Judaism Is The Best Religion

My opponent starts off by basically saying that nobel prize winners are the only ones who have made an impact, but this is not true. Just because there are more jews who have been recognized for impacting the world with a nobel prize, doesn"t mean there are more jews that have impacted the world. What about the people who have changed the world before the nobel prizes have even been invented? For example Johannes Kepler. Not only that, but the nobel prizes only encompass certain fields, and doesn"t include fields such as philosophy. Therefore my opponent can not say Jews have impacted the world positively more than any other religion, based on Nobel prizes especially when the judges have a subjective vote on who impacted more. Also my opponent pretends like he had brought up the positive impacts jews have made when in reality all he said was "20% of nobel prize winners are Jewish.", while talking about how Jews are on average smarter. Nothing about positive impact was mentioned. I did not concede that Jews won the intelligence part, since the original purpose of the Iq test was "The first standardized attempt to measure the human"s mental capacity was courtesy of Alfred Binet and Theodore Simon, who formulated a test to measure verbal ability. Binet and Simon only wanted to use the test to find those children who suffered from mental retardation." And, "Once an average person reaches the age of 15 or so, the IQ test is no longer important, since the mental age has reached maturity.", so these test are not accurate at all to claim that since Jews score a higher Iq, they are smarter due to the information I provided, and since it only test for certain knowledge. Even if it does cover those areas, the questions that are asked contain some things that people do not know. Later my opponent goes on to say that I didn"t refute his genocide argument, but neglects the point that I was making. My point was that just because every member of a religion does something, that does not mean that what they did is part of the fundamentals of a religion. And your problem with not including genocides where it was the members that committed them, is because that"s human input which may be different from what the religion fundamentally proposes. So what I"m saying is that even if it was all the leaders and members in agreement, that doesn"t mean that what they did wasn"t human input. Therefore it has been refuted. Now, my opponent then actually helps my point even more by saying that Jews don"t think that people who are born without sin aren"t perfect because that makes no sense. If someone is born without sin, then they are born with nothing wrong, therefore they are perfect. He says that "for the first month of life a baby is pure, free of sin", and my point is that if someone is free of sin, then they have nothing wrong, therefore they are born perfect. But pro says that no they aren"t born perfect, even though they have nothing wrong with them. And the reason this makes no sense is because if someone is flawless, then they have no flaw, therefore they are perfect, but my opponent says someone can have no flaw, and not be perfect. Even though someone not being perfect, is a flaw, therefore that person is not perfect. And to even add more to the nonsense, Jews believe they know the age when someone can learn of sin. I would like my opponent any reason or evidence that says someone can not learn what sin is before and at the age of 1 month. So my point basically is, a baby is born perfect if he/she is born without sin, because sin is any flaw, but my opponent says a baby is born pure, which means without flaw, therefore someone without flaw, can not have the flaw of the ability to sin. Source- http://listverse.com...