Atheism is more probable then Theism

I have no idea what the Higgs Boson is. I have never heard of it. Why Pro did not defendit from the beginning is a mystery to me. I DID. Remeber vitural particles? And even if the “Higgs Boson” refutes the KCA, a debater does not get any credit for simplymentioning an argument that refutes his opponent. He must actually argue it, so that his opponent has a chance to respond to it. Would it be fair if I said “There are tons of books which refute atheism. Done. I win. ”? No. The Higgs Boson doesn't need a past cause. It then rebuts the KCA. There is no need to go past that. Of course not. I have to actually present the arguments in the books which I believe refute atheism, not merely mention them. So Pro’s point means nothing. I don't 'mention' agruments. The HB is evidence. Even if the Higgs Boson refuted the KCA, what does that matter to this debate? I did not defend the KCA. I defended the MCA. Pro is off point. You still didn't make any agruments for god. And Pro once again violated the rules laid out in round one and brought up a fresh argument when he is only supposed to form rebuttals. You may have misunderstood but whatever. I refuted the problem of evil with my arguments. Pro offered half-hearted responses to me that did not even begin to address what I said. My arguments still stand. You did not. Your 'rebuttals' skirted the question and then made red herrings. Pro says I gave him confusing riddles with no value. I’m sorry if he felt confused. Debates like this can become pretty intricate. If Pro gets confused by these kinds of arguments, then maybe he should choose different debate topics, or narrow his challenge from an “open challenge” to one that must be met by someone matching his age, for example, in which case less intricate arguments might be putforth. lol? Is that a personal atack I see? I was confused because you made a wall of text and did not organize it. It made me read though pointless babble But I certainly did not present any riddles. If Pro believes I presented riddles, then he should have given examples. It was a figure of speech. You made claims, but not proof. In response to charges of plagiarism, Pro responded with “lol”. Then I explained how Pro violated the rules for debate rounds laid out in round one. Now Pro simply says, without defense, that he did not cheat. I explained how he did. Conduct to me. Do I have to prove my innocent? Bring proof, I know that can be hard, but if you dont, I am innocent. We’re all busy with life. That’s not an excuse to neglect to argue one’s beliefs. If Pro feels that he was too busy to debate, then he should not be instigating or accepting debates. This taken longer then I had thought but I am not neglecting anything. Red Herring. I did not give any sloppy rounds in this debate. My postings were very well-organizedNo they did not. you gave me a wall of text and did not organize that. , and were divided into sections of introduction, arguments, conduct, grammar, and a conclusion. I numbered the arguments so as to disambiguate between separate points and to give an analytical breakdown of what arguments and sub-arguments were being dealt with at a particular point. You had often 'run-on' your agruments. Posting walls of text and expecting me to read it is dumb. Add spaces. I do this not only because it makes it easier on me, but it also makes it easier on my opponent as well as those who read and/or vote on the debate. It doesn't. I always ensure that my debate postings are clear, consistent, and highly readable. Again, no. If anyone gave any sloppy rounds, it was Pro. His postings for round one and two were pretty organized, but round three was not so organized but instead consisted of random comments to my points. And round four was just a paragraph of multiple points that did not address my previous post. My agrumenst were clear and did not have worthless babble. Pro says that my “sloppy rounds” lead to confusion on both sides. Well, Pro should notspeak for me; I’m not confused, but I’m sorry if he is. AHHHHHH! THE INSULT IT BUURRRRNNNS. MilitaryAtheist, you said you would allow for a better rematch in the future if you want. I would love to debate you again sometime. If the debate resolution is the same as this, and if your opening statements are the same as the ones in this debate, then I will obviously give the same rebuttals. If you want the debate to be “better”, that will be entirely dependent on you. Same to you. However don't think this crashed because of me. Part of it was you. Conduct to me because Con had rude behavoir. Peace. Pro’s closing words sound like a concession. They are not.