which makes more sense ? islam(christianity)(judaism)(pro) vs atheism( con)

SUMMARYPro's performance in this debate was utterly disappointing as he refused to give evidence or actual citations, but instead presented new baseless assertions in every round. In this round, I'm going to simply summarize what went on in this debate from arguments and sources.Dropped arguments1- Abraham was the first to discover moonlight.2- Torah mentions the Big Bang.3- Islam appeared on Earth at the times of Adam.4- 1000 verse in the Qur'an about science.5- Sun's orbit miracle-claim.6- Moon has reflected light miracle-claim.And many others...ArgumentsAccording to the BoP, Pro should provide good evidence for Islam to show that it is "more sensible" to follow. This was according to the definition of "makes more sense" which I provided after Pro failed to define such vague term in his opening statement. Throughout this debate, Pro did not show that Islam is "more sensible" or "sensible" (to begin with) as he failed to refute many discrepancies within the Islamic faith.1- From a Muslim perspective, God failed three times to convince his inferior creatures, humans, to follow him and had to use Moses, Jesus and Mohammad to finally get it right. Pro simply did not understand this point and said that God succeeded with Jesus and Moses. Why then need a third installment called Islam?2- In Mohammad's prophecy, Pro offers a apologetic that it took God 23 years to reveal the Qur'an to teach us patience, when I explained that this raises suspicions on Mohammad's prophecy and when it is clear that drawing suspicion on his prophet's message is something an omniscient God would avoid doing, especially that there are less risky measures to teach that.3- The Surah about Abu Lahab is both out-of-place and superfluous in the Qur'an. Pro explains that Abu Lahab and his wife were Mohammad's enemies, but never explains why Allah had to include his Prophet's personal rants and insults in a book meant to be meaningful and universal.Summary: Pro failed to prove why and how Islam is "more sensible. He did not even establish that Islam is "sensible" to begin with.SourcesPro argued, "the videos are a good reliable source because it's a Dr.zakir video and a ahmed deedat video, these are the only two who i watch when it's about islam."Rebuttal: Youtube videos of two Islamic miracle-seekers are not "reliable sources." Reliable sources are "Edu" websites and academic papers like the ones I offered.It is also important to note that Pro accused me of using non-trusted, ghost citations but failed to provide any shred of evidence. His assertions are built on his ignorance of why I quoted half of the verse(I did that as the second part of creating living things from water has nothing to do with the Big Bang).Shifting the burden of proofPro continued his arguments in the comment-box, and tried to shift the burden of proof in his final words.Pro claims, "So in order Con to win this round i want him to tell how did the big bang come out from no were and how did we get eyes( not simply evolution but i want you to explain to me how ?)"Rebuttal: This is the fallacy of a loaded question, as it assumes atheists claim knowledge of the origin of the Big Bang, and a desperate attempt to shift the burden of proof. As an agnostic atheist, it is warranted in my position to simply say what most atheist scientists say: "I don't know what came before the Big Bang, and I won't take theistic claims of a magical sky-dady as a brute fact whether on evolution or the Big Bang."---Conclusion: As I established above using deductive logic, it makes more sense to be an agnostic atheist as long as Pro's position was not supported with good evidence, and provided that agnosticism is the neutral position and atheism is the practical position one should take in his/her neutrality. Pro utterly failed in addressing his BoP or my arguments, and did his best to derail this debate into side discussions.I thank Pro for initiating this debate.It was at least interesting.