The religious need to prove God, not visa versa.

The opponent began his rebuttal by stating this: "It seems that my opponents primary argument last round was that I did not provide enough context for some of my assertions." This was not my primary argument at all. I clearly stated: "my opponent has shifted goalposts in this debate and is no longer arguing for his initial statement alone. My main contention is that he holds the burden of proof and has not provided any evidence for his claim thus far." I still hold to this.In regard to context, yes, my point was that such context can be implied but that in this circumstance, no context was implied. Review his initial statement for yourselves. It is clear to me that no such thing is implied. Even if the opponent did mean originally to argue his new point about what would be necessary for the concept of God to be taken seriously in the scientific community, he cannot simply expect to be understood without explicitly stating this. He mentioned nothing about science in Round 1 or in the title. What he instead says is that he "believes" the religious should have to try to prove God. There is no context outside of the debate, and if the opponent actually did mean to make a different statement, I should not be blamed for his fluke. He says his meaning was implied, but I see no indication of this in his actual words. He has provided no support for his assertion that the context was implied. There is no indication whatsoever in his opening statement or in the title that his actual argument was that "in order to be taken seriously, the religious need to prove or attempt to prove god." Therefore, I stand by my claim.Regardless of what his original intent was, the argument he first put forth is a very different one from the one he puts forth now.He says: "It doesn't take a genius to figure out that I meant that for the theory of a God to be taken seriously by the scientific community, the Religious NEED to attempt o successfully prove God. And I hold to this statement." This is an assertion that is not backed up. Nothing at all was mentioned about the scientific community in his opening statement or the title. This may even be seen as an ad hominem attack due to the implications about my intellect.The only implication my opponent has made so far is that I should know what's going on in his head. This does not seem valid to me. The opponent has not only misunderstood my argument, but he has also created a straw man. He claimed: "Even my opponent admitted:Those who invent concepts are obligated to prove or attempt to prove them.The religious came up with the concept of God.Therefore, the religious are obligated to prove or attempt to prove God."I did not admit this. My opponent took it entirely out of context, and therefore the meaning is completely different. I will provide the context for the reader: "It seems to me that [the opponent's] argument is as follows: Those who invent concepts . . . "Is it apparent now how important context is? I must wonder if my opponent actually read my argument or is simply being dishonest. He then said, "Evidence was give for these argument throughout my post." This is simply not true. My opponent did not provide any evidence that the religious invented the concept of God, nor did he explain why it is necessary for people to prove concepts they come up with. Does my opponent also feel that Tolkein was obligated to prove or attempt to prove Gandalf?My opponent has completely misunderstood his own argument also it seems. I will remind the reader that he stated that "Evidence was give for these argument throughout my post" in regards to "Those who invent concepts are obligated to prove or attempt to prove them . . ." He then said the following: "The purpose of this argument was not for me to prove that Pandas do come from Andromeda, that was made clear." Well according to the argument that he stated he gave evidence for, yes, he is obligated to prove this. He continued to contradict himself: "I never contradicted myself as I never said there was any physical obligation for a person to defend a theory of his!" Again to that I say: Well according to the argument you stated you gave evidence for, yes, you are obligated to prove this. He then, once again, brings up the new argument he never mentioned in his opening statement: "I merely stated that there is an obligation for a person to prove or attempt to prove their theory for it to be taken seriously!"I remain steadfast in declaring that adding this phrase completely changes its meaning along with what the opponent is actually arguing for. If anything, it is clearer now that the opponent has shifted the goalposts in this debate.He stated, "I would ask that they provide some evidence for their side of the debate in the next round." I have pointed out the fallaciousness of his arguments so far, and shown that he carries the burden of proof for such extraordinary claims as "The religious necessarily must and are obligated to prove God," which is what I interpret his original argument to be. Also, this is only one example of my opponent's references to me as "they." Is he implying that I am multiple people? Would he like to share this conspiracy theory of his? In conclusion, I feel that I have provided sufficient evidence that my opponent has switched to an argument that is nearly impossible to defeat in order to increase his chance of winning. His new argument seems to be that in the scientific community, a concept must be supported by evidence in order to be taken seriously. This seems like a fact to me. I am unsure why he would start a debate to dispute this. Therefore, I still hold to my argument that my opponent has switched his old argument out for a more favorable one.