Jesus Christ is a "zombie savior".

Since my opponent failed to follow my rules, one of which stated that both parties start debating in the second round, I am forced to give both a summation and a bit of refutation of my opponent's charges. Since I did not write or specifically state that my opponent must forfeit points, then I shall have to present my counter-argument, or otherwise my case will be left incomplete.My opponent did little to refute my claims other than just asking the reader, "What guy is going to argue which is more heavenly [?]" about two pictures. Nor does he have any effort to realize that my example of "A Nightmare on Elm's St" was an example of the fallacy of exceptions. Let us briefly review his counter-argument: he claims that in "Nightmare On Elm's Street 3: Dream Warriors", Nancy lives. This is true: Nancy is shown to be living at a medical intern after she is escorted into a car that is possessed by Krueger. [1] [2]However, while this seems like a victory for my opponent, this is also irrelevant because my opponent is addressing an example. This example only served to illustrate the fallacy of exceptions to the reader; that is, in itself, the purpose of an example. If my opponent wishes to prove that my argument is irrelevant, then please do not devote your time to attacking your example. I urge my readers to think how much space I would waste if I decided to attack Izbo10's irrelevant photograph comparison."Anyway this arument proves my point if the slasher doesn't always lose you can't include it when determining whether it is a slasher film, hence since I have shown that other zombies have similar characteristics his arguments are irrelevant."First of all, the corrections, which are numerous, should be: "Anyway, this argument [you pointing out that I was incorrect is not an argument] proves my point [that] if the slasher doesn't always lose, you can't include it when determining whether it is a slasher film, hence since I have shown that other zombies have similar characteristics [that] his arguments are irrelevant." There are problems with this statement. Again, I wrote, "Examples of the fallacy" before writing the entire premises about the slasher genre. An example is "an instance serving for illustration" [3] and serves to illustrate, only, the falsity of the logical fallacy. Attacking this serves no purpose, and has no relation to the main argument about "Jesus is a ‘zombie savior' ". Therefore, my opponent has not shown that my arguments are irrelevant by default, nor that the zombies have "similar characteristics". My opponent has made the erroneous supposition that the example of the slasher film is tied with the main argument. "When showing that something is by definition what you are claiming, you can't argue points that this being may or may not have, you must only argue the points that distinctively prove that the being is what you just argued. In this case you can only argue the attributes true of all zombies."I find this quote confusing. The "being vs. force" argument does deal with your definition, since you claim that God is designated as the "supernatural force". I do not know how this is linked with "the attributes true of all zombies". Nor can I understand how my opponent thinks that "zombies only exist in fiction to reference"…Clearly, even in my opening round, zombies are found in religion [voodo], film, and so forth. Zombies do not exist outside of the "pop culture"; they are found in literature and especially religion. Therefore, Pro's claims, "Therefore referencing pop culture is the only true way to show what is and isn't classified as a zombie" is false. And obviously, I encourage my opponent to re-read my logical fallacy law, since he thinks that only three exceptions will make a difference.Summations: God is a supernatural being, not necessarily force.My opponent uses my own definition, that the word "force" literally means to exert influence on, to show that God, in the act of resurrecting Jesus, used his influence to do so. This is false. An "action" is the process of doing, a deed. "Influence" only means "the capacity or power of persons or things to be a compelling force on or produce effects on the actions, behavior, opinions, etc" [4]. If God was involved in the complete process of action, why must he have to do "influence" upon it? In addition, my opponent writes that this is a "physical change", which is hardly conceivable of the act of bringing a person back to life. The main point is that zombification is merely bodily resurrection, whereas Jesus experienced both a bodily and spiritual/cognitive resurrection.My own opponent's definition refers it to as a "dead body" only. I have shown, to a degree, that the soul, the principle that characterizes the reasoning, thought, will, and so on, is a separate entity from the body. Jesus, who exhibits these traits, experiences this resurrection of the soul and body. Zombification, which only revives the dead, in bodily form, is apparently a limited form of resurrection, because the concept of the body does not encompass that of the soul.In addition, pop culture does not support/can be applied to Jesus. Since there are a wide range of zombie films, comics, and even video games, I cannot spend my time debating on specific examples, but rather the general image of the "zombie": "They are typically depicted as mindless, shambling, decaying corpses with a hunger for human flesh, and in some cases, human brains in particular."[5]1. "Mindless" I have already shown that Jesus has spoken, instructed to his disciples, and approached Mary, he has will, reasoning, and apparently thought that accounts for his actions. 2. "Decaying": The aforementioned descriptions of Jesus in the Book of Revelations, in spite of my opponent's "counter argument", has the purpose of depicting him as "heavenly"; this should be obvious, especially to my opponent--who tries to attack that definition not by attack the hyperbolic language, but just posting a bunch of photos, and is a marked constrast to the stages of decay of the human body. This should be obvious considering the fact that since decomposition occurs after death, Jesus could not be decaying if he was resurrected fully.3. "Hunger for human flesh...human brains in particular". This is obvious that Jesus does not engage in such. The consumption of flesh is condemned, as seen when God instructs Noah, during the creation of his ark, "But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood". (Genesis 9:1-6). Blood is equated with life, for instance, it is stated, in the Book of Leviticus, that "...the life of a creature is in the blood" (Leviticus, 17:11). Therefore, it would be sacrilegous to consume "human flesh", much less "human brains". The fact that Jesus is part of the Trinity, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, would do such a thing is preposterous. I advice my voters to at least give Izbo10 the benefit of a doubt here. This is one of my weaker debates, and I have made several errors here. But, and I am specifically addressing Izbo10, that does not mean that I am "an idiot" or "retard". In fact, it is ironic, since by default--the breach of the rules, and the fact that I have put effort into my work, Izbo10 has already forfeited. His arguments have no proof, therefore costing him points for sources, and are mixed in several ad hominem statements, costing him conduct points. He does not defend, and refutes rather poorly, though I will leave the voters with the consideration of whose argument is better. Clearly, while Izbo10 won with his own definition, I have won with others.Thank you for reading this response. I hope to engage in further debates.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://dictionary.reference.com...[4] http://dictionary.reference.com...[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...