In Favor of The End of Faith.

No problem Zero, nonetheless, I am not here to befriend you, rather, I am here to criticize your nonsensical opening statement. :X Despite my opponent's delusional rhetoric, I ask you to not vote PRO, this is because I HAVE NOT neglected my opponent's position. If you have read my round one, you should probably already know this. My opponent clearly misinterprets my advocacy, through this misinterpretation, he poorly attempts to dismiss my arguments as "non responsive", through this he clearly drops the most important components of my rebuttal. My opponent states that the purpose of him posting the video link is because the argument is too long tobe contained on the website. This is clearly unfair, and partly the reason for as to why I accepted this debate in the first place. My opponent fails to understand that this is UNFAIR to me. He admits that the argument is too long to put it on this debate site, this means that I would have to make a legitimate response to an hour and a half long speech within an 8 thousand character limit. Do not accept the video as a legitimate means to vote PRO. Debate.org establishes a set of rules to make the site fair, one of these rules is that your opponent cannot make arguments that are longer than 8 thousand characters, my opponent is clearly violating this rule whenever he submits a video of a guy that makes an hour and a half speech. Unless that person in the video speaks at like five words a minute, we cannot accept this video as an argument. Since I cannot make a proper rebuttal to some hour and a half video when I only have a 8 thousand character limit, you ought to dismiss the video in its entirety. _______________________ My opponent does not know what his own resolution states, the resolution actually states, "IN FAVOR OF THE END OF FAITH" DO not allow my opponent to change the resolution, the topic is clearly indicated at the top of this debate round. This is quite embarrassingly, self-explanatory. He says the he purposefully AVOIDED using the word "FAITH". This is completely nonsensical to the extent that his exact wording uses the term, "faith". Therefore, my argument DO ADDRESS the resolution, my opponent is either pretending to be delusional, or he forgot the resolution that he actually rote himself, either way, his argument is moot in light of the fact that the resolution (topic) is indicated at the top of this page. _______________________ His "degrees of faith" argument, is irrational and, more importantly, it has no relation to what I am advocating. My opponent thinks that I am attacking the theory of gravity, I AM NOT attacking the legitimacy of the theory. Allow me to explain: Isaac Newton saw that an apple fell from a tree, he observed that maybe the apple fell from the tree because it has some relationship with the earth, thus he constructed an hypothesis, he tested his hypothesis, creating a theory of gravity, etc. The only reason why he tested his hypothesis is because he BELIEVED that he was correct, he had FAITH in his hypotheses, without this faith there wouldn't be a theory. My point here is that faith is a necessary component to any scientific evaluation, it is illogical to assume that a scientist would test a hypothesis that he did not have faith in, unless he was paid to do so, and EVEN if he were paid to do so, it was because SOMEONE has faith in the idea. Faith is a necessary constructing, and it ought not be dismissed as unnecessary or illegitimate. Thus I negate. _______________________ Let it also be noted that whether or not putting an end to faith is forcefully or not, it is an irresponsible maneuver on my opponent's behalf. Thank you for allowing me to discuss this issue, - Protagoras of Abdera