Rebecca Black's "Friday" is the greatest religious song created in the past decade.

"'It is my opinion. .. I believe. .. to be religious'This entire second paragraph should be ignored, as it is made clear by Con several times it is based solely on opinion [1]. Definitions don't belong in the second round, much less those based solely on opinion. "Definitions don't belong in the second round? Where should I have put my definition of religious? You stated in the very first post of the debate "Round one for acceptance and naming your song only. " You specifically asked for two things and nothing else in the first round of the debate, and neither of those two things were definitions. You did not define "religious" in either of your first two rounds. On top of that - I did bring up definitions in the first round. I addressed your lack of definition of the word "song" in the first round, which you seemed to ignore completely. I really fail to understand your point about my definition location. My definition of the word "religious" was definitely opinionated, as you already pointed out. I was only stating that I believed that definition of the word to be most appropriate for this debate. You have still failed to address any definition of the word "religious", thus I am left without clue as to whether or not you believe that a song is only religious if the artist intends it to be. I stated that to be my belief, but you chose to attack the validity of my statement rather than actually disagree with it. "'Patrice Wilson, the writer of the song, does not follow Hinduism, but he is instead a Christian'Even accepting your completely ridiculous limitations on what makes a song religious, this is totally irrelevant. Her parents paid money to have the song written and produced [2], and could have told them to put whatever themes they wanted in there. The parents could have said 'make it Hindi, but so incredibly not obvious only a genius could realize the hidden message'. "Never in my post did I say that it was impossible for Rebecca Black (or her parents) to have intended the song to be Hindi. I simply pointed out that you have absolutely no evidence that it was, whereas I have at least slight evidence that it was not, as no one involved in the writing, recording, or production of the song has any known Hindi affiliations, and at least one person involved is known NOT to be Hindi. YOU have the burden of proving that the song was religious - not I. Accepting my definition of religious (as you do briefly here to address my rebuttal), you have completely failed to prove that the song was religious. Even without accepting my definition of religious, you have at best proven that you interpret the song as religious, NOT that your reasons for the song being great as listed at the bottom of your Round 1 argument were true. "'I could not find one single example of a bus stop being used as a symbol of/metaphor for Hinduism'People can make their own metaphors, sit doesn't have to already exist in the Hindu culture. "People certainly can make their own metaphors. However, you have absolutely no proof that this is what she (or more accurately, Patrice Wilson) has done here. This part of my argument was attempting to show that there was no reason to believe Miss Black intended the song to be religious, which went hand in hand with my attempt to define the word religious. Since you still have yet to take a stance on my definition of the word (other than attacking my right and ability to define it when I did), I still have no better than an inference as to whether or not you agree with it. If you do not, then I can understand why you fail to see the validity of this argument. "'Its religiousness is not obvious - in fact, its almost nonexistent - and thus, fewer people are likely to view it as religious' My argument was that it is not obvious, and that, because of this, people of other religions can interpret their own way, and aren't put off by the religiousness of it. "Thanks for restating your argument. With the statement that you quoted, I disputed the validity of that argument. Neither of us had any proof to suggest that the cloudy meaning of the song actually either helped or hindered its ability to be perceived as religious. The difference is that you were attempting to prove that the song was great because of this - I was just pointing out that your statement that its cloudiness helped it be great was completely baseless and could actually be used against it. "I see no flaws with your interpretation, and happily accept "Doin' it Right" as religious. My opponent has not explained why it is a good religious song. My opponent makes no arguments for why "Doin' it Right" is a good religious song, simply claiming it is one, therefor not even close to meeting his BoP. "I thank my opponent for conceding that my song choice, "Doin' It Right", is religious. As for its greatness, I see no way to definitively prove that it is the greatest religious song of the past decade. I did, however, make a case as to how it was better than Friday, which is what PRO stated I must do in his Round 1 statement. I pointed out that it was vague, unlike Friday, which is helpful because it allows people to more openly interpret it as religious. Friday, on the other hand, is extremely specific. (Ex. In "Friday" Miss Black discussing making cereal. In "Doin' It Right", they never say exactly what they are referring to when they discuss "doing it right". Obviously, something vague is more likely to be interpretted as a metaphor for religion than something oddly specific about something completely related to religion. ). In summary, my opponent has still failed to prove that his song is both religious (by the only definition either of us provided for the word in this debate) and great, whereas I have presented arguments that show that "Doin' It Right" is both religious (via my opponent's concession stating this) and at least greater than Rebecca Black's Friday (which is all that I was required to do according to my opponent's statement in round 1. ). Sources: The vast majority of my post was a general rebuke of my opponent's logic (or lack thereof), for which I needed no notable sources apart from the earlier rounds in the debate. Posting any external links here would only serve to waste the reader's time and inflate the number of sources I have used in this debate, and I see no reason to do either.