Atheism

My opponent has chosen to change the tide of his argument to make unfounded accusations about my responses and to introduce his own definition of the resolution. As this is already round 4, I need not state that these new definitions are unacceptable, and I contest his definition below. In addition, my opponent says that I will not debate on his points. First, allow me to state that as he is the instigator and I the contender, the burden of proof rests on *him* to prove that atheism is directly linked to all atrocities that occurred in the last century. Now, I point the audience to my opponent's sudden statement of his strange definition of "atrocity" in which he states that in order for something to be an atrocity, it must involve the targeting of racial groups and violation of human rights. Please see these two entries for the definitions of atrocity and atrocious from Merriam Webster: atrocï¿½iï¿½ty 1 : the quality or state of being atrocious 2 : an atrocious act, object, or situation atroï¿½cious 1: extremely wicked, brutal, or cruel : barbaric 2: appalling, horrifying 3 a: utterly revolting : abominable b: of very poor quality Please note that in both of these entries, reference was made to warfare, not specifically violations of human rights, targeting of racial groups, etc. This is my opponent's deliberate attempt to distort the definition of a word in order to favor his own argument. WWI by these definitions, most definitely counts as an atrocity, and by my opponent's own admission, is but a war between nations for power. No Atheism involved. As such, I believe I have made the necessary point in proving my opponent wrong. Unless my opponent wants to change the definition of "atrocity", then the resolution is negated. My opponent also states that I do not believe that esoteric cults influenced nazi ideology. This is wrong and my opponent is twisting my words. I admit that these esoteric cults influenced nazi ideology, but I also argue that my opponent is making a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. The fact that Nazism has some atheistic components and some other components does not mean that all actions from nazi ideology stem from the atheistic ideas. Thus, my opponent's argument fails at the very start. In addition, my opponent is trying to mislead the audience by creating a false connection. Please take note of his manipulative and deceptive language. My opponent's entire argument is a giant fallacy known as "the association fallacy" which is a long chain of non sequitors, so on top of failing at the very top of the chain, it also fails along the chain as well. 1. Atheism is the belief that God does not exist 2. Social Darwinism stems from Atheism 3. Hitler used social darwinism to commit atrocities 4. Therefore, Atheism is responsible for atrocities. If my opponent sells me a gun, and I sell the gun to my brother, and my brother sells it to his friend, and my brother's friend decides to shoot this entire audience dead, does this mean that my opponent should then be jailed for mass murder? Unless my opponent can provide an argument that *DIRECTLY* relates atheism to the atrocity of Hitler, without all the garbage in between such as connection one ideology to another ideology to another ideology, his case makes no logical sense whatsoever. We are not playing "Six degrees of separation" and Hitler is not Kevin Bacon. The chain of responsibility that my opponent is suggesting is, at best, completely absurd. Social Darwinism is one of many interpretations of Atheist concepts and does not naturally progress from Atheism. Any ideology that requires additional premises other than what directly follows from the parent ideology is simple a branch, not a natural outgrowth. There are atheistic concepts that are not in favor of social darwinism, therefore, my opponent is wrong on that count. Next, social darwinism is one thing. The deprivation of rights is another. Hitler had flawed notions about what made a human dominant and the elements by which natural selection took place. This flaw in his thinking negates the responsibility of Atheism. My opponent is wrong on this count as well. So, when my opponent's argument is logically fallacious in several locations, top to bottom, how can we still judge his proposition as valid? It is plain to see that my opponent is simply biased and at a lack of information, and must resort to semantics and distortion of logic and fact in order to manipulate an argument. It is more reasonable to say that the atrocities that Hitler committed are not due to Atheism, but to his psychotic nature and distorted ideologies. Just to recap: 1. My opponent is the instigator and I am the contender. The burden of proof rests on him to connect Atheism with all the atrocities. If he wishes to discuss them, then he should not wait for me to address them. If he does not address them, he has not fulfilled his burden and his argument fails. 2. My opponent cannot adequately rule out WWI as a great atrocity of the 20th century. Unless he can show how Atheism is responsible for it, his argument fails. 3. I have debunked my opponent's argument claiming that Atheism was responsible for Hitler's atrocities against mankind on the basis that it is logically fallacious in several areas. Unless my opponent can counter this, his argument fails. I urge the audience to see through my opponent's carefully crafted and deliberately deceptive arguments. I look forward to my opponent's response. Thank you.