It is wrong to debate about God

Response to my opponent's contentionsContention: Rational arguments won't convert youMy opponent never brought any proof to back up this assertion. I however can show that people have been converted both to and from different religions through rational thinking, notably C.S. Lewis(from atheism to Christianity) who was partially influenced by the apologetics of G.K. Chesterton. Among others were Francis Collins(from atheism to Christianity) and Alister McGrath(from atheism to Christianity), both of whom along with Lewis converted to Christianity from atheism due to either empirical or rational arguments for God's exisence and specifically the validity of the Christian faith. While faith is usually important to the religious, it is not the only way to convert to a different religion. Many have examined available evidence and determined it to favor the theistic conception of the world. Lewis, Collins, and McGrath are only a few examples.Contention: Rational arguments will shake your beliefIn this contention, my opponent argues that theists should close their eyes and cover their ears to reason because of the possibiliy that they will lose their faith. However this argument ignores all of the people who have been converted to theism through reason. Some people cannot make themselves accept things on faith and so utilizing reason gives them the chance to convert. I am not making the argument that everyone should be forced to consider rationally the arguments for and against theism, only that it is not wrong to do so.Also, being autonomous agents, it is competely within our power to decide whether or not to accept theism. When one engages in argumentation, they are not forcing anyone to agree with them, but presenting their own opinions or criticisms. Argumentation is inherently a non-aggressive process, agressive being used in the libertarian meaning of not infringing on another's rights. If someone fears that their beliefs will be shaken by argumentation, they are completely free to refrain from doing so.Contention: It is disrespectfulAgain, this presupposes God's existence which we had never established. My oppnonent framed this as a debate about general theistic belief, not belief in a specific God. Also, being disrespectful does not make something wrong. Many find it disrespectful to dissect political beliefs but most realize that it is necessary for progress. If we were all to remain silent about current issues, nothing would get done. The same applies to belief in a deity. If no one were pemitted to debate it's existence, people who hold it's existence as a problem to be visited rationally would not be converted or have the opportunity to debate it for themselves. Also, my opponent neglects the rationally minded Christians who debate on Christianity all the time, namely William Lane Craig and Lee Strobel who are not offended by argumentation but embrace it.I will not bring a positive case, in that my point has been well covered in my responses to my opponent's case, that argumentation and debate do not infringe on another's rights and that due to the non-aggressive nature of debate, anyone is free to walk away and refrain from debating at any time.