Babies are atheist

Thanks Pro. Firstly, it's noted that this round is not reserved for *new* arguments; rather as Pro as done in his last round, I will merely build on my main argument. I'd also remind voters that Pro did not explicitly outline that no new arguments were to be introduced in round four; though I accept that they can't. It would benefit Pro to give a clearer debate premise in the future, however. If new arguments are not to be given in round four, he should state that in round one--it just makes for a more organized debate. Rebuttals: Before proceeding to the rest of rebuttals, I will highlight that this round was reserved specifically to refute Pros argument as I was not able to post my main case in round due to DDO being shut down in what was pretty much all late afternoon my time. So, Pros argument and his rebuttals to my argument will now be responded to: Pro begins my noting that my response 'simply isn't sufficient' without really elaborating on why it isn't, instead he's just stated that I've tried to argue under his own definition 'that I [he] must lose', but anyone who has read or will read this debate can see that this is not the case. Rather I've just pointed out the basic flaws within Pros argument. Which are: that babies do not have any existing knowledge of God, and are therefore not atheists. Simply put, they are neither atheists or believers. And once again, even if we're take Pros definition of 'atheist' into account, babies still do not classify as one. Most significantly, one has to keep in mind what the 'lack of belief' is in--God. To have a 'lack of belief' in God, you still have to have an idea and awareness of what God is. Otherwise that 'lack of belief' doesn't apply to atheism or God and can pretty much mean anything. But I will reiterate again, Pro is specifically arguing about 'lack of belief' towards God. And to have a 'lack of belief' towards God, it's required that you actually know what God is. Babies do not have any perception of God, and are therefore not atheists. To give another example, one can't simply say 'I have a lack belief in the devil', without actually having *some* idea of what the devil stands for. Pro in fact argues himself that 'babies are completely ignorant in God', it is because of this that they are neither atheists or theists. To have 'zero belief' in something [in the example, God] you at least have to be know what it is that you have 'zero belief' in. The most significant aspect to atheists is that it is exclusively about having no belief [or even lack of belief] in God; the key thing being that you're aware of what it is that you're disbelieving in. As I explained in my opening argument, babies do not have the intellectual maturity or ability to decipher what God is and what atheism is. As I also explained, even if we are to go by Pros definition of 'lack of belief', they still have to have some knowledge of what that lack of belief is about. You can't decide that you 'lack belief' in a thing/being that you know absolutely nothing about. Regarding Pros rebuttals to my argument about lack of belief, it is rather his case that does not make any sense, mainly due to his failure to affirm his position and convincingly show the connection between babies and atheism. BoPAs Pro, it was on him to *prove* that babies are atheists or at the very least, provide a strong argument showing them to be atheists. However, he has entirely failed to do this. Pros whole first argument is based on semantics and definitions only,as anyone who reads this debate will able to see. Instead of including supporting arguments for his case, he's relied exclusively on definition[s] of atheism and not made any real case in favour of his position. More is required from Pro, the affirmative in this debate, than to just copy and paste some dictionary definitions. Once more, he has to provide an actual argument and expand on his stance--which is that babies are atheists. He's had multiple chances in this debate to show exactly how this is so, but again: he has not. Definitions when presented alone do not prove anything--and it's the very minimum for Pro to give arguments in support of them. Exclusively using '=' terminology offers nothing in terms of affirming the resolution or showing yourself to have a more convincing stance. Anyone can say: Babies=lack of belief. Lack of belief=babies. Naturally however, it is only an assertion that means nothing and thus proves nothing. In round three, Pro asserts again asserts that 'babies are ignorant of God' and that 'thus babies have (0) belief in God' following with 'thus all or at least multiples babies are atheists'. Does this prove anything? No. Does it conclusively show that and how babies are atheists? No. They are mere assertions/statements and not arguments that are supporting with anything. This aspect of Pros argument has already been refuted, but I will address them againIt's acknowledged by both Pro and I that babies are 'ignorant of God'--which is the primary contradiction in Pros argument. Because babies are ignorant of God, they do thus not know what God is and or have any theological or theistic knowledge. If you were to converse with a baby about God, it would have completely no idea what you mean as it does not have that basic comprehension or ability to grasp certain and learn about certain things. Most importantly, it can neither disbelieve or believe in God, because it has 'zero' knowledge of God. Pro has entirely overlooked the fact [which I've previously argued] that you can only disbelieve or believe in something if you know what it is that this belief or lack of belief is being directed towards, otherwise one cannot decide whether they disbelieve or believe; or are simply neutral towards it. Regarding his second contention, Pro has [again! ] just made a broad assertion about 'all or at least multiple babies' being atheists. The first problem with this is that he has not proved or showed that 'all or at least multiple babies are atheists' and that the term 'multiple' could actually apply to any number that is made of more than one individual part. Even if Pro was to show that two babies are atheists; which he of course hasn't done, he wouldn't be affirming his resolution or proving anything due to the fact that he is arguing babies on a general basis. He would in fact only *prove* his position, if he explicitly put 'two babies' or perhaps if he was really going to go wild, 'three atheists'--otherwise his 'multiple' statement means absolutely nothing and he has NOT showed that babies in general are atheists. Therefore, the third contention stating that 'thus the resolution is affirmed' is wholly inaccurate by Pro. For the following reasons: 1. ] Failure to prove or show how babies are atheists. 2. ] Exclusive reliance on dictionary definition. 3. ] Exclusive use of semantics in argument. 4. ] Failure to prove that it is babies on a general basis that are atheists. -I could go even further and point out that Pro has failed to show how even one baby is an atheist. ==Conclusion== As Pro has not fulfilled his BoP or affirmed his resolution in showing that babies are atheists, I advise that all voters vote Con. Not only have I provided an argument without relying solely on definitions and semantics, I have refuted all of Pros points.