SCIENCE = GOD'S PERSONAL PROPERTY (PROOF of GOD)

My opponent wrote: "Pro continues to harass me outside of the rounds with personal attacks, and insults." Without God, harassment, personal attacks, and insults could not be objectively wrong. " I think that his quality of character" Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between good and bad quality of character. Also, you are personally attacking me, harassing me, and insulting me -- you are not addressing my argument. "arguments have no merit" Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between merit in an argument and lack thereof. ", his character is low (if there even is any left)," Without God, nobody could make such an objective distinction. Also, you are attacking me personally, not addressing my arguments. " and his bad attitude makes this debate unpleasant." Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between good and bad attitudes. Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between the pleasant and the unpleasant. The actual reason why I found this debate so much more pleasant than you do is the fact that I won it and you lost it. I substantiated all of my statements, and you failed to substantiate any of yours. Therefore I won this debate: Thanks for your time! =) "Without God, personal attacks could not be objectively wrong." That is true. "just another straw man logical fallacy". You did commit many straw man logical fallacies in this debate, but the so-called "voting" system on this site is hopelessly biased and utterly useless, so I clearly won this debate, no matter how anyone votes. You are constantly appealing to the biased so-called "voters" rather than appealing to logic or actual support for your silly and incorrect claims. Therefore you clearly lost this debate, no matter how anyone votes. "Clearly he does not understand what a Straw Man Fallacy is" Yes, I certainly do: It is when you write your own statement and pretend that I wrote it, and then proceed to argue against your own statement rather than addressing any of my actual statements. This intellectually dishonest tactic has been used against me literally hundreds of times in the short time that I have been debating here (almost exclusively by believers in atheist Dogma), and in fact, you also committed that logical fallacy, many times during this debate. Therefore I clearly won this debate, no matter how anyone votes. "Philosophical Study of Morality " Without God, there could be no objective morality. . "I can only assume " That is probably true. "Arguments lack merit" Without God, nobody could make an objective assessment of merit Vs lack thereof. "poor attitude" Without God, having a poor attitude could not be objectively wrong. Also, that is a personal attack against me, and it fails to address my actual arguments. ", contentions are fallacious," Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between the valid and the fallacious. "have an ego trip." Without God, having an ego trip could not be objectively wrong. In fact, your entire acceptance of the belief in atheist Dogma is nothing but your own silly ego trip: Grow up. "I would like to strongly urge a Con Vote." Of course you would, you shameless and ignorant vote-panderer, because you know damn well that you actually lost this debate, and you are desperate to salve your wounded ego by appealing to an inherently biased, unfair, dishonest, and useless so-called "voting" process. The fact is that I clearly won this debate, no matter how anyone votes: Thanks for your time! =)