Agnosticism is a great way to look at life.

Well, this is my first debate is a while, so I apologize in advance if I seem a little rusty, it will be because I am. I want to take this moment to thank my opponent for posting this debate, which also seems to be his first debate, so congrats on joining DDO! Ok, so let's talk about the topic. It stands as follows: Agnosticism is a great way to look at life. So, let's go through it, looking for the important stuff. My opponent conveniently provides a definition for agnosticism, which is:"the position of believing that knowledge of the existence or non-existence of god is impossible." I have a better one. an agnostic, according to http://www.merriam-webster.com... is: 1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god 2 : a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something There's a few reasons that we should go with my definition. First, Merriam Webster is significantly more well known than this Skeptic's Dictionary, not to mention has been in use for much longer. Also, Merriam Webster provides a definition that will actually apply to this debate. My opponent's definition of agnosticism is good when asking for a way to look at religion, but is lacking when we want to apply it to life in general. My definition has no such shortcoming, since it provides a definition in relation to religion (1), and life (2). So moving along, we get to "great way to look at life" This would seem to be the part of the topic that gives me and my opponent our burdens, jobs, whatever you want to call it. As PRO, my opponent would have to show that Agnosticism is a "great way to look at life", and I would have to show that it is NOT "a great way to look at life". My opponent is already falling short in his first speech. He spends the first half (everything above his definition) giving a story about his life and his internal debate over atheism or theism. Then he claims that agnosticism is a great way to look at religion, in the paragraph right above his definition. HOWEVER, all he has is that agnosticism "is an entirely legit way of thinking." Whoopdedoo, but he has to show that agnosticism is a GREAT way of thinking, especially about life. He's just shown that it's ONE way to look at life, not that it is a GOOD way to look at life, or even GREAT. and then his speech ends. So we have no argumentation that agnosticism is actually a Great way of looking at life, only that it is A way to look at life. He's clearly lacking any offense that he would dearly need to win this debate. So, I've used up half my characters showing why my opponent is not winning, and even if I stop here you'd have to vote for me since it's PRO's job to actually provide some sort of offensive argumentation, and if I successfully prevent that from happening, I have won. But here's why agnosticism is NOT a great way to look at life. ~~~~ Argument 1: Agnosticism prevents us from taking any action, just from the definition. Here's why: In order to take any action, we would have to make an opinion, and then commit to it. Even something as simple as what to order in a restaurant would be rendered impossible if we were to apply agnosticism. Should I get the steak or the fish? If I apply agnosticism, it would tell me to not commit to either one. So I cannot choose the steak OR the fish, and choosing one or the other would mean committing to it, which you CAN"T do under agnosticism. So you'll starve. Something more complicated perhaps? In the realm of politics, agnosticism prevents any policy action from happening. Just imagine if every single person in Washington refused to venture an opinion. No one would be willing to commit to a side on any issue. Nothing would get done. Agnosticism would prevent ANYTHING FROM HAPPENING. Here's why it matters: Well if it's Agnosticism that is preventing anything from happening, from something as simple as what to order or something as big as policy directives, then the world would be stuck in a standstill. That's clearly not a good thing, as we could all die because we can't choose what to eat. ~~~~ Argument 2: Even religious agnosticism is bad. Here's why: If we say that the existence or non existence of a God, higher entity, whatever is impossible, what is to stop us from calling other things unknowable? The existence of morality might exist or it might not. We don't know. Therefore we can't assume it does, and what's then left to stop me from committing heinous crimes? There's no sense of morality stopping me, since morality doesn't exist. What about reality? We can't know that you or I exist, or that even there is such a thing as existing. If you remember from the movie Inception (spoiler alert for those who have not seen it), Cobb plants the idea that they are dreaming into Mal's head. Mal, in real life, then begins to question if the reality isn't just another layer. This drives Mal to commit suicide, because she believes she was dreaming. Here's why it matters: Religious agnosticism might be handy for those who don't want to make an opinion, but under a framework of assuming something is unknowable can just lead to bad things, not good. ~~~~ In conclusion: Just to recap. We have the definitional arguments. We prefer M-W since it a definition that not only encompasses religion, but also agnosticism in life, which is what the topic is about. We have my opponent, who has no offensive argumentation to prove why agnosticism is a GOOD way to look at life. Then we have my 2 arguments as to why agnosticism actually can lead to bad things, both in real life and when applied to religion. In real life, agnosticism prevents decisions from being made. Applied to religion, it also is bad since claiming something as unknowable means we can claim other things unkn