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

Framework for this debate:There are a couple of things that must be outlined before I refute my opponent's arguments. First, my opponent has agreed with the definitions that I have provided for Atheism and Christianity. As such, in order to prove that Christianity is an accurate representation of reality, the Pro must prove the following claims:1) The Christian God exists, and he is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.2) This God created the universe and everything in it3) This God has sent his son, Jesus Christ, to Earth in order to absolve humanity of original sin4) Jesus has died for the sins of humanity, and was resurrected three days later to live againIf my opponent cannot prove that all of these things are true, then he cannot win this debate. I will address this after each round.Second, it is important to note that atheism does not have a burden of proof. Given that the definition of atheism is "the lack of belief in a higher power", there aren't any claims that are being made that must be justified. As such, I am only required to negate my opponent's arguments and defend the status quo; I am not required to prove that God does not exist.Addressing the Pro's arguments:Before I begin, I'd first like to point out that there aren't really any arguments that are being made. My opponent instead listed reasons as to why he believes in Christianity, which doesn't really pertain to the resolution, "Christianity is an accurate representation of reality". I am not required to address these, but I will anyways, because the reasons that he gave are illogical nonetheless.1 & 2 (You can't prove that God DOESN'T exist):Irrelevant. Anyone who uses this argument to defend the existence of a God doesn't know how the burden of proof works. Religion, whether it be Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, or even Scientology, is making a claim that a God exists. Thus, it is religion's job to prove that this claim is true. It is not the job of the negative side to prove otherwise. This logical fallacy is known as the argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument from ignorance). This fallacy asserts that a position is true because it has not yet been proven false. Consider the following scenario:Me: I have a unicorn inside this box!You: Why can't I see it?Me: He's invisible.You: Why can't I hear it?Me: He's a quiet unicorn.You: That box is too small to fit a unicorn inside.Me: He's a tiny unicorn.You: Why can't I feel him?Me: He teleports away whenever someone gets too close.You: Alright, can you PROVE that this unicorn exists?Me: YOU CAN'T PROVE THAT HE DOESN'T!!!Would you consider that last statement to be a valid argument in support of the unicorn existing? I didn't think so.3. Science supports religion.I am not required to address this claim because the Pro didn't explain it at all. The Pro didn't give me cited material, or even make a specific claim.I'm sure later on in the debate, the Pro will make more specific claims and cite material to justify them, but before that happens, I must caution my opponent to please only cite legitimate scientific journals. If they're peer-reviewed, that would be even better.4. Christianity can benefit you as a person.Although this isn't true in every case (Adolf Hitler, for example), this still doesn't pertain to the truth of the claims that are being made.5. I would rather believe in God than not.My opponent stated that this was only his opinion, so I don't feel the need to address this.Before I end this round, here is the status of the debate:The Pro must prove:1) The Christian God exists, and he is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.The status quo stands2) This God created the universe and everything in itThe status quo stands3) This God has sent his son, Jesus Christ, to Earth in order to absolve humanity of original sinThe status quo stands4) Jesus has died for the sins of humanity, and was resurrected three days later to live againThe status quo standsI'm looking forward to the rest of this debate.