Agnosticism is a great way to look at life.

Ok, so let's talk about why I've won. I feel that the easiest way to to do this is to just go through the categories of voting and talk about why I've won each one (or not, depending) But first, let's talk about the definition and its relation to the topic. The reason we ought to prefer Merriam Webster to the Skeptic's Dictionary is two fold: 1. M-W is a more authoritative source for definitions, as it is much more widely used when compared to the Skeptic's Dictionary. My opponent posted a Google search link to just the term "agnosticism", but here's a link of my own: http://www.google.com... That's for the definition of agnosticism. M-W comes first. And since it's more specific to a definition of agnosticism, this is the search and therefore the definition we choose to use. 2. M-W gives a definition of agnosticism in a non-religious sense as well. This topic is not about religious agnosticism, it is merely about agnosticism in general, so we would want a definition that is non-religious as well, which the Skeptic's Dictionary does not have, but M-W does. ~~~~ Ok, so with that out of the way, let's talk about voting. CONDUCT: Well originally I believed that I ought to lose the point, since I had missed the deadline for a submission. However, my opponent has also done the same, so I suppose we're even there. So you can be picky and count who said thank you more, but I think most voters should just give us the tie. S/G: I don't think either of us were blatantly using bad grammar, so you ought to just give us the tie here too I guess. ARGUMENTS: Here's where the voting will change the results of the debate. I provided two very clear arguments that were both inadequately refuted by my opponent that showed some of the harmful aspects of agnosticism. The first argument talks about how pure agnosticism will stop any actions from being taken, and my opponent isn't able to refute this with anything other than saying that not everyone will be agnostic. But that contradicts his point, since he's saying agnosticism is good, but relying on others to make the decision just undermines his own position. The second argument specifically talks about the effects that religious agnosticism could cause. My opponent misinterprets this to mean that religious agnosticism specifically says reality doesn't exist, but that is a poor misunderstanding of my argument. The argument is that the framework of religious agnosticism allows a person to use that same framework to similarly deny the existence of other metaphysical entities, like reality and morality. And if it cannot be known if morality exists, it cannot be known if something is right or wrong, so there's nothing stopping anyone from mass murdering people. My opponent is unable to provide an adequate response to these 2 arguments, which should be the first reason I ought get the ARGUMENTATION points. Secondly, my opponent is unable to muster any arguments of his own that would give him offense in the round, other than some nebulous claims about what he *really* meant in his topic, and how he's right. He lacks the argumentation and warrants that he would need to have offense in the round. So finally, we're at SOURCES: He has 2 links: Skeptic's Dictionary and a Google Search. I have M-W.com and a Google search. Since we both use Google, the only point of comparison are our sources for our definition. Again, M-W.com is a stronger source as it gives me a stronger link to the topic at hand, and is much more widely known, and therefore has a higher reputation than the Skeptic's Dictionary. So when you look back on the round, here's how your voting will go: Conduct: Tie S/G: Tie Arguments: CON Sources: CON Thank you.