Walk into any hospital in a non-Christian country and you'll find a cross on the wall, a nun in the ward, and a charity ward named after a first century carpenter. Nobody erects statues to Marcus Aurelius. Every time anyone writes a date, they split history at Jesus. That's not a coincidence, that's dominance. My opponent will say influence proves nothing about truth, and fine, that's a fair point. But the burden here isn't proving Jesus was God. It's whether this man and his words are worth talking about above every other voice in history. The evidence is overwhelming. Your move.

Picture a prison cell in 1956. A man who's lost everything reads "whatever you did for the least of these, you did for me," and it turns him around cold. Under my opponent's rule, that's inadmissible talk. Really? Their definition only bites if Jesus talk is a bare appeal to authority. Mostly it isn't. It's reasoning about how to treat people, sourced from a first century teacher. Strip it out and you lose abolition, desegregation, half our moral vocabulary. And calling it unverifiable is rich, since the skeptic's own moral standards aren't verifiable either. Their rule doesn't purify debate. It just silences one side.

Here's the practical consequence of the other side's rule: the words that broke slavery and segregation get thrown out as inadmissible. That's not purification, that's amputation. My opponent's Riyadh example just shows other faiths have influence, fine. But Jesus talk uniquely armed the powerless against the powerful. The cross on the ward wall was sometimes nailed there by empire, sure. Yet the same sermons were quoted by abolitionists and marchers against that empire. So influence isn't proof of divinity, I'll grant that. It is proof this voice is worth talking about above the others. Their filter silences exactly that.