The Instigator
vbaculum
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Puck
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Atheism is a System of Argumentation

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/10/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,838 times Debate No: 12311
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

vbaculum

Pro

I will argue that the only logical use of the word "atheism" is to refer to a system of
argumentation. This proposal has the necessary implications that the word "atheist" should only
be used to refer to people who, in one way or another, engage in this system of argumentation.
I will also attempt to discredit the notions that atheism can be used to refer to anything else.

First I will clarify what I think atheism truly refers to in English then I will argue what I
think it isn't. I will argue the following:
Atheism is not a lack of belief in a god or gods. Atheism is not the type of thing that
comes in different forms. Atheism is not a philosophy or belief system. Atheism is
not a conviction that there are no gods.

So what precisely do I mean when I say atheism is only a system of argumentation. Let's start
with the etymology of the word itself.Atheism is from the Greek pejorative "atheos" meaning
"godless". Modern dictionaries define atheism as either "the belief that there are no gods"
or the "disbelief in gods". So at this point, it should be clear that I am in disagreement
with the glib offerings of modern dictionaries on this subject as well as the etymology of
the word itself. What I want to prove is what the word must logically mean (and not mean)
in terms of the way we use it.

I propose that atheism is a system of argumentation that is developed *in response to* the
religious claims that a freethinking person may find him or herself exposed to and possibly the
victim of. Most Westerners are familiar with the instantiation of atheism that is in response
to the claims of the Abrahamic religions.

I consider assertions arguing against the veracity of religion to be within the definitional
boundaries of the word "atheism" but I would go no further. Atheists are people who use
arguments against the veracity of the existence of gods in discourse or in their thinking.

So far, I don't think this definition would elicit much objection. What I am really interested
in asserting is: that which atheism is not.

Argument 1: Atheism is not a lack of belief in gods
Atheism is not the lack of belief in gods or as people often crudely put it: "unbelief". I have 2 cats and a new born baby.
They almost certainly lack a belief in any of the gods ever proposed by humans yet it would be absurd to
call them atheist. The reason it would be absurd is because they have never engaged mentally
in the system of argumentation called atheism.

Consider a person who is raised in a social setting which is void of religious discussion
and who has never been exposed to a religious claim and therefore has no belief in a deity.
He or she could not rightly be called an atheist either. This person has not engaged in the
system of argumentation called atheism and so is not an atheists even though he or she can be
said to not believe in a god.

Argument 2: Atheism is not the type of thing that comes in different forms.
Atheism is a set of refutations which cannot take on different forms as is often claimed. People have suggested
that there are different types of atheism such as: "existential atheism" (Nietzsche and Camus),
"objectivist atheism" (Rand), "new atheism" (Dawkins, Hitchens), and "Marxist atheism".
These authors are indeed atheists because they argue that theistic claims lack validity.
However, they differ in what they prescribe as the solution to religion. *What one thinks
ought to be done about religion falls outside the domain of atheism.*

Consider that many Marxists believed that the government should eliminate religion from society.
Modern Western authors of atheism advocate that religious claims should be openly criticized
and that the religious impulse should be tamed by secularized governments. But these are not
beliefs about the veracity of religious claims. They are not atheistic beliefs but rather
political and dialectical beliefs.

It should be noted that the primary purpose of secular governments is to protect the religious
from being molested by people of competing religions. Therefore, many theists hold similar
political and even dialectical beliefs about religion that atheist do (secularism, freedom
of speech). Having these types of beliefs do not make atheists out of theists of course.
Here we see that the political and dialectical philosophies that may spring forth from atheism
cannot themselves be considered atheism because theists can also hold these views. Therefore,
the different "forms" that atheism is said to take are not in fact forms of atheism but merely
different, tangential, non-atheist beliefs about politics, discourse, etc...

Because it is believed that atheism can take on different forms, it is often argued that all
atheists have a philosophical connection to communist dictators such as Stalin. This is unfair
because knowing a person is an atheist tells you nothing about his or her political philosophy
which is where the comparison to Stalin gets its bite.

