Agnosticism is a great way to look at life.

First, I want to profusely apologize for missing the deadline for my previous argument. I apologize, but the voters must realize that this in no way changes the outcome of the debate, since I will still amass the most amount of points, from sources and argumentation. ~ Let's talk about definitions. My opponent's definition, from a small obscure site called the skeptic's dictionary, is solely about refusing to venture an opinion about whether God exists or not. However, the topic of this debate is not about religious agnosticism, but agnosticism in general. Therefore, my definition from M-W is much better, since it encompasses religious agnosticism, and also talks about how we would apply it to real life. My opponent makes the mistake of assuming I'm only talking about political agnosticism. To the contrary, I'm talking about agnostics in general, who are: "a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something ". An example is a political agnostic. Doesn't mean i'm only talking about political agnostics. For the mere reason that my definition actually references the topic matter, we ought to be using mine. Next. ~ The next part of my opponent's speech consists of him redefining the topic, how what he actually meant was something other than what I interpreted it to be. He also makes the misinterpretation of assuming I'm only bringing in political agnosticism. I'm talking about agnosticism in general. My opponent is not allowed to try to clarify what he meant about the topic when he made it, and then use that to exclude my argumentation. Don't allow him to rewrite the resolution to fit his arguments, he should have done that in his first speech. ~~~ This is my opponent's only piece of offense that I can glean from his speech, and at best, this is a claim. There is no reasoning to prove it and he provides no impact for it in the round. At best, this is him venturing an opinion. Yay. But don't let him win from that. ~~~ ARG 1: So my opponent decides to call me impertinent and then say I contradict myself, since Agnosticism is not a rule, but rather a belief. But if we can't allow actions based on our beliefs, how do we act? In a debate, in order to actually measure impacts for the round, you have to assume that if you are defending a position, there will be actions based on your position. Also, if my opponent is allowed to make this unsubstantiated claim, then that would void his entire argument. If agnosticism is only a belief, not a rule, then it doesn't actually free us from anything, since belief in not making a choice doesn't change the fact that there is a choice. So for the sake of my opponent's only offense, we have to allow we would act on agnosticism, or rather, not act... Also, he tries to say that Political agnosticism would take away the hard decision making required in politics and in life, which is somehow good? It is good that our belief system would prevent us from doing anything? It is GOOD that we wouldn't be able to choose what to eat, and as a result starve? My opponent fails to show how it is good that Congress not do anything about the current economic crisis, and just sit around twiddling their thumbs. And here's the part that kills what little offense my opponent has. So he's saying that those who do not believe in agnosticism will do all the acting, and the agnostics will just sit around leeching off of society? However, if my opponent thinks that agnosticism is such a good thing, he would hope that as many people as possible would follow it. The fact that he banks on people not liking his idea for his idea to work is a contradiction in terms, and just undercuts his entire speech. So to conclude, my opponent is still not able to levy any offense against ARG 1, which means you must vote CON right here, since I have offensive arguments showing how agnosticism is bad. At best, my opponent just tries to mitigate my impacts by poo-poo-ing them, but he doesn't actually attack them effectively, which he would need to do in order to have a chance of winning this part of the debate. ~~~~~~~~~~ ARG 2 My opponent uses a short paragraph to summarily prove how much he has misinterpreted my argumentation. He tries to mitigate all my argumentation by hoping that what I said isn't relevant. However, he misses the point. The point I was making is that if we are Agnostic towards one metaphysical entity like God, then there is nothing to stop us from saying it is impossible to know if another metaphysical entity like Reality or Morality exists. He even says, "there is nothing stopping us from doing these acts". Thanks, you just agreed with me. Cross apply my impacts of what could happen if we allow Religious Agnosticism from my previous speech. ~~~ His SUMMARY REFUTE: He again tries to extend his unsubstantiated claims that agnosticism is a good way to look at life because of the lack of decision making, but lacks any warrant to prove why lack of decision making is good, whereas I have all my argumentation that shows why it is bad (look to ARG 1 and ARG 2) HOW YOU, AS THE VOTER, WILL VOTE: Conduct: Up to you, but I'm ok with losing this point, due to my forfeiting one round. S/G: Tied. We're both using pretty good grammar, I think. Arguments: CON. My arguments clearly have extended claims, warrants, and impacts back to the round, whereas my opponent can only provide unsubstantiated claims that lack any warrants. He also has no offense, so you have to default to CON anyways, since I have the strongest links to any impacts to the round. SOURCES:CON Merriam Webster is significantly more reliable than some obscure website, and is significantly more well known, which should be more than enough to give me the point here