People are idiots if they argue against Religion.

This is going to be the most philosophically complex round, so I ask the readers to bear with me. Since my argument (Pro, Round 2) has been accepted, all that remains to be discussed are the implications of that argument. If the audience will recall, the conclusion has been reached that there is no criteria of knowledge. Therefore no one can have any knowledge and thus, by my opponent's definition, every person is an idiot. Objection 1: Con's position is: the fact that someone argues against religion does not make that person an idiot. By proving that everyone is an idiot, has this resolution been addressed? Objection 2: Having proven that no one has knowledge, is it impossible for me to claim that a specific person (Mr. Dawkins) does not have knowledge? =Answer to Objection 2= Objection 2 has greater scope than Objection 1, and so I will discuss it first. The reason is simple: If my opponent's objection is correct, then NEITHER HE NOR I CAN WIN. The argument that I presented in Pro Round 2 is the position of skepticism. This argument has been accepted by my opponent. Now, if my opponent's objection is upheld, and consequently I am no longer allowed to make any claims due to my skepticism, then, having accepted my argument, NEITHER IS HE. Thus, this debate would be concluded as a draw, because both sides have conceded that they have no knowledge, and without knowledge there can be no conclusions. However, my opponent's objection is not correct. My argument, was that there can be no knowledge about the world from experience or reason. But our debate, about whether people who argue against religion are idiots, is not a discussion about particulars. It is merely a DEFINITIONAL issue. For example, even if we know nothing about the world for sure, we know that all triangles have 3 sides because they have been defined that way. Given this, do we know anything about particular triangles? My opponent says no, but he is mistaken. We cannot know the existence of a particular triangle, we cannot know its particular accidental features, we cannot know its size, etc. We CAN know that a particular triangle must have 3 sides - this follows from the definition. I have shown that there are NO CRITERIA for knowledge, and my opponent has agreed. That means that we are agreed that no one can have knowledge. This is not a claim about particulars, but is a universal definition. All it says is that since we have no knowledge, it is nonsensical to speak of anyone having knowledge. Now, from my opponent's definition of "idiot", everyone is an idiot because no noe has knowledge. This is like saying all triangles have 3 sides - even a skeptic can conclude this, because it is not a point of knowledge but rather a definition. By saying that Richard Dawkins is an idiot, I'm not claiming to know about Mr. Dawkins or even that he exists. I'm saying that if Mr. Dawkins does exist, and he is a person, then by (my opponent's) definition he is an idiot. This does not contradict the argument from skepticism. =Answer to Objection 1= In the first round, my opponent already set the terms of engagement. My opponent correctly observed: "I win this debate if i can prove that at least one person who has argued against religion is not an idiot." The first thing to note is that *he has not done so*. He already admits that no one can have knowledge, so he cannot prove anything about particular people using their individual accomplishments. Therefore, by his own standard, it is impossible for him to have won this debate. Now, I have shown that everyone is, by definition, an idiot. That means that everyone who argues against religion is an idiot. So consider a person, x, who argues against religion. By the fact that x is a person who argues against religion, we can know that x is an idiot. Thus, it is impossible for my opponent to prove that "at least one person who has argued against religion is not an idiot". In fact, the exact opposite has been shown. =Conclusion= My opponent accepted that there can be no sure knowledge about the world. Thus, by his definition, everyone is an idiot. The readers of this debate cannot in good conscience vote Con because he has already implied that he cannot win. If his Objection 2 is valid, then neither of us can possibly win because we cannot prove what we set out to prove. If it is not, then he still cannot win because he has not met his objective of proving that "at least one person who has argued against religion is not an idiot". The topic of the debate is whether people are idiots if they argue against religion. That is, "If x argues against religion, x is an idiot". What I have shown is that the statement "x is an idiot" is true regardless of the antecedent. Logically, if the consequent is always true, then the statement of implication is true. Now, I am aware that this is victory by technicality. I don't actually believe that everyone is really an idiot, and nor would I necessarily call every atheist an idiot. My opponent took something he read off of a forum, which was clearly meant to be a figurative statement rather than a literally categorical one, and took it in the strongest way possible. The resulting position is rather absurd, and only fit to be an intellectual exercise rather than a serious debate. Thank you, Zerosmelt.