Alright, Well second round time. My opponent states that...
Faith is Universal
Alright, Well second round time. My opponent states that if I state that I have no faith, Than that is Oxymoronic. And I agree, IF that had been a cornerstone to my argument that would've been quite a weak argument. However, This is the one of two points my opponent has addressed. He did address his definition of faith. However, He said it is "nothing special, " or "literally a synonym of belief Confidence and trust. " By this, My opponent concedes that faith is no different from other traits or so called "Virtues. " By this, They concede the round. As faith is nothing special and on the same plane of reality. Let me just extend some of my un-attacked points, And show you why they should flow through as reasons I am victorious. My opponent has not identified why "Faith" is on a separate plane of existence separate from our own. The burden of proof still rests on them. And, In fact if they reside with this un-unique definition, It inadvertently shifts the definition debate over in my favor. My opponent neither addressed his universal claim saying "Faith is an immaterial reality that everyone has regardless of your worldview. " My opponent has framed an un winnable debate. I agree that all humans can feel hope, Faith and other of these abstract concepts, But to say it is in a completely separate and immaterial reality is how this debate is unable to be solved in my opponents favor. Once again, The burden of proof is on my opponents shoulders, If they cannot provide a consistent philosophical argument to it's deified and quintessential nature (As they have provided nothing but a solid, And materialistic view of Faith which is how I define it and will give me the victory if he concedes. ) then the round cannot be won by them. To simply recap, My opponent to win must Define faith as a morally consistent, Entity beyond our astral plane, Have his argument defined and properly address my points in refutation. So far, The debate is in my favor. And I win as my Historical argument of Faith has also gone unaddressed. Saying that faith is different morally depending on many materialistic and normal variables. My two previously mentioned points have gone unaddressed, And my opponents only argument thus far is if I theoretically used the statement that I do not have faith, I would be contradictory. So, I urge you all to vote against this resolution thank you for reading.