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

DISCLAIMERTo win this debate, Pro was expected to provide good evidence that supports Islam . He has not done this so far. Pro instead directed me to FOUR youtube videos hosted on Islamic channels.Pro's 2nd rule, "You can't link to untrusted[sic] websites like wiki,yahoo answers,etc ,etc"But Youtube is a trusted website? Pro even used the Youtube links not just as non-trusted citations but as his own arguments(e.g look what that video further says), and that goes against DDO standards.Pro's 1st rule, "Everything you say needs a proof."Pro did not follow his rule but provided baseless assertions: (1) "islam existed long time ago when humans first appeared on earth," (2) " 6000 verse[sic] and 1000 verse[sic] that talks[sic] about science" (3) "Mohamed is the final prophet," etc.Pro has violated his own rules in the debate. I leave it to the voters to decide what penalty he deserves.Pro argues, "so if an alien will judge us in the afterlife, so can a human."Rebuttal: I don't see how that disproves anything I said.Pro argues, "you can't come here saying "i'm not sure" because if you can't convince your self[sic] how are you gonna convince somebody else."Rebuttal: Pro seems to believe that you only convince people of being sure on matters when that is blatantly false. If I undermine evidence given for position X, then I convince people of being agnostic/undecided about it, unless Pro can disprove the philosophic principle of the burden of proof.I shall try to refute all Pro's baseless arguments in my next rounds as I have a 4000 character limit and I need to further develop my case.MY CASEAgnosticism deals with the level of certainty one has in a certain belief, whereas Atheism deals with whether I lack belief in God or not. Agnosticism and atheism are not two different positions. I'm personally an agnostic atheist. In the first round, I established why I'm an agnostic(not specifically why I'm an agnostic atheist) and why agnosticism is more sensible than Pro's position:P1- Agnosticism is the belief that the truth values of certain claims such as religious and metaphysical claims are unknown.P2- Based on the burden of proof principle, agnosticism is the more sensible position one should have if something is not established to be true or false with good evidence.P3- There is no good evidence yet presented for Islam. Conclusion: Agnosticism is more sensible than Islam....To establish my position for "agnostic atheism" per se, I shall use another deductive argument...P1- A person who is agnostic about the existence of God cannot live life without assuming that God does exist or doesn't exist for practicality purposes, ergo, he must be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist in practice, where "theist" includes all theistic positions such as monotheist, deist, polytheist, pantheist, etc.* For example, if I'm undecided about marrying someone then I have not married that person yet or have married that person although I'm undecided. So I'm either married or unmarried in practice although I'm actually undecided on the issue.P2- Agnostic atheism is restraining yourself from believing God's existence because of a lack of good reasons, while agnostic theism is believing in a theistic position regardless of the lack of good reasons.P3- It is more sensible to restrain yourself from believing in something you find no good reasons to believe in than to believe in something without good reasons.Conclusion: Agnostic atheism is more sensible than Agnostic theism.SUMMARYBeing a "pure agnostic" is impossible; for practicality purposes, one should either live life as an atheist or adopt a theistic position. I've shown through deductive logic and the BoP principle, that is more sensible to be an agnostic than it is to be Muslim. Then I showed in this round that is more sensible within agnosticism to be an agnostic atheist than an agnostic theist. Hence, I argued for a form of "atheism" and showed how it is more sensible than Islam.