Problem of philosophy: Appearance or reality?

If you are under 21 don't bother.

My argument is that all forms of non-Christian thinking can't account for truth since they can't account for reality without reducing themselves to irrationality.

1. rebuttal/arguments
2. cross examination
3. closing/arguments

The con argument in this debate is focused around the fact that that in order to prove the resolution correct, the pro must first prove all non-Christians inherently illogical. This will be his burden of proof throughout the round.

Contention 1: The Pro must first prove Christianity correct.
To quote the Pro in this round: "they can't account for reality without reducing themselves to irrationality.". According to this quote, the main and only reason the con is proven false in this round is that they do not believe in the Christian explanation of the beginning of the universe. Because of this, the burden of proof in the round lies on the Pro to prove the Christian explanation correct in order to prove all other explanations wrong. If the Pro cannot properly prove this correct in his round 3 (as it shows in his guide of how the round will proceed), then there is no way they can win the debate.

Contention 2: There is no logical way to prove Christianity correct.
Christianity as a whole cannot be proven right or wrong because it all lies on the amount of faith in the individual person. That is why no headway has been made in the actual debate between athiests and Christians, and the only way for this to be proven one or another would be if a Christian soul who went to heaven wuold come back and confirm that there was in fact an afterlife. Unless this rediculous and only source of empirical evidence should happen, then the earthly debate will always be based on the amount of faith. Because it is based upon faith and not logic, the Pro cannot prove Christianity correct and as such cannot provide the burden of proof he is required to provide in the round.

Con broke the rules and also doesn't know what the debate is about.

Since my opponent did not adhere to the cross examination format, I'll just move on like normal.
Two things:
1.) Age does not matter in a debate unless you're debating a twelve year old or another case where a brain is underdeveloped rationally.I a case where I have 100% win ratio (for now) and have a logical process capable of posting the rebuttal in round 1, the only reason to not accept me as an opponent would pure, illogical bias.
2.) "My argument is that all forms of non-Christian thinking can't account for truth since they can't account for reality without reducing themselves to irrationality." Clearly your position on this matter is that non-Christian philosophy cannot be true due to the fact that the foundation of these philosophies is flawed because the reason they provided for reality existing is apparently false. Because my duty as con is to negate the resolution, and your duty as pro is to prove the resolution correct, I negated your proof thus proving the resolution false.

So yes, I know what it's about :)

Con broke the rules and also doesn't know what the debate is about

All right, let's just cut to the chase. I made points, my opponent didn't refute them. Unfortunately this is common when he knows he's lost, and which is why he still has a 0% win record, regardless of the fact that he can actually debate well (http://www.debate.org...), even though it's mostly about religious fanatical terms. I know this makes me lose the conduct vote, but I probably already lost that for overlooking the 21 and under thing, even though that was pure bias in the first place.

But yeah, I accept that I lost the conduct vote (unless the fact that he didn't argue makes you want to vote for me, in which case go for it), but everything else I win due to totally dropped arguments across the board. The only thing he even tries to say is that I don't understand the resolution, even when I explain what exactly the resolution is about and he doesn't actually say why, which results in that attack being both groundsless and false.