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

It was my impression that words such as "religious" and "song", of which almost everyone knows he meanings, definitions were not needed. When a word with an obvious definition comes up, and there are no definitions, there is no need to define it. When it's defined later and incorrectly, a debate can easily be derailed [1]. I'd be happy to debate you on what makes a song religious some other time, but I currently have several other debates going on. The obvious definition, however, is "of or pertaining to religion". Your impression was incorrect, as both “song” and “religious” have skewed lines of where they begin and end. For “song”, music without lyrical content falls into a grey area. For “religious”, material without clear religious intent falls into a grey area as well. I pointed these clear lines of grey out in my previous posts, and made it clear that my definition of “religious” was that the material must have an intention to be religious. Your source is actually very helpful in this scenario. In that debate, Pro failed to define DNA, because of his assumption that it was clear. Con then won the debate based on the fact that the acronym “DNA” was ambiguous, just like the exact definition of “religious” is ambiguous in this debate. When the maker of the debate clearly fails to provide definitions for something that he believes is obvious, a game of semantics can ensue, just like it has in this debate. Since you failed to define the word religious (and you failed to state where definitions would be stated at) you cannot fault me for using my definition of religious for my arguments, nor are you in the right for saying that I “incorrectly” defined the term. That is the definition that I thought was fitting for the word religious. If you don’t like it, then I suggest you be more specific in future debates and clearly define terms that could be interpreted multiple ways. It is a lesson that I also hope Pro learned in the debate that you cited. But in no way does it hinder it. The amount of people that have been to school on a Friday is greater than the number of people who are Hindi, and the song relates to more people when taken literally. This helps widen the audience, and makes the song easier to relate to. While your song may be more vague, and easier to interpret as religious, it is incredibly repetitive, much more so than Friday. This clearly highlights one of the biggest negatives of religion, indoctrination and hypnosis. While the other themes you pointed out were valid, this one is clearly one of the more prominent. You have absolutely no proof that it doesn’t hinder it, which you pair beautifully with a complete lack of proof that it helps it connect with a wider audience. The song’s lack of religious context and distinct detail about going to school on a Friday works to ensure that very few people interpret it as religious. You argue that Rebecca Black created her own metaphors, and this is why I didn’t find waiting at a bus stop to be a known religious metaphor. Yet, you fail to acknowledge that this contributes to the fact that the song does not seem very religious. I have looked through several reviews of the song, some of which I will cite in the comments, and not a single review interprets the song religiously. This shows that the song is not often interpreted as religious (in fact, your argument here may very well be the first documented example of someone doing so). The lack of religious context with this song DEFINITELY hinders its ability to be religious, because it directly causes people not to interpret the song as religious. The same could be said for “Doin’ It Right”, I suppose. The glaring difference, however, is that “Doin’ It Right” is vague, and it allows the listener to interpret for themselves what it is that is being done right. “Friday”, however, is very specific in that it is about going to school on a Friday, thus listeners are less likely to make their own interpretations. I will now provide a summary of the debate, and show that I should be the victor in this debate based on a lack of clarity and proof from my opponent. Firstly, I should state that to win this debate, we need to do two things - prove that the song is religious, and prove that it is the greatest song created in the past decade in terms of being religious. In round one, I accepted the debate and attempted to clarify the meaning of the word “song”, as my opponent provided absolutely no definitions in his opening statement or any indication that definitions would be provided anywhere in the debate. He ignored this entirely, forcing me to continue with the song “Doin’ It Right” instead of my original choice, an instrumental music piece by the band Battles called “Inchworm”. In round two, I attempted to clarify my definition of “religious”, showing that I believed that a song was not religious unless it was intended to be religious. I argued very clearly that it was extremely unlikely that Rebecca Black intended for her song “Friday” to be religious, while it was somewhat more likely that the song “Doin’ It Right” would be religious. My opponent provided a questionable interpretation of the song “Friday”. In round three, my opponent argued that my definition was incorrect, and even that it “didn’t belong” in the debate, even though there was no other definitions of the word. If we don’t know what constitutes “religious”, then how can we prove that a song is or is not a good religious song? He also completely agreed that my song was religious, thus satisfying my burden to prove that the song was religious. I also rebuked his song as religious under my definition, and argued that his song was not a good religious song because it was difficult to interpret it as religious. In this round, he states that he does not need to prove that his song is religious, simply because he can interpret it as that, and I made the arguments seen in the first half of this post. In conclusion, our BoP was separated into three categories: 1. Burden to prove that it was religious under my definition, 2. Burden to prove that it was religious under his definition, and 3, burden to prove that it was great. I automatically satisfied one and two, as he conceded that my song was religious. My opponent, however, never satisfied number 1. In this round, I show that he also failed to satisfy 3, while my song is at least more likely to be religious. I am running short on time, so I will provide sources in the comments.