Neutral agnosticism versus ALL beliefs regarding God!

Late Switcheroo!Trying to change the debate topic in round 5? Pro now claims that the title of the debate is the resolution. He no longer wants to prove that "no degree of certainty, especially regarding god, can be achieved without physical evidence." No, now he wants to prove that "Neutral agnosticism versus all beliefs regarding god." Pretty funny, since "Neutral agnosticism versus all beliefs regarding god" is not an assertion. It cannot be attacked or defended. It is not debatable. It is not a resolution. It is a title. But, while we're on the subject, what is "neutral agnosticism" anyway. It is, according to Pro's opening post, the theory that "no degree of certainty, especially regarding god, can be achieved without physical evidence." Now that can be debated. And, in earlier rounds of this debate, Pro attempted to debate it. He said things like, "Neutral agnosticism asserts nothing apart from that nothing should be asserted without evidence to abck it up." So, up to this point, Pro has defended the mutually agreed topic of this debate, whether we can have knowledge without physical evidence.Misbehavior: It is unfair of Pro to try to change the resolution in the final round of the debate. Cheating. It was unfair of Pro to try to escape his burden of proof by declaring his resolution to be an unchallengable axiom. Cheating. Pro behaved badly by using shouting-sized fonts in the early rounds. Pro is uncivil now by saying I would agree that his title is the resolution "if one could read." I'm going to block him, so that I can't accidentally get into another debate with him. And I recommend that readers vote conduct points against him. Thus encourage him towards greater civility. Vote conduct points to Con. Unchallenged Defeaters: Pro undertook to prove that no knowledge exists without physical proof. I offered him twelve instances of knowledge without physical proof. Pro didn't offer physical proof for any of these known facts. Nor did he, with one exception challenge the fact that these statements are knowledge. The single exception is the fact that bachelors are unmarried. Pro doesn't believe that bachelors are unmarried, but you all know this for a truth. So, Pro has dropped eleven out of twelve lines of argument. He has effectively conceded that, in eleven instances, knowledge exists without physical evidence. Pro's resolution has been defeated eleven times. One time would have sufficed, for Pro undertook to prove that all knowledge requires physical evidence. Vote Con. Burden of Proof: Pro undertook to prove the resolution that all knowledge requires physical evidence. I offered him repeated chances to show us the physical evidence that all knowledge requires physical evidence. After all, if he's right that we know the resolution to be true, then the resolution must have physical evidence. If the resolution is true, and if Pro doesn't provide the physical evidence, then he has not supported the resolution. He has not met the burden of proof. Since Pro had the burden of proof. And since Pro never suplied the support for his claim that he insists is necessary for any claim, it follows that the resolution fails. Vote Con. Spelling and Grammar: Pro's posts are full of errors profound enough to sometimes render him difficult, and sometimes impossible, to understand. His final post is better than some of the earlier ones, but, brief as it is, it still contains errors. - In the first sentence, the single quotes should be double quotes if he was in America as opposed to the UK. But his profile shows him as Korean, so we can give him a pass on that issue. - The period should be inside the final quotation mark. I happen to agree with McCormack's preference for putting punctuation outside the quotation marks if it is not part of the original quotation. That's non-standard, but I wouldn't say anything against it. However, in this case, since Pro fabricated the rest of the quotation, he can make no claim that the period should be segregated from the rest. - Pro used quotation marks around a paraphrase. This is clearly error. If he uses quote marks, he should quote accurately. - In his second sentence, Pro's pronoun usage is inconsistent. If he starts with "one," he shouldn't arbitrarily switch to "they." - In his third sentence, he ommitted a necessary comma after "god." Pro's other posts are filled with such errors, oftentimes impeding comprehension. Vote S&G to Con. Conclusion: Pro had the burden of proof, but he never met that burden. Con didn't have the burden of proof but nonetheless absolutely proved the resolution to be false. These disproofs of the resolution were never challenged. Vote Con. -Pro's spelling and grammar was distractingly poor. Vote S&G to Con. -Pro was repeatedly uncivil and unsportsmanlike. Vote conduct to Con.