Christians our illogical

As none of my definitions have been disputed, I'll assume they are accepted by the pro. MY CONSTRUCTIVE CASE: I negate the resolution because of the following contentions Contention1: Christians are not all inherently illogical. Inherently - Existing as an essential constituent or characteristic; intrinsic. [1] Subpoint A: The affirmative cannot prove that Christians are illogical The resolution operates around the fact that all Christians are somehow illogical. Now, if the resolution stated "Christianity is illogical", then I may agree, however this resolution is a direct insult to all Christians. The main reason the resolution should be negated is that believing in the Christian text does not lead to a direct loss in IQ, rationality, or any other reason that may imply that all those who accept God into their lives lose their ability to make logical decisions, let alone prove that all Christians are all illogical. Because of this, the pro cannot uphold his burden of proof, and so the resolution is negated. Subpoint B: There have been logical Christians in the past. In order for the resolution to be proven true, the Pro must prove that all Christians who have existed, currently exist, and those who will exist are illlogical. However, this is proven false simply because there have been logical Christians in the past. Famous scientists such as Pascal, Newton, Planck, and several more [2] all made huge contributions to science by using the logical process (and so by it's own definition they cannot be proven illogical), while still believing in the Christian God. Because the Pro's statement that "Christians our illogical" cannot be upheld, the resolution is negated. Contention 2: The resolution doesn't actually mean anything. For my first contention, I assumed that the resolution mean "are", however the resolution as it reads is "Christians our illogical", and as my opponent has restated this phrase twice, we can see that it is not a typo. Unfortunately, "Christians our illogical" isn't even a proper sentence, let alone have an actual meaning. Because the resolution cannot actually logically have a meaning, and because even the closest decipherable meaning cannot be proven true, the resolution is negated. MY REBUTTAL The Pro's case is wrong for the following reasons. "Christians our illogical because most of there beliefs have nothing to back it up." Oh? And what do you back your beliefs up with? I noticed that your profile states that you are an athiest, but as athiests, what do we really have to back up our beliefs? We have idle speculation, sure, but no real, cemented evidence that no gods exist. Because we don't have any cemented evidence to back up our arguments, does that make us illogical? If not, how can we call Christians illogical for the same thing? "Christians use the bible and it states that black people were cursed because they sinned. And were not aloud in the in Christian churches. but after the civil war black people were aloud in the Christian churches. But the bible it also states that god has seen the past and the future. so if he could see that black people weren't bad why did he write it in his bible" Two points on this one: 1.) Sources, please. I cannot properly negate your argument without sources from where in the Bible that came from, nor can you properly prove your argument without it. 2.) Even if this was found in the Bible, and even if God did somehow materialize a hand and write it in himself, this argument does not in itself prove Christians illogical. It simply shows that there is a discrepency in the Bible, but as I have proven in my case, not all Christians are illogical. Because the resolution is fundamentally flawed in its reasoning, and because my opponent's case cannot be upheld, I urge a negative vote, thank you. Works Cited: 1.) http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 2.) http://www.godandscience.org...