Atheists cannot be Agnostic at the same time.

This debate has unfortunately become a battle of definitions. Thus, I will focus on establishing my definitions before refuting Pro's arguments. A. Clarifying the definitions. 1. Atheism. Literally from the Greek, Atheism is translated as "no (or without) god." [1] Old atheists, or absolute atheists, contend that there is absolutely no God. 2. Agnosticism. Literally from the Greek, agnosticism is translated as "no (or without) knowledge." [2] Agnostics, or absolute agonistics, contend that God's existence is absolutely unknowable. A good discussion on the two definitions can be found here: [3] Now, given these definitions, is it possible for them to overlap? Yes! 3. Agnostic Atheism. By combining both definitions, a third category can be created: "No god because no knowledge." This is a real position. [4] [5] Another name for agnostic atheism is new atheism, which is espoused by the aforementioned Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, etc. [6] In fact, I would go so far as to say that agnostic atheism is the amalgamation of old atheism and absolute agnosticism. But, regardless, I have proven that there is middle ground between the two positions. New atheism believes that old atheism is flawed insofar as the latter accepts responsibility for disproving God's existence. Rather, new atheism is more agnostic in the sense that it lacks belief. Here are some sources to back this claim up: [7] [8] [9] [10] New atheists place the onus, or burden of proof, directly (and rightly) upon the real asserter: the theist. Unless the theist can prove his own claim that God exists, the new atheist has no reason to believe or disbelieve at all. There is no reason to care. I think I have established why my definitions are superior. That said, I advance to refutations. B. Refuting Pro's Arguments. 1. "[My] opponent is now grasping at [straw-men] to add to his list of fallacies. I have committed no such fallacies. Here's why: o Ad Hominem: I have never attacked Pro's credibility expect with playful, hyperbolic sarcasm. o Appeal to Authority: Bias does not disqualify authority. I made this clear in my President Obama analogy. o False Analogy: I have defended my hamburger and Democrat/Republican analogies in previous speeches; Pro did not challenge my President Obama analogy. I will not bore the voters by repeating what I've already said ad nauseum. 2. "I would like to remind Con that neither is this debate measured by one's ability to alphabetize, copy/paste, point fingers at one's 'form'" First of all, Pro's grammar is fallible. Secondly, I would not have to carefully organize my arguments (i.e. alphabetize) if Pro wasn't so confusing. Thirdly, expect for my sources, I have not copied/pasted anything. All of my quotations of Pro's arguments have been hand-typed. I am proud of that fact and I won't let Pro disparage my effort. 3. "I have already refuted Con's arguments using sound logic, and Con can only attempt to reduce my position by misrepresenting them..." Again, the grammar is poor. But, more importantly, Pro has consistently touted his logical prowess. Yet, I must point out that even Pro begins with some unfounded assumptions: his definitions. Until recently, Pro maintained that he/she logically devised his/her definitions. However, definitions are not concrete as words do change meaning over time. An example of this would be marriage which, as of last year in the United States, now includes same-sex couples. Logic cannot be used to ascertain definitions. Rather, current authorities must be cited and I have cited dictionaries in defining my terms. Additionally, while on the subject of Pro's logic, Pro's arguments only make sense within his arcane, narrow, and rigid definitions. 4. "I have not misrepresented [Con]... In fact, I took a direct quote..." No, you didn't. Pro purposely omitted the very first word of the sentence: "Perhaps." Let me elucidate this point. Here's what I really said in Round 2: "Perhaps, in the distant past, agnosticism and atheism were mutually exclusive." Here's what Pro quoted in Round 3: "... in the distant past, agnosticism and atheism were mutually exclusive." As you can see, Pro purposely removed the critical word "Perhaps". In doing so, Pro twisted my words by changing my conditional sentence to a direct sentence. 5. "All Pro can do is say he has 'credible sources' that back his definitions (... he has yet to provide any logical proof)." Again, logic is insufficient to define words. For instance, based on pure logic, could you tell me what "gelid" means? Without a dictionary (an authority, mind you), how could you possibly know that "gelid" means "extreme cold"? [11] Definitions also require authorities because words change meanings. Likewise, the word atheism has changed and we need to acknowledge that fact. New atheists aren't liars; they're practitioners of the new meaning of a word. 6. "Richard Dawkins... is not a credible source on philosophy, politics, sociology, psychology, theology, or atheism." What? Do I really have to defend the obvious? Hasn't Richard Dawkings published books on atheism and religion? Isn't there a book out there called "The God Delusion"? Hasn't Richard Dawkins argued with theists at colleges and universities? Couldn't one say that Dawkins is the face of new atheism? How about you e-mail Richard Dawkins and tell him he isn't an expert (i.e. credible authority) on atheism. I wouldn't be surprised if he laughs at you. Seriously, Pro's audacity is both incredible and ridiculous! 7. "THAT is Logic. You do not REQUIRE a credible source when you say something OBVIOUSLY TRUE. Logic." I am weary of correcting Pro's over-capitalization for artificial emphasis. I am also tired of compensating for Pro's horrific grammar. "Logic." That, my friend, is a sentence fragment. On the actual substance, I agree with Pro. Self-evident truths need not require credible sources. But little to none of what Pro has stated can be classified as "obviously true." For instance, Pro maintains that his/her definitions are just logical. Yet, as I have shown, logic alone cannot ratiocinate the meaning of words. So Pro stretches the applicability of logic in an attempt to cover up his relative lack of sources. 8. "...William L. Rowe..." Rowe is outdated; the words have changed since his time. 9. "Just because a word is old... we don't go around changing what it means." Incorrect. Examples of changes include: gentleman, gay, and marriage. 10. "[The] onus is on [atheists] and [theists]" Incorrect. Theists are the asserters. As such, following the rule of "he who asserts must prove", theists are alone responsible for proving God's existence. Atheists do not assert that God's inexistence. Rather, atheists find fault with the theists' proofs and, therefore, lack belief. 11 "Con does not seem to know what an 'assertion' is." Actually, I do. That would've been a nice joke if only it had a punchline. 12. "Pro never said [atheists]... cannot define themselves." But you say in the same paragraph: "...Atheists cannot call themselves agnostic..." You just contradicted yourself. Conclusion: There is overlap. I win Sources: [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3]http://plato.stanford.edu... [4]http://atheism.about.com... [5]https://en.wikipedia.org... [6] Pigliucci, Massimo. "New Atheism And The Scientistic Turn In The Atheism Movement." Midwest Studies In Philosophy 37.1 (2013): 142-153. Academic Search Premier. Web. 5 Mar. 2016. [7] [8] [9] [10] (Pardon the profanity) [11]http://www.merriam-webster.com...