Agnostics are just atheists without balls.

I think you might have a general misunderstanding of what agnosticism is- this will turn out to be rather ironic later on in this debate when I make some of my last points. Firstly, I feel the need to clarify my position regarding Muslims. Your original argument was that all agnostics are really atheists without balls, they have reason to be afraid of becoming atheists because atheists are persecuted more than agnostics. This argument is flawed. This argument essentially calls every single agnostic an atheist who is afraid of the persecution that you may receive from being an atheist. This same argument can be applied to other belief systems that might be rather disliked, for example, Muslims. You could make the argument, using the same logic, that all people who are non christian are Muslims. After all, maybe they all simply are afraid of becoming Muslim.... You seem to have a misunderstanding of exactly what atheists are, and what agnostics are. Atheism is the doctrine or belief that there is no God. (http://dictionary.reference.com...) An agnostic is a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) So, most atheists are people who make an absolute claim that god does not exist. Most agnostics are those who would claim that we can not know whether or not god exists, some lean theistic, some, like me, lean atheistic. Most Theists believe that a God or Gods exist. The difference between an Atheist and an Agnostic is the claim to knowledge. Atheists claim knowledge, and agnostics do not. I see no difference in the discrimination of Atheists and Agnostics, and I doubt your statistic is correct in regards to exactly how much more they are discriminated against than agnostics. For some of my last arguments I would like to quote my opponent himself, saying that 'we're all agnostics.'- thus, unless he would also like to make the claim that nobody 'has balls' then I clearly win. He essentially claims that all people who hold logic to be important are agnostic, contradicting himself in the process. Agnostics are not people 'without balls', but people with logic. They understand that it is impossible to prove that God exists, so they refuse to believe in god- they they also feel that is impossible to prove that God does not exist, so they can not make the claim that "God does not exist" without proof of that claim. My opponent, in fact, seems like a rather logical person, saying himself that "no one is 100% sure". Perhaps from his own experience he is not 100% sure either way, making him an agnostic- but those who do actually make claim to knowledge, atheists, theists, and the like do in fact claim that they are SURE God exists or that they are SURE God does not exist. Things are far more complicated than people not wanting to be discriminated against, you're simplifying a large spectrum of belief and non belief. I personally am not afraid of discrimination, and do not hold claim to knowledge of whether or not God exists. Since you made the broad claim that [All] Agnostics are just atheists without balls and I am not an Atheist (I hold no claim to knowedge) then I prove you wrong myself, by existing and beleiving what I do.