Secular Progressive movement will destroy this country

Well, I will respond to each of my opponents 11 points and then point out exactly what my opponent has conceded to me or declined to respond to. 1. My opponent argues that Friedrich Nietzsche is not a legitimate example because he was of 200 years ago and we are speaking of the here and now. For a moment I nearly bought this argument until I realized that we were speaking of secularism here and unless I missed where secularism has drastically changed in the last 200 years then Nietzsche, as an atheist, still does very much apply. Nietzsche is a rather fine example of an atheist, being one of the more well known atheist philosophers. In this argument my opponent was attempting to prove that secular people are those obsessed fleshy needs. Nietzsche being an atheist, and atheism in turn being a philosophy that has not changed drastically over time, is a fine example that disproves this idea. But pacify my opponent I include a wiki link to notable atheists of all time http://en.wikipedia.org... . I would like to note that while some of these people were not the best, others were responsible for creating great medicines and scientific break throughs. Thus the idea that secular people are based on fleshy needs is rather inaccurate. 2. On this second point my opponent argues that the good christian family has greater morals than that of the atheist/evolutionist (seculars). This leads me to offer many subpoints. a. Many christians have accepted the concept of evolution as not being mutually exclusive from that of intelligent design. b. The founding fathers were in part secular as they adopted the idea of separation of church and state. They were also christrian, in part. c. Despite those two obvious faults in my opponent argument we have the primary one. I contest that a christrian family has its morals, such as the commandments, but this does not mean that they dutifully follow them. On the other hand an atheist must decide upon his/her own way to live, and is more apt to follow such morals because they are of his/her own creation. A part of him/her perhaps. For example I can gaurantee I almost always follow my own moral code, but when I look around I do not see christians always following theirs. "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. " - Mohandas Gandhi Though I have promised my opponent a debate on this issue, so perhaps we shall see. 3. My opponent argues that rejection of Christmas, despite is origins in paganism, hurts the common family. However this can be seen as fallacious through the fact that we would have already seen this impact before the christian association with Christmas. The fact that we did not before, means that we do not now. My opponent also fails to elaborate on how this hurts a family, and I equally fail to see the link. To myself personally Christmas is a time of family love, collaborated with giving gifts to help demonstrate a caring or unselfishness. While it does commonly put my family in debt I can see that as the only way in which it hurts my family. 4. Arguing that homosexuality is against the bible, my opponent attempts to convey the point that homosexuals cannot be christians. This is simply not true, if the bible stopped everyone from being a christian who broke even one tenant of the bible then no one would be a christian. I contest that most everyone has broken at least some tenant of the bible in someway. This links with the 5th point. 5. My opponent argues that everybody has the original sin therefor going against the bible is okay. This completely refutes his homosexual argument. By the way I agree with this point. 6. From here my opponent argues that being gay is not a choice, he offers me three sources. a. http://www.thebible.net... This site simply shows a few instances where the bible says the homosexuality is wrong in some way. It goes on to advocate that change is possible yet gives no facts or data. b. http://www.lonelyplanet.com... This is a forum. And while the first entry does say that the guy has changed from homosexual to heterosexual the third entry goes on to say that it is impossible. Neither of these however count as conclusive evidence and I will show why in situation c. c. http://www.denverpost.com... First off this entire article is reportedly what the guy's friend heard him say. Secondly there is a substantial reason for this man, Haggard, to say that he has reformed. As that would be the only way he could be accepted by the community in which he dedicated many years of his life to, ever again. Once again I conclude that this article offers no scientific facts or data. I would also like to point out that my opponent made no attack on my line of reasoning. 7. An argument over whether secularists can have morals or not. Cross apply all my points from number 2. I stop myself from revoking my morals, as this would be a crime unto myself. However my morals can be studied over time and changed to become better. This is a benefit the christian does not have. 8. My point that christianity didn't help the roman empire still stands. My opponent provided no counter points of times where secular nations have fallen. 9. I'm not sure where my opponent stands on this issue. Second round he decides that progressives and secularists are not the same thing, which defeats the point of his resolution. Third round he states, "They belong in the same group not apart." So I suppose I will just disregard his statements from second round. Either way I have nothing to argue. 10. My opponents point here is that our country is going to hell in a hand basket. He offers no analysis of this point and simply backs it up by stating, "Opinions mean everything in a debate, what do you think we are debating over genius?" Thus I have nothing else to say on this point. 11. Haha, this is actually funny, something I didn't realize on my first reading of this debate. My opponent urges not once but twice that I should not cross a history major. Yet both times he does not actually bring up a single historical fact to counter my argument. This is quite simply because there aren't any examples of purely secular nations that have fallen because of their secularness. Whereas there are examples many examples of christians killing many people throughout history. The crusades fits in nicely with this topic. My opponent also states that, "We have been threw turmoil that would have split other Empires in two and yet here we stand today." Yet there is literally no proof for this statement what-so-ever. Also the best example of our country staying together in times of turmoil would be the civil war. Which is war going directly against my opponent summary of christian morals being, "Love your Neighbor as your self". Thus I point out points that my opponent has conceded me. Paragraph 1, points: 3, 4, 5, and 6. Paragraph 2, points: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Paragraph 3: The entire thing. Paragraph 4 points: 2, and 3. Paragraph 5 points: 1, 3, and 4. Paragraph 7: The entire thing. Thus my opponent has conceded that the largest problems facing America today are biproducts of christian ideas, not the least of which include the war in Iraq. But this is entirely irrelevant in contrast with my opponent (important!) FAILURE TO SHOW HOW THE SECULAR PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT WILL DESTROY THIS COUNTRY. I questioned this throughout his original 9 paragraph and he never answered. So even if my voters feel that homosexuality, abortion, and atheism are all horrible there is no link between them and destruction of this country. Thanks.