Argument 3: Atheism is not a philosophy or belief system.
In fact, the notion that atheism is a philosophy or a belief is prima facia false. Atheism is simply the result of not being persuaded
by the claims of the religious and the resultant need to explain to one's self or others why
this hasn't happened. This is easiest to see when a currently popular deity is replaced by one
that has already been discarded: If one were to reject the claim of a Neopagan that Odin exists
we would not call this rejection a belief. We would call it a doubt - certainly not a philosophy.

If I were in a social milieu who all believed in leprechauns I would eventually have to explain
why I doubt leprechauns exists. This would not be a belief or a philosophy. It would be a doubt.

Argument 4: Atheism is not a conviction that there are no gods.
This one is probably the most common misconceptions about atheism. Atheism is the dialectical response to claims of
religious certainty. In questioning religious certainty atheism is an expression of doubt.
Doubt is the opposite of conviction therefore atheism is not a conviction.

In conclusion, I hope a debate about the meaning of a word doesn't strike readers as pedantic
or useless. The misunderstanding of the precise meaning of this word has lead to considerable
consequences and has retarded the religion-verses-atheism debate. People who argue atheism are
told they are "certain God doesn't exists", missing the point entirely. Atheists are doubtful and
skeptical; the opposite of certain. Furthermore, they are told that their "certainty" causes them
to be "just as fundamental as the fundamentalist [they] criticize". (In this instance, the word
"fundamental" is misused but I will leave that for now). It is a commonly made accusation that
freethinkers are aligned philosophically with communist despots though the majority of modern
Western freethinkers are likely not communists or supporters of despotic forms of government.
Progress in the larger debate about the veracity and efficacy of religion hinges on our getting
our terminology right.
Puck

Con

There are really only two main issues here that I need to contend. Firstly, what is atheism and secondly why it isn't a system of argumentation.

To that end the majority of my opponent's argument can be ignored since I only need to address the one definition of what atheism is (it is nonsensical to defend multiple definitions of it).

So what is atheism? In Greek the prefix "a" means "without" or "not" and "theos" means "god." While theism the word has an origin in "theos" or "god", theism itself is a derivation that means "belief in God". From this, an atheist is someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. From its Greek roots, then, atheism is a negative view, characterised by the absence of belief in God. [1]

How can this be further justified and does it need to be? If you go to a dictionary, definitions of atheism tend to run a full spectrum that includes both weak and strong atheism. Weak vs. strong atheism are the positions based upon the existence of god; the latter posits that no god exists, the former makes no such claim. So how can two seemingly disparate definitions exist for the one term? Usually by ignoring what constitutes constructing the belief itself. Belief claims come with knowledge claims, whether you are an atheist or a theist. Belief claims not surprisingly relate to those statements regarding belief e.g. non belief or I believe in, whereas the knowledge claim relates to existence.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com...

Both weak and strong atheism are prefaced by 'non belief in', strong atheism adds the qualifier of non existence (usually a gnostic stance) - 'Non belief in' is the requisite for atheism whether one is a strong or weak atheist: "non belief in god and no god exists" (strong atheism) and "non belief in god and unknown whether no god can exist" (weak atheism). Should note that the latter statement of weak atheism does not preclude one from stating such knowledge shall never be knowable nor that any one definition or argument may be false.

So why does Pro reject this definition? Because he sees it leading to absurdities such as the atheist cat. However this argument intends to use the nonsensical as its very base before asserting its conclusion as nonsense. To speak of belief and belief claims towards entities that can form no beliefs, is indeed, nonsensical. In the same manner we shouldn't and don't reject definitions of intelligence because doing so would give rise to 'unintelligent houses' for example, we shouldn't apply belief statements to those entities that are incapable of forming beliefs in the first place; to do so is an equivocation. Inanimate objects or those living entities incapable of forming concepts necessary for beliefs can't have religious perspectives and predicates involving beliefs cannot apply to them.

==

Why isn't atheism a set of arguments? Well the first reason is addressