it is better to call babies who are just becoming aware, as agnostic than atheist

con doesn't give any definitions to agnostic. he just says it involves some sort of proactive choice. so besides not having a definition to back him up,Firstly, I cite my source from a book called "Agnosticism" by Ronald Hepburn. Not only that but I gave explicit details about what agnosticism is. In fact I spent an entire paragraph just trying to show the difference between unsure of a belief's validity and unsure of whether you believe."agnostic means undecided, atheist means rejection". "Here is my specific detailing of what agnosticism means."Agnosticism is not 'unsure of your belief' in any way that implies the belief in and of itself is unlocked in your brain. It is confidence in whether the belief is true. I believe in Aliens, I am agnostic due to weak conviction that my belief is almost certainly true. I am not agnostic as to whether or not I believe in Aliens, that is logically void. "con says babies don't have an awareness to make a choice of anything.... but that's why I say "babies who are just becoming aware" to show they at a conscious level have a default to them, it's just a matter of what.Fine, but just 'becoming aware' is a pseudo-scientific statement of what you think consciousness implies. Babies just becoming aware still do not have the cognitive abilities to comprehend theoretical concepts like God, the E.U and Banking. These are out of their grasp. Even by 4 or 5 years old they still are not able to fully grasp these points. I don't need to appeal to pseudo-scientific terms when talking about babies brains, it is demonstrably true that a baby is simply not able to understand complex theoretical ideas. Not only that but the baby, as in relation to any thought cannot know a scale of his/her confidence in the actual thought. Like I wrote about agnosticism. It is confidence in your belief, not knowledge to whether you believe. So even if they could grasp a concept like God. They would either believe or not believe, making them atheist or theist. In that respect they would more likely be atheist/theist but never agnostic atheist/theist. I therefore can still win the debate, even if I concede entire portions of science which testify to the cognitive abilities of infants being infantile.any definitions con might give for either word are arbitrary, in that he could have chose the definitions I gave.... and his choices would be inferior, cause they go against commonly thought of notion of the words, again "agnostic means undecided, and atheist means rejection"This is just an appeal to an authority, not only that but I explained in details about what belief are and how you cannot have no belief. No belief means not believing, therefore you either believe or do not believe. Pro isn't defending his thesis anymore, he is simply asserting that most people believe him. So what? Give me an argument. 99% of the earth can define the U.S are a round triangle, but if I show a logical inconsistency in it, then the definition cannot be true. In conclusion, Con hasn't attempted to refute my position on either agnosticism or atheism, but rather is trying to engage in meaningless objections to semantic points, notable 'most people agree with me' and 'your definitions are arbitrary'. These are not arguments.