Agnosticism is a great way to look at life.

And yes, this is my first debate. My opponent has provided a definition to counter mine. This definition, however, is highly similar to mine and gives the same meaning, which is, basically; That Knowledge of God or an Afterlife is unknowable. My opponent has cleverly incorporated a Political definition of Agnosticism into the argument. Although this was not my initial thought, I thank my opponent for making this debate all the more interesting. Con then proceeds to explain why his definition is better than my own: "First, Merriam Webster is significantly more well known than Skeptic's Dictionary, not to mention has been in use for much longer. " My opponent explains that because M. W. is more notable than Skeptic's dictionary, My definition is irrelevant. This is completely off of the subject, as it doesn't matter how famous the source is, as long as it stays to the subject matter. Then Con explains that my definition is irrelevant also because Merriam Webster has been "in use for much longer". This, again makes no sense and is not applicable to the debate topic. I never actually specified I was speaking of Politics, apparently my opponent did not understand what the title of my debate is supposed to mean. "Agnosticism is a great way to look at life. " When I think that, what I mean is that Agnosticism frees us from the stress of Religious beliefs, because it is the decision that the existence of God or the afterlife or anything like that. Since he has already brought in Political Agnosticism, I will have to refute his ideas. As I said above, Agnosticism is a great way to look at life because it takes away the worries and such of beliefs; It's a decision more than a belief. I will now refute my opponent's argumentation. -------------------------------------- Argument 1: My opponent makes it clear that he is against Political Agnosticism with these paragraphs. He makes some believable examples. "Just imagine if every single person in Washington refused to venture an opinion" Con contradicts his own definition; Agnosticism is a belief, not a rule, So what he says is impertinent. Even Political Agnosticism ( which really is more of an opinion than anything) is a relief from decision-making, like Religious Agnosticism. It takes away from the hard-decision making required in Politics and life for that matter; So it could be regarded as a positive action, compared to my opponent's view of it being useless. In regards to his summary of Political Agnosticism, Con says that this form of Agnosticism would put the world in a standstill, which is obviously wrong. Not everyone WOULD believe the same thing - That's why it's a decision rather a rule set-in-stone. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Argument 2: Here, my opponent clarifies his opinion on Religious Agnosticism. What he says is not in the least bit relevant in proving that Agnosticism is bad. He simply states the same thing I am trying to prove - That everything spiritual is unknowable. He states that Morality and even Reality is impossible to learn. For some reason, he says the same thing that I believe. There is nothing stopping us from doing these acts because it is unknowable if a God exists. ---------------------------------------------- Summary Refute: Con states in his Summary that "Real Life" Agnosticism is bad because it means decisions are unsolvable and cannot be made; This is not true. Even in my title, "Agnosticism is a great way to LOOK at life". I never said that everyone will take this idea to heart; I simply said it is a great way to look at life, because there is no decision making involved; Of course this can be a bad thing, but you must make it a good thing. Then, he debates the idea of Religious Agnosticism, which again is off the subject matter. What Con says here seems as though he agrees with me. This view prevents the hassle of claiming one thing or another, and yes, it is right to claim things unknowable: The consequences are what life is about. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary: My opponent has made a great refute to Agnosticism, but his ideas are a bit shortsighted and are, mostly irrelevant to the topic. I hope the audience understands my refute and I await Con's response.