Skeptics Should Argue with Theists

Let me put it like this: Arguing is a plant and Persuading is a tree. Persuading is a specific form of what arguing is but, in itself, has variety of its own (like an oak tree and willow) it has aggressive forms of it and more passive ones. The main difference between the two is that persuading is specifically geared towards urging one to take your view point or advising them against their own. As persuader would let the person think God is real but begin to make them question why their religion's God is the true, as opposed to other religions', a general "argument" would attack the concept of God altogether and show them flaws in their most cherished belief without mercy and would only incite rancor in the Theists on the receiving end.There is nothing productive or constructive from arguing with Theists; it only hardens the solidity of their belief in God and furthermore turns them hostile towards atheists and, thus, the concept of atheism. This point has gone uncontested the entire debate only being touched on by an irrelevant anecdote of Pro's personal experience that, for all we know, could very well be a lie or misconception of how devout a Theist he/she was to begin with.Pro raises a new point in Round 3 (which is usually seen as poor conduct) but I shall nonetheless address it. He/she states that while it would fail to convince the fundamental Theists, whom are bound to get aggressive and perhaps physically violent, it may sway those sitting on the fence. The issue with this argument is that anyone sitting on the fence is not a Theist to begin with. They are agnostic deists at best. Consequently, if one is able to convince someone sitting on the fence, this doesn't qualify as a Theist convert and is, after all, a rare occurrence as most people sitting on the fence are on 'the fence' by choice, rather than hoping to be swayed to one side. Oftentimes, someone who is currently on the fence was once on a side of it and realized,f or themselves, the fallacy of both sides to an equal degree.On another note, a Theist who is struggling with their beliefs, if confronted by aggressive argumentation tearing their beliefs to shreds will feel hurt by the atheist community and be repulsed by the attitude that atheists have. Thus, the viewpoint's validity will be irrelevant to them since they utterly detest everything atheists are and do not want to affiliate themselves with the cause due to the types of people propagating it. In fact, the best way to make someone struggling with Theism return strongly to their former Theistic beliefs would be to show them how merciless and amoral atheists are.The final point that Pro raises has actually been my main contention this entire debate. Pro failed to realize that this actually negates the resolution. He/she highlights the fact that argumentation is only there to entertain a bloodthirsty audience, as opposed to making either side feel convinced, or swayed. If the only objective of arguing with Theists is to sadistically tear them to shreds for the sake of convincing a few bloodthirsty agnostics and deists then I severely worry about the moral implications of such an act not that atheists should feel the need to have any morals in the first place. Additionally, even if we throw moral implications of hurting Theists for the sake of converting some fence-sitters, the fact of the matter is that arguing is going to have more drawbacks than benefits. As I explained in Round 2, Theists who argue with atheists over abortion laws and gay marriage legalization are the ones who end up being Pariahs of the Theistic community and mascots for atheism who make an example of them. In the same way that people such as Christopher Hitchens get shown to Theists to make them disgusted by atheism. Any militant, or extremist, who feels the need to actively seek out and demolish another person's belief system is not going to reap nearly as many benefits as repercussions from this endeavour.In conclusion, arguing not only fails to do the very thing it's designed to do, convincing an opposing side that they are wrong, but it also has far more backlashes than successful outcomes as a result of doing so. Therefore, the resolution 'atheists should argue with Theists' has failed to be upheld by Pro, whom the BoP was on.