Christianity has no valid basis to exist.

I have already shown the audience the proper time to accuse someone of making a straw man fallacy by sharing an example in the previous round. My opponent continues to accuse me of such things not because I commit them, but because he is unable to comprehend my arguments. I have not committed any straw man fallacies. My opponent argues that I am creating my own version of Christianity because I do not admit whether the miracles are true or not. My opponent also accuses me of having an atheist position. Both charges are incorrect. I have not nor will ever create my own version of Christianity. Christians believe through faith that the miracles presented in the Bible are true. My opponent argues that if the miracles are not true, then Christianity has no valid basis to exist. This is an impossible position because there is no way of ever proving if these miracles are true or not.That is why everything my opponent argues is invalid and, at best, horribly poor standards for judging the basis of something to exist or not. My opponent continues to fail at upholding his BOP whereas I have upheld mine fully. Because my opponent is unable to comprehend this, he insists that I am committing straw man fallacies.It is my only hope that the audience can see past his weak attempts to derail this debate. I also wish to stress the importance of making accusations only when they are valid. This is the fourth time now that my opponent has accused me of something I haven't done. I have proven my position several times now, and truly believe that I have committed no such fallacies. I will ask my opponent for a fourth time, to please stop harassing me with such baseless accusations and focus on the resolution at hand as I have been trying to do. Furthermore, I have shared biblical verses to strengthen my claims in previous rounds and have also presented the ten commandments as another reason why Christianity has a valid basis to exist. To say that my arguments are atheistic is absurd and incorrect. Rebuttals I."In doing so he has to make statements that Christianity exists because "because humans exist and practice Christianity in their daily lives", without realizing that this practice includes the recognizing the fact of the miracles: otherwise, there would literally be no point in the religion in the first place." Of course I realize that the practice of Christianity includes the recognition of miracles as fact! Once again, my opponent is making incorrect assumptions about my position without evidence to support his claims. Furthermore, even IF the miracles weren't true, that doesn't mean that no-one would hold the Bible sacred or not want to still practice Christianity. My opponent continues to make assumptions that are impossible to prove! II. "He admits this by confirming my original assement of his position that he doesn't recognize that Christianity is a religion! Hence he feels that he was won the debate because, as he says:..." Please provide the exact quote of me saying that Christianity is not a religion. If you cannot do that, then this point is defeated and you are caught once again lying to the audience about my position. Anyone with half a brain can recognize that Christianity is a religion. In fact, it is one of the largest religions in the world! [1] Furthermore, the point I was trying to make when sharing the resolution in the previous round was that my opponent was attempting to debate on whether Christianity has no valid basis to exist as a religion, but that isn't what the debate is about. I was showing what the resolution was because my opponent was attempting to change it. I was not sharing my beliefs on religions. Until my opponent shows the exact quote where I said Christianity is not a religion, this point is defeated.[1] http://www.adherents.com...III. "In doing so, he has admitted that his perception of Christianity is not a religion! One only needs to quickly refer to a dictionary to see:..."I have not admitted that my perception of Christianity is that it is not a religion! Please provide the exact quote of me saying such things in my previous rounds or else stop, once and for all, with these horribly incorrect assumptions and allegations about my position! Prove it or this point is also defeated. **I am done with this nonsense and ask the judges to please reduce his conduct points if he cannot provide proof of me saying such things!** I've had it with these baseless accusations my opponent makes, especially when absolutely none of them are accurate. These methods of derailment are unacceptable in a debate. IV. "At this point, there is no reason to pursue this any further since my good opponent has admited to the mistake I originally pointed out: that the 'Christianity' he is arguing for is not only not a religion, but doesn't even exist in the real word. He is merely playing semantic games, which is not the purpose of this debate."I never admitted such things... Until my opponent can prove it, this point is defeated. I have shown that Christianity has a valid basis to exist several times throughout the debate. My opponent is now committing a straw man fallacy himself.My opponent presents an invalid claim based on something I never said, and then twists the argument into his favor. If you will take a moment to look at the example of a straw man fallacy I shared in the previous round, and then scroll back down to this, you will see my opponent has committed such an act. There is no semantics game going on here. Furthermore, my opponent fails to show the audience how this could possibly be a semantics game. The purpose of this debate was to debate the resolution: Christianity has no valid basis to exist. I am on the Con position meaning that I must show that Christianity DOES have a valid basis to exist. I have done this in previous rounds. My opponent was Pro, meaning that he had to show why Christianity has no valid basis to exist. My opponent attempted to do this by saying that because the miracles are not true -> that Christianity has no valid basis to exist. I have shown why that is a poor and invalid position to take and that it is impossible to prove. Therefore, his position was defeated. Furthermore, I have provided the audience with what the valid basis is in all three previous rounds. My opponent has failed to rebut or defeat my position, and is now reverting to baseless claims and lying about what I have said throughout this debate. Until my opponent can prove that I said such things, everything he has said regarding those lies are defeated and a reflection of his poor conduct. V. "I accept my opponents graceful concession on the debate and trust that when we meet again, it will be to discuss things with more clarity."I am not conceding. Repeat - not conceding. I have never said I was conceding nor am I doing so now. Once again, my opponent is creating a point based on absolutely nothing that I've said. My opponent is overstepping his boundaries by assuming I am conceding. Another assumption that is horribly mistaken. Furthermore, I have been perfectly clear throughout this entire debate when presenting my arguments and rebuttals. Conclusion I wish to extend all arguments and rebuttals which remain unchallenged by my opponent, as once again, several remained unanswered by my opponent. I also wish to note how many times my opponent made incorrect assumptions throughout this round and expect my opponent to show the exact quotes where I said Christianity is not a religion, because I never said such things. The bottom line is that I have completely upheld my BOP, in good taste with proper logic. I have committed no fallacies of any sort, and have not nor plan on conceding anything until this debate is properly finished at the end of Round 5.Thank you.