It is more probable than it is improbable that a monotheistic and at least Deistic God exist.

Round five conclusionOutlineI. IntroII. BodyIII. ConclusionIV. SourcesI. IntroFirst, I am going to keep this brief out of fairness. My opponent will not get a chance to respond since this is the second half of the last round. I want to thank my opponent for creating this debate and being civil for the first four rounds. This has been a long, difficult, and sometimes downright grueling debate. I look forward to a long rest before I debate again.II. BodyI have learned many new ideas and points of view in this debate. I've also learned about myself. First, I've relearned just how difficult it is to defeat a well-entrenched argument. On some level I cannot believe that anyone with a college degree could lose against a flat Earth argument. Against a climate change denier I thought I had an invincible argument because I watched an Inconvenient Truth and paid close attention. I was completely incorrect. I then doubled down reading the book, Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand and reading a few articles from skeptical science. I debated some more and got annihilated. My opponent had better arguments, I straight out lost. I then went even further, taking an entire course called Denial101x. I even asked on the Denial101x forums how to beat specific arguments. I finally hit a turning point. Suddenly climate change deniers ran from me. Sure, the occasional denier won by votes, but they didn't want to come back for round two. So, what does this all mean? Why am I typing about past debates on an entirely different topic? What this means is I understand that I can be on the correct side of a debate, yet lose the argument. An eight year old can correctly argue that vaccines save lives, yet lose the argument against a highly skilled anti-vaxxer. The same could be said for any topic. The point is lies often win over truth. In fact, lies are stronger than truth in some ways because a lie can be customized to fit a target audience. Meanwhile, the truth is bound by the facts. This is why fake news spreads faster than honest news."Why Does Fake News Spread Faster than Real News?It’s all about pleasure." By Luba Kessler, MD [0]" Here's what they wrote:"We found that false news was more novel than true news, which suggests that people were more likely to share novel information. Whereas false stories inspired fear, disgust, and surprise in replies, true stories inspired anticipation, sadness, joy, and trust."Some of this feels obvious: Fake news is designed to push people's buttons and encourage them to share through sheer outrage. "Shona GhoshMar. 9, 2018, 5:22 AM [1]"Falsehoods almost always beat out the truth on Twitter, penetrating further, faster, and deeper into the social network than accurate information." Robinson MeyerMar 8, 2018 [2]The point is lies often win over truth. I am unconcerned whether I win or lose, though of course I hope to win this debate. What I've learned about myself is that I really have not dug into the theists arguments as much as I hoped. That I am nowhere near as skilled and knowledgeable about debating religion then I am climate change. I found myself completely overwhelmed and unable to fully rebuff my opponent's arguments. Nevertheless, I contend that I am on the correct side of the debate, my opponent offers no solid proof, and instead offers syllogisms full of logical fallacies. III. ConclusionI conclude that I really need to read up on atheism, religion, and how to debate for atheism. We live in a society where we want answers, and we want them now. A person can read holy book x and come to conclusion that x's religion is the one and only true religion. An atheist can watch a bunch of youtubes with Richard Dawkins, skim a few atheist books, read a little on the forums and come to the conclusion that they have all the answers to religion. This is a good example of the dunning-kruger effect, which I am blatantly guilty of in this debate. "The Dunning–Kruger Effect: On Being Ignorant of One's Own Ignorance"DavidDunning [3] The fact is I was guilty of being ignorant of my ignorance. Yet, thanks to my opponent no more. Just as I suffered from the dunning-Kruger effect when I faced against a flat Earther, I didn't know how much I didn't know about flat Earth arguments, as well as when I argued against climate change deniers, I was ignorant of my ignorance about how little I knew about climate change, the same is true for religion. Ultimately, I was ignorant of my ignorance when I entered this debate, I was over-confident, and I fell behind quickly in the arguments. I plan to completely and thoroughly read Richard Dawkin's God Delusion, Christopher Hitchens God is not Great how religion poisons everything, join other atheists on online forums and hopefully in real life to discuss debating tactics, and then I plan to come back to this debate and vivisection and annihilate each of my opponent's claims within the comments. If I cannot, I will learn even more until I can. Thank you for this debate and thank you for making me aware of my own ignorance. I look forward to a rematch when I am more prepared in a few months. IV. Sources0. https://www.psychologytoday.com...1. http://www.businessinsider.com...2. https://www.theatlantic.com...3. https://www.sciencedirect.com...