Christianity has no valid basis to exist.

The resolution is clear, my opponent is for the position that Christianity has no valid basis to exist. Whereas I am against that position and will argue that Christianity has a valid basis to exist. I will begin by presenting some definitions for clarification purposes, followed by providing rebuttals against my opponents contentions and then will end this round by introducing my own arguments. Definitions Christianity: the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies. [1]Valid: well-grounded or justifiable : being at once relevant and meaningful. [2]Basis: something (such as an idea or set of ideas) from which another thing develops or can develop. [3]Exist: to have real being whether material or spiritual. [4][1] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...[3] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...[4] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...RebuttalsI. "It is based upon the mythology of the OT, including the story of Adam & Eve, whose 'original sin' is what Jesus was supposed to have died for. If that story is not literally true then Jesus' sacrifice is for naught. " Assuming that the story of Adam and Eve is not true is working under the premise that the literature of the Bible is not true. If this is the case, then the story of Jesus' sacrifice would also be not true. If the story of Jesus' sacrifice is not true then it is not that his sacrifice was for naught, but rather that his sacrifice never happened in the first place - being that it isn't true. Therefore, your point is null and ultimately void of any validity as I have shown that Jesus' sacrifice must also not be true if the story of Adam and Eve isn't, which is what you have claimed in your first contention. Unless you can prove the truth of Jesus' sacrifice over the truth of the story of Adam and Eve, this contention is defeated. II. "Jesus' virgin birth is clearly impossible since there is the question of where the Y chromosome came from. Also, isn't it more likely that Joseph (her husband) is the father? "Whether or not Joseph is the father, and whether the virgin birth is or isn't possible is not of any relevance to the resolution we are debating. There are many myths, legends, tales, and stories that we continue sharing with one another to this very day that are not logically sound or physically possible. Just because something is impossible does not mean that it shouldn't be told. Otherwise, we would never dream beyond our boundaries, because anything that isn't within reach would be immediately dismissed. By sharing tales that seem impossible, we are expanding our own range of possibilities [5]. A perfect example of this was the legend of the world actually being round. At first the thought of such things was scoffed at, but eventually we had methods to validate that claim and now it is accepted as a truth (for the most part, considering that there are still flat-earth theorists out there [6]). [5] . http://www.pickyourgoals.com...[6] . http://theflatearthsociety.org...III. "Jesus' resurrection is equally impossible since if he had really died then his body would have been decayed beyond recovery. So either he either didn't really die, in which case he wasn't resurrected; or he did die, and his resurrection is not true. "First of all, the story goes that he was dead for three days. "And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures. " - 1 Corinthians 15:4 (KJV) [7]Secondly, according to the same source (The Bible), his body did not decay. "He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. " - Acts 2:31 (KJV) [8] Lastly, you are once again making the mistake of using 'what is possible or not' to determine whether something should exist. This is not a justifiable means to deny the right to exist, especially for something that can be described as a story, legend, tale, or myth. [7] . http://biblehub.com...[8] . http://biblehub.com...IV. "Even if my potential opponent invokes the magic of 'miracles', that would still not explain that physically, these are impossible things to have happen. "I have no need to 'invoke the magic of miracles' in order to make my case. This statement doesn't really make sense, I would ask for further clarification. Although if you mean that I am going to argue the validity of miracles then no. What I will say, in response to this, is that if these are the standards that you wish to hold when determining if Christianity has a valid basis to exist, then you are also throwing any other story/tale/myth/legend into this as well which includes Judaism, Islamic beliefs, Buddhism, and basically any other religion imaginable. ArgumentsIt seems that my opponent only has one main argument: that which is seemingly impossible should not exist. When studying his remarks in Round 1 that is a reasonably condensed form of all his arguments. I have shown above, with my rebuttals, why such arguments hold no ground in this debate. That method of judgement has yet to be justified as a valid means for determining the right to exist and it also fails to justify every other form of being that would suddenly not have the right to exist along with Christianity due to the similar nature of countless other things - some of which I have listed above. I will now present my own arguments. I. What is 'possible or not' is a poor standard for determining what should or shouldn't exist, and is generally harmful. With it being known that Christianity would not be the only thing whose right to exist is jeopardized by the implementation of such standards, it is imperative that my opponent present justification for the immediate dismissal of other related things. Many religions would cease to exist according to the standards of what is 'possible or not' by the means in which my opponent hopes to see occur. As I stated above, Judaism/Buddhism/Islamic Beliefs/etc. , would all cease to have a valid basis for existence if my opponent was allowed to have this standards put into practice. There are also countless tales including mythical creatures, any and all ancient mythology including the epic of Gilgamesh or the Greek gods and their feats, etc. , that would also cease to have a valid basis to exist. The harm of ignoring such rich histories, regardless of their possibility or impossible elements would outweigh whatever outcome would come from erasing everything 'impossible' from our historical paradigm of understanding. II. History, tradition and continued practice of Christianity provides justification and a valid basis for its existence. Storytelling has been around longer than written language. [9] The fact that many stories contain elements that are seemingly impossible holds no grounds when considering whether that story exists or not. The only thing it determines is the likelihood of the story actually being probable, not whether the story in itself exists or not. This is the largest mistake my opponent has made. The fact that the story is even being spoken or read reflects the very nature of its existence in this world. This also provides a valid basis for existence. The fact that it is embodied as oral or written information and coded through oral or written language, that has meaning, validates its existence and provides the very base it would need to exist. [9] . http://www.storytellingday.net...In ConclusionI have provided definitions, rebuttals to every contention made by my opponent, and my own arguments. I turn the floor back to my opponent. Thank you.