. The theist claims God is good. 2. We see an abundance of good and evil in the world. 3. The claim good God can be countered with an evil god hypothesis. 4. If evil God is an absurd claim or cannot be proven true, then the good God claim is equally as absurd. It's a very simple premise, one which you seemed to not understand and that is unfortunate. Claiming other debates allow presumptions like God exists and the bible is infallible is argumentum Ad Populum. You are trying to cement your claims as reasonable or true because other debates don't argue against the premises, well that's unfortunate because any reasonable person will know a failed starting premise usually means a failed argument. Your definition of Messiah is also questionable, one because the definition is a Christian definition for the Christian god, it is biased. The definition of messiah is directly related to the Christian God of the bible, meaning the definition is a just word play and not actually objective. It's another point which you didn't address. ' the claims that He made as well of his view of Himself; secondly, the life and works of Jesus Christ; thirdly, the death and subsequent resurrection of Jesus Christ; fourthly, the prophecies fulfilled by Him in His life; lastly, the transformative power of Jesus Christ in the lives of those who believe in Him as Saviour, Messiah, and Lord.' 'the claims he made of himself'. That is not evidence for anything, and it's also questionable if he said most of the things that are written. Jesus' life is only documented in the bible in any detail, and I presented three strong points with references to show the unreliability of the bible, points which you never addressed, this cannot be used as evidence. 'The death and resurrection of Jesus in the bible' I already pointed out huge problems and errors regarding that, and you never addressed any of them, so this point is irrelevant. ' the prophecies fulfilled by Him in His life' I already addressed this point also, and you made no attempt to address it, so I do not know why you still try to bring it up. ' the transformative power of Jesus Christ in the lives of those who believe in Him as Saviour, Messiah, and Lord.' This is subjective, opinionated and very unreliable claims which cannot be given as a major point in your argument. Pro didn't address any of the problems of the bible, and I'm afraid your entire argument ends up never holding any weight. I used historical research and philosophical arguments to put major objections on both of your premises, but you barely addressed either of them substantially. My arguments directly link to your claim of ;Jesus is the messiah. 1. If god does not exist, then the messiah is a nonsensical title to hold. 2. if the bible is in fact fallible and filled with major mistakes, then is it not justified in being basically your main source of information. 3. if both premises are weak and flawed then your argument never gets off the ground, and in fact is not true. You didn't deal with any of the issues I raised and as a result, there is no evidence for Jesus being the messiah and the son of god. Thanks for the debate I enjoyed it.