Faith is an irrational belief

Now then. .Since my opponent is so keen for CON to adhere to X, Y and Z to explain CON's premises, CON will gladly do so:CON's argument, based on the resolution, accepts X (faith: the belief in something without benefit of evidence or support) as the formal definition of a key word within the resolution. CON then accepts PRO's argumentation using Y (there is no evidence of Jesus Christ --> therefore belief in Jesus Christ is form of faith) as a subset X. Notice PRO's attempt at redefining X, creating a new definition of X within Y. This is, in essence, an unending definitional loop CON chose to ignore; CON therefore holds that X, as the primary definer, supersedes the sub-definition within Y. PRO then adds X + Y to create Z (Christians are irrational in holding faith in Christianity/Christ. CON denies Z and all its wider implications toward the resolution which covers all faith in general, essentially touting a form of relevancy within X (faith). and attributes rationality to X while denying Y's relevancy. If PRO intended X, Y & Z to be part of the debate parameters, he did not make that clear. Surely the reader agrees with CON that Z, the conclusion drawn from X & Y, are introductory contentions. PRO obviously had misconstrued the debate he wished to have in setting up a completely irrelevant resolution, that is, if his denying of CON's arguments' relevancy were true. It's like setting up a resolution claiming marijuana a health-inducing agent and then proceed to set up entirely different contentions about marijuana's economic benefits. Close, but not quite. .Let me reiterate my premise with X, Y & Z: X, a factor within the X + Y = Z equation, is a rational belief and has, contrary to PRO's claims, logical & intellectual supports. These were further elaborated in round 1. Let me quote round 1: "The ‘Opening Argument’, ‘Original Post’ or ‘Proposition’ is this…. .While there are many intellectual, logical, and educated people out there that still believe in a Christian (god? ) Jesus Christ. These same people have no intellectual, logical or educated reason for doing so. "By creating this opening argument & its subsequent definitions, my opponent implies these an elaboration on the resolution, effectively creating debate parameters. CON assumes Christianity to be the subset of the main component within the resolution: faith. Unless my opponent intended the resolution to be: Christian faith is an irrational belief, I feel no need to constrain my arguments within the confines of Christianity. My opponent then proposes X+Y=Z. CON immediately sees this as a premise,not a parameter. KEY: "The way I see it, to defeat the opening Atheist argument. .. "These opening lines to the last paragraph of round 1 only serve to deepen the fact that CON's side of the resolution is to defeat the opening arguments, which claim that those who believe in Jesus Christ have no intellectual, logical or educated reasons for doing so. CON does not have to argue through these proposed paths. CON provides intellectual/educated and logical reasons, effectively defeating the opening argument. The rest of this last paragraph within round 1 attempts to place a restraint upon CON's potential areas to which he can turn to attempt an argument. These are based on 'the way I see it'. Basically, it is PRO's opinion that CON can only negate the resolution through the methods provided. WRONG! CON negates PRO's resolution through alternate and viable means outside of 'the way I see it"Just because I did not set up my premises your way, doesn't mean they are the wrong way. You might as well create all my arguments for me too. The result: CON's relevant contentions that provide intellectual/educated & logical reasons for faith are completely unrefuted. CON basically wins. "imperial evidence which requires citations to examine the credibility of the evidence supporting the claim being made"I've made my case within the philosophical area of debate, meaning sources for statistics are unnecessary. What do you want me to do? Source my brain? PRO fails to provide reason against CON's applying philosophical logic toward negating the resolution. "I fail to see how a conclusion that my FORMAL argument can be held in contempt as he claims. "I fail to see how it can not be. As you mentioned in your final paragraph, X+Y=Z are supporting premises to a resolution that provide a possible route by which CON can take to negate the resolution. I created an alternate argumentative position which eliminated the need for me to address premises that ultimately lose potency. Once again, they are potential positions that I could have chosen as media through which I could conduct side of the debate, but not iron parameters. As I've Your FORMAL arguments are only claims and can all be refuted. I only chose to refute the legitimacy of Y and the veracity of Z. X, I accepted. I am allowed to refute these since they do not fall under the untouchable category of debate parameters. If they were part of those, I can't deny them. CON's constant repetition of the legitimacy of his premises can't get any clearer. By not addressing any of CON's relevant contentions and by claiming CON's concessions to several irrelevant or componential contentions (such as Y & Z), by elaborating a refutation down one of the three paths toward negating the resolution which CON is not limited to (The way I see it. . ), by ignoring CON's requests and continuing down these tangents, PRO concedes CON's philosophical logic presented in round 1. CON wins.