Debate: Is there a right religion or is it OK to just try to be good?
Side: Just try to be good.

There are many ways to arrive at what you define as truth? And what you believe, or know, or assume, or think and what is a credible source of a sound position. And its important to understand to what degree your position is credible and reasonable.What is the objective approach you used to conclude truth, or what is probable, or possible? Or what is just steering through popularity in social attitudes, and to be tested as reasonable or unreasonable selective conclusions for positions held and degree of truth held?So this debate is focused on how you define your "truth" and show your work, and prove it is a credible truth that has been arrived through reasonable conclusions through fair evaluations, weighing relative arguments objectively, and not just based on a bias or assumption.So the question is, What are the foundation of facts you used to weigh and determine your views and opinions?What validation process did you apply to all sides of issues or beliefs?What criteria did you apply to weigh and apply to conclude your beliefs, or views, or opinions?Are you foundation of facts persuasively established through an honest comparison?Are the foundations of facts used reasonable for taking a stand or strong position for what is fair, or right, or is truth in a matter?Did you arrive at your conclusion without an independent fair objective investigation?. In general, many people accept what is told to them at face value if the opinions appeal to their mentality or world view, and similar in nature to the other opinions they already hold.. For Example: - Many people dig their heels in arguements in favor of Atheism, while hiding behind findings exclusive only to Evolution. . Or hiding behind the many truths is even dumber. This is a case of dumb and dumber, and stupid and stupider!1 Corinthians 2 10 For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. 11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, 13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.14 But  a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. 15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. 16 For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he will instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ.By so doing they refuse to objectively challenge their positions through an honest evaluation of other persuasive evidence and findings. An opinion lacks credible logic and reasoning, if any argument used outside of their defensive comfortable argument or field of study.A person who is selective only of points that agree with their view is just a noisy whoops whirly bird you shake on New Years Eve. It's meaningless noise!There isn't any credibility in views left unchallenged! Unchallenged points of debate are futile arguments. Argument that rejects challenge outside their defensive comfort level, are unstable, and have no credible merit!If your view refuses to address findings from other sources, with potential of evidence proving to have equal merit for persuasion, then your view simply put is just a small opinion of an uneducated idiot!No matter how smart you think you sound, it's just an admission of how not smart you actually are! As seen often in debates in support or denial of Divine Intrusion.Those who remain unchallenged in their views because they will only debate through one direction refuse true investigation of evidence worth equal consideration, in the case of these arguments that the possibility of God exist is credible. And reasonable evidence of Divine Intrusion outside of their comfort level arguments in evolution do exist.And by ignoring it exists it shows a lack of credibility in their entire argument. How can you take a stand without honest evaluation of all evidence? Is there integrity in an argument if evidence remains ignored without them honestly evaluating it?Since evolution is not fully conclusive in every way, then evolution is not a Deductive Argument.It may be a convincing Ampliative Argument, but it is not a Deductive Guarentee, or even a Deductive Assurance.Evolution in itself is an Inconclusive Argument because it is still only an opinion without Absolute certainty Affirmatively Proven beyond any doubt reasonable or unreasonable, in the rules of Absolute Facts, so it remains Debatable. And is unable to conclusively confirm or deny if God Exists or if God Doesn't Exist!Opinions in debate should pass a test of credibility. Showing the opinion was derived through an objective challenge, and through a thorough investigation, and with an honest approach applying equal weights of measure for points and debating possibility and probability with at minimum an objective review of supports or points that are used in persuasion.It's evident in every issue debated, it's a human nature character flaw to think winning in opinion by a refusal to weigh the opposing opinions is even a debate in the 1st place!.