Atheism is more probable then Theism

INTRODUCTION There was no need for this debate to be five rounds. The actual debate ended after round three; Pro derailed the debate with his posting for round four. But as I have one more posting left, I might as well respond to his last remarks. ARGUMENTS “I DID. Remember virtual particles.” How am I supposed to know they are the same thing? Pro didn’t identify them with each other, he didn’t defend either of them but simply mentioned them, and he only brought Them up later in the debate. “No. The Higgs Boson doesn't need a past cause. It then rebuts the KCA. There is no need to go past that.” This posting did not address my point, which was that a debater must argue a point, not simply mention it. There is a need to go past merely mentioning an argument That you think supports your case "I don't 'mention' agruments. The HB Is evidence.” Pro’s assertion that the HB is evidence does not change the fact that he merely mentioned it instead of arguing. He has to argue the evidence, not mention it. "You still didn't make any agruments [sic] for god.” Yes I did. If you don’t understand the argument, then say that don’t understand it, but don’t pretend that I did not present an argument for God. And remember, my task in this debate was not necessarily to argue for God, but to show that atheism is not more probable than theism "You may have misunderstood but whatever.” When a debater says something such as “You misunderstood me” or “You were arguing against a straw man version of my argument” or “That wasn’t what I was saying”, he has an obligation to tell his opponent what it was he actually was saying. Pro did not explain how I may have misunderstood. I explained how Pro violated the debate rules laid out in round one. Pro simply asserted that he did not, but he did not explain himself. “You did not. Your 'rebuttals' skirted the question and then made red herrings.” Pro needs to stop making baseless assertions. If he feels that my argument skirted around the question (what question? by the way) and that I made red herrings, then he should back it up by providing examples and addressing my arguments. “lol? Is that a personal atack [sic] I see? I was confused because you made a wall of text and did not organize it. It made me read though pointless babble No, it wasn’t a personal attack, but I’m sorry if you felt attacked. And I did not make a wall of text. Please do not lie about what I did or did not do. I organized my postings ver well. What you posted for round four was a wall of text. Don’t accuse me of doing something that I did not do while you yourselfdid do it. “It was a figure of speech. You made claims, but not proof.” I’ve never heard the term “riddle” used as a figure of speech for unsupported claims before, so Pro seem to be making up his own rules here. I did not merely make claims. I argued my points. Again, please refrain from accusing me of something that I did not do but that you yourself did. “Do I have to prove my innocent [sic]? Bring proof, I know that can be hard, but if you dont [sic] , I am innocent.” This Statement sound incoherent, but Pro seems to be saying that he is innocent until proven guilty. But I proved him guilty of violating debate rules. He did not address my argument, so it still stands. “This taken [sic] longer then I had Thought but I am not neglecting anything. Red Herring.” In his posting for round four, Pro typed one very short paragraph —He entered it when he had about two hours left in his 72 hour time limit—, and yet he expects us to believe that he did not have enough time to argue. Give me a break. "No they did not. you [sic] gave me a wall of text and did not organize that.” Again, this Is simply false. Stop lying. “You had often 'run-on' your arguments [sic]. Posting walls of text and expecting me to read it is dumb. Add spaces.” If you feel that I had runs in my argument, then you should back this up with examples, instead of simply asserting it. Again, I did not post a wall of text. This is the fourth time you have stated this lie. And even if I had posted a wall of text, Pro still could have responded to it. It does not change any of arguments. “It doesn't.” Pro’s words “It doesn’t” were in response to my claim that breaking a post down into an organized format is more helpful for the debaters and those who read/vote on the debate. Why he thinks this is not helpful is a mystery to me. “Again, no."Pro’s words here were a response to my claim that I ensure an organized format to my debate postings. Pro just asserts this without arguing it. I’ll let my debate postings speak for themselves. “My agrumenst [sic] were clear and did not have worthless babble.” Why does Pro keep spelling the word “argument” wrong? Pro again asserts something without giving examples. I’ll let his postings speak for themselves. “AHHHHHH! THE INSULT IT BUURRRRNNNS.” How was that an insult? All I’m saying is do not speak for other people. “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. [sic] Pro says that part of the reason why this debate crashed was because of my rude behavior. Once again he did not give any examples of this, but if he feels I was rude, then I’m sorry. That was not my intention. And even if was rude, that hardly had anything to do with the crashing of the debate. Pro caused the entire crash himself in round four when he posted his irrelevant self-called “rant”. He should have just addressed my arguments and continued the debate to round five. “They are not.” Pro’s words here are in response to me saying that his closing words sound like a concession. Well okay, I never said they were a concession, I said they sounded like a concession, and indeed they do. CONDUCT As I pointed out before, Pro plagiarized his post for round one, and then laughed it off when I accused him of it. He also brought up new arguments in later rounds, which breaks the rules laid out in round one. When I brought this up, he, without argument, simply denied it. GRAMMAR/SPELLING Pro had numerous grammatical and spelling errors throughout the entire debate. Anyone who reads the debate can clearly see them. ORGANIZATION Pro’s postings for round four was an irrelevant wall of text which derailed the debate. CONCLUSION Pro seemed frustrated that I presented him with arguments that he could not counter. He should have just said “I concede.” Instead, he looked for any excuse he could find to avoid addressing my arguments. His main excuse was that my postings were sloppy. He did not support this contention with any examples. Voters can read my postings and decide for themselves if they were sloppy or not. Vote Con. Advice to MilitaryAtheist If you’re not serious about debating God, then please don’t start debates about God.