Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

More of you misrepresenting what is written. Italics mine, bold yours. Between numbers are important, since you seem to skip things otherwise.I stood on the neutral zone but you burst out and say that God does not exist. From here, it will be your responsibility to prove it. I then gave many links of me in our debate saying my position is "I have not been shown evidence that a god exists" then summed it up again after all my links showing my stance to not be what you say it is.I have always been on the side that I have not seen any evidence of god existing. 111111But you did not include the parts where you insisted that God does not exist in an event that can be explained.I said Evolution works without needing a god to explain it. This is clearly not me doing as you said"burst out and say that God does not exist". This is not claiming a god does not exist as you claim, it is saying evolution does not need god to explain how it works.Straw man arguments seem to be your specialty. This is dishonest of you at worst and mistaken at best. I doubt this is an accident though as you keep moving this claim trying to make it fit somewhere using poor logic.111111On to the next bit.You were claiming that a change of words will change the poll. I showed how it does not, then you skipped it. And yet, you are still saying that it is I who is at fault.Link to your proof?I didn't skip it. I linked many times where I provided evidence that changing the words would affect the poll in the last 3 posts. The Gallup poll that states this explicitly. With the exact terms we were discussing even! I also noted that this line of reasoning was against your claim that "there is more religious scientists now than Darwin's time" and not what you strawmanned me to claim several times. Your newer claim (you moved away from there being more religious scientists now than darwin's time as I showed you that your own poll debunks that claim) is that more scientists are religious than not. Yup. I questioned what you are inferring with this though. 3 times even, (you seem to keep ignoring it, so 4 times now). If you just simply repeat the statement and ignore the rebuttal why would I keep doing the same? But since you seem to insist I will indulge you one last time with the same rebuttal as the last 3.It is either ad populum (there are more believers than non believers does not give legitimacy to an idea) or an appeal to false authority (too general a group, unable to view their reasonings). Couple that with the fact that this group believes less than the general public even (stated explicitly in the poll you linked even). You had no response, I assumed because it was pretty clear your attempt was fallacious.And would you mind explaining why you no longer argued against my response?My responses were sufficient but you ignored them. Every time. Without any rebuttals to any responses you just repeat your claim. I could just ask you why you skip about 90% of your opponents responses, lots of people have brought this up to you. This is the other thing you do besides constructing straw men. I think you will skip it again and it is right above the bold above this portion of my response. Now why did I put the numbers around the beginning? To use your favorite saying, It is the elephant in the room.I put the numbers around the straw men portion because I find this behavior to be your mainstay when addressing your opponents. Your continued twisting of my words in this instance to support your claim of me taking the action to burst out and say that God does not exist shows me that you are extremely likely to be dishonest in this matter.I am not sure who you think you are fooling. Many people have called you out on this behavior. Heck, I really am done now as I feel you are just trolling or are just extremely delusional.(I am sure here you will sum up some response where you claim yourself the victor and butcher another claim made by someone).