Richard Dawkins is a gratuitously unpleasant man

My RefutationsDawkins belives in atheismMy opponent agrees that it's not atheism that makes Dawkins a gratuitously unpleasant man. Pro then points out that Dawkins is intolerant about other belief systems. However, in an interview with Sri Lankan journalist Smriti Daniel, Dawkins said that he'd be willing to change his mind if you prove that god exists.[1] Dawkins also said to people who find flaws in how he expresses himself: “I don’t think we want to use offensive language. We don’t want to use violent language. We want to win arguments by cogency. I think ridicule is a weapon, but it must be witty ridicule and not just abuse,”[1] This proves that Dawkins doesn't intened to insult people as Pro mentioned. It could be that Dawkins is just blunt, and just wants to get his message out. My opponent then gives a quote from Peter Higgs, a theoretical physicist. If we assume Peter Higgs is more humane than Dawkins is, it doesn't prove that Dawkins is unpleasant or gratuitous, it just proves that Peter Higgs is more compassionate. Even if we assume that, Richard Dawkins is the one that has the charity. Pro also asserts that Higgs is saner, but that's implying that Dawkins is slightly insane, but he's not. We know hat he's an etholigist, evolutionary bioligist, and an advocate of atheism,[2] but there's no evidence that he's crazy.The rude things Dawkins says are trueIf you did something stupid when you were younger, your parents will likely point out that what you did was foolish. All Dawkins was trying to do was to point out that the event was tragic, and that the parents were foolish in giving a 5 year-old kid a gun. It wasn't gratuitous since he said the family was foolish, because the family was foolish. I think that's a good reason to say that. Sometimes it is okay to say that what somebody did was foolish. I mean, you wouldn't call a retarded person a retard, but it's okay to point out that was somebody did was foolish and that it shouldn't have happened.Dawkins' followers don't think he's unpleasantIt's not only his followers that find Dawkins pleasant, it's also people who have met him, such as Sri Lankan journalist Smriti Daniel. Daniel was pleasantly surprised to meet a "grandfather-like figure" Richard Dawkins.[1] Here's a quote: "He appears to have an endless enthusiasm for debate and his style could be described as gladiatorial – conceding nothing, he seems to relish the spectacle as he draws his opponent’s blood. So I am surprised to find that when we meet, my primary impression is actually one of, well, niceness. Silver-haired, his glasses glinting under the lights, he looks like a kindly grandfather."[1]Dawkins is not a bully as Pro asserts. Bullying is defined as the activity of repeated, aggressive behavior intended to hurt another person, physically or mentally. Bullying is characterized by an individual behaving in a certain way to gain power over another person. [3] Dawkins isn't purposely, repeatedly hurting another person. He's not trying to gain power over them. He's just critizing people's religion because of the evil of that religion. He just doesn't understand other people's religous concepts, that's all.My ArgumentsUnpleasant is subjectiveIt's true. According to Oxford Dictionaries, subjective is an adjective based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. http://oxforddictionaries.com... I was trying to argue is that not everyone finds Dawkins unpleasant and that he has a lot of supporters. Dawkins against ReligionMy opponent agrees that Dawkins critism of some religions (Christianity) and the Old Testament isn't unpleasant. Pro even agrees that it's pleasant and valuable. So I think we both agree that Dawkins protest against some religious aspects and ideals isn't unpleasant.Dawkins isn't necessarily unpleasant or gratuitousAs I mentioned before, Dawkins charity: The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science. It's for a good cause: "The mission of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science is to support scientific education, critical thinking and evidence-based understanding of the natural world in the quest to overcome religious fundamentalism, superstition, intolerance and suffering." [4] Certainly, Con can't say that this charity is gratuitous or unpleasant. This organization got established because this is what Dawkins stands for. We know that Dawkins anti-mysogyny ideals are disputed, but he's against homophobia, racism, religous fundametalism, superstition, intolerance, and suffering. [4] [5]Summary: We can see that Dawkins isn't a bully as Pro asserts he is, and he has some ideals that aren't gratuitous or unpleasant as represented by his charity.Sources: http://www.sundaytimes.lk...;[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...;[2]https://en.wikipedia.org...;[3]http://richarddawkinsfoundation.org...;[4]http://www.goodreads.com...;[5]