i can support Christianity more than an athiest can support Athiesm.

Yeah, picking the resolution is usually the most important part of the debate. You've got to be careful with the word choice, because resolutions can and will be taken very literally. It probably would have been easier for you to argue that it is probable that a God exists, although I still believe that I could have made a case against that. Keep in mind, though, that even with this resolution, you still aren't required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists. These debates are judged based on who has made the most convincing arguments.Pascal's Wager1) Is belief a choice?A lot of what you said is true. However, belief still isn't really a choice. I can't wake up one morning and say "Ok, now I'm going to believe that God exists". Different people believe for different reasons. Some people believe in God because they can't imagine the thought of no life after death. Some people believe in God because it gives them hope. Some people believe in God because they legitimately believe that the Bible is credible evidence to support that proposition. All of those people aren't actively choosing to believe that God exists, they just do for the reasons that make the most sense to them. In the same way, I cannot currently believe that God exists. Like I said earlier, I could always lie and claim that I do, but surely God's omniscience would see right through that. Thus, the belief aspect of Pascal's Wager is not a convincing argument to believe in God's existence.2) Other religionsPro pretty much concedes this flaw with Pascal's Wager. It is not logical to wager that the Christian God exists because there is no more evidence to prove this than there is for Zeus. The safest possible bet would be lacking belief in any of them, to avoid "making them madder and madder".The Bible's CredibilityI'm going to forgive Pro for the conduct error (posting new arguments in the last round) because he is new to this.1) Was Noah's ark found?I suppose it's open for interpretation. Like I said earlier, people believe for different reasons, so there are people who believe that this is genuinely Noah's Ark, and this pretty much proves that it happened.But was Noah's Ark really found? Scientists don't seem to think so.First of all, the traces of metal that were found on the supposed ark are inconsistent with the claims that it was due to the iron brackets holding the wood together. According to a paper done by Lorence G Collins [1] (who has a Ph.D in geology from the University of Illinois) and David Fasold (author of the Book "The Ark of Noah"), "the mineral was thoroughly mixed with clay, calcite, quartz, and anthophyllite particles, and it showed a large amount of chemical variability across the sample. Neither of these properties would occur in smelted iron." Second, the geological history of the supposed ark doesn't match with the structure itself. To sum this up, the conclusion of the cited paper has this to say: "Evidence from microscopic studies and photo analyses demonstrates that the supposed Ark near Dogubayazit is a completely natural rock formation. It cannot have been Noah's Ark nor even a man-made model. It is understandable why early investigators falsely identified it. The unusual boat-shaped structure would so catch their attention that an eagerness to be persons who either discovered Noah's Ark or confirmed its existence would tend to override caution. An illustration of the degree to which caution was disregarded by supporters of the Noah's Ark hypothesis is shown by the mistaken identification of a metamorphosed peridotite with crinkle folds as either gopherwood bark or casts of fossilized reeds that supposedly once covered the Ark (Wyatt, 1994). Furthermore, if the Creationism Flood hypothesis were valid (Baumgardner, 1985, 1990), the "dead animals" represented by fossils in this limestone must have died in the supposed Flood, and these fossilized remains are found in channels that cut the supposed Ark. Therefore, the supposed Ark is older than the deposits of the supposed Noachian Flood, and this relationship in itself conclusively refutes the hypothesis that the structure is the preserved remnants of the Ark."Sodom and GomorrahThe website given by the Pro claims that Sodom and Gomorrah have been found with overwhelming evidence that proves that God must have destroyed it. Although the structures seem to look like ancient archaeology, there isn't any evidence provided that proves that it must have been the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. This website also claims that there is overwhelming evidence that it must have been destroyed by the fire the God rained down upon them. The evidence provided is also consistent with the theory that it was actually a meteor that destroyed the cities, but whether or not God sent that meteor is unknown, and isn't exactly a provable claim.The Red SeaThe evidence presented by 6000years fails almost immediately because the discovered "chariot remnants" weren't even in the Red Sea. In fact, what was discovered couldn't have survived in the Red Sea for that long due to the Red Sea's high salinity[2], which would have eroded the wood so much that it wouldn't even be distinguishable with a wheel.Mt. SinaiFinding a mountain with a black top isn't evidence that God burned the top of it. This section of the website provided by the Pro doesn't even give any arguments, it just shows pictures of a mountain with a black top. This does little to demonstrate claims of the supernatural.Conclusion of the debate:To reiterate, the resolution agreed upon is "Resolved: Christianity is an accurate representation of reality". I gave the Pro the burden of proof along with four things that must be proven in order to defend the resolution. Here is the status on those four proofs:1) The Christian God exists, and he is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.The Pro, using the Bible and arguments like Pascal's Wager has attempted to prove this to be true. However, Pascal's Wager was debunked and the Bible was demonstrated to not be credible evidence, especially since the Pro conceded in the second round that it was not. Thus, the status quo stands (Pro has failed to prove this)2) This God created the universe and everything in itSame as #1.3) This God has sent his son, Jesus Christ, to Earth in order to absolve humanity of original sinThis proof was not even mentioned by the Pro, the status quo stands by default.4) Jesus has died for the sins of humanity, and was resurrected three days later to live againSame as #3.The resolution has been negated. I urge a vote for CON.Citations:1. http://www.csun.edu...2. http://en.wikipedia.org...