The term "atheist" is to be preferred to the term "agnostic."

So not really much to arguePro has the BOP to show that it is preferable to be considered an atheist over agnostic via the terminologyAtheist - . a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.Agnostic - a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.Essentially an Atheist is someone who lacks the belief of a God, and a Agnostic claims that it is impossible to negate that fact either either way. Atheist literally means absence of God, while agnostics claim that it is impossible to make that affirmative statement. Contention 1 ) Facts vs Proving a NegativeIt is impossible to prove or disprove a negative. There are verifiable facts that can be proven in reality. Gravity exists, the earth rotates around the sun every year, etc. We can study, verify, and observe all of these things as facts. Now there are things that we can assume are true or not true. I can say there is a magical horse next to me that no one can see but me. The issue with this claim is that there is no way to objectively disprove it. Chances lie under the fact that the horse does not exist, because we have no reason for it to exist. That however does not necessitate the fact that it does not exist. For claims to be either objectively true or objectively false, there has to be a verifiable way to prove them as true or false other than assumptions and probability. The only evidence for or against God is under the same logic. We have no reason to believe we need a God in order for anything to exist, but the fact that we do not need a God does not entail or necessitate that one does not exist. We can only logical assume he does not exist. Agnostics in a sense is a claim of the most valid and logical way to look at God. Almost everything disproves a God and there is a high probability he does not exist, but there is no way to objectively verify that claim because it lies outside of empirical testing. Rebuttal 1 ) Pros CaseMy adversary has provided no reasoning to assume or prove that atheism is a preferable term. He uses terminology to try and justify the lack of a belief in a God, over the un certainty or lack of knowledge. Pro claims we do not lack knowledge involving God which is a false statement. We have no knowledge involving God , which is why we can't objectively prove or disprove his existence. The entire concept hinges of faith, and even states the fact that no one will ever know if this is true until you are dead. there is literally no way to justify this claim with a positive or affirmative stance objectively, but we can logically conclude its probably false. Again the assumption and probability that makes it probably false does not necessitate the fact it is indeed false because there is no way to prove itConclusionMy adversary basically just asserts we can conclude there is no God by lack of evidence, so atheism is the ideal term which is a logical fallacy and a faulty premise when you lay out the syllogism for which he arrived at that conclusionP1) There is no evidence to support a GodP2) No evidence necessitates that something does not existC) God does not exist. the fundamental flaw in that line of logic is that lack of evidence does not necessitate that something did not happen or does not exist, it just means the evidence may not be available yet. We can apply this endlessly through science and how it has evolved and taught us new truthsI think agnosticism is just as preferable as a term as atheism. I don't value one over the other but my adversary has made the claim that atheism is more preferable and has failed to show why logically. Agnostic is literally a viable stance in regards to facts that are absence or cannot be verified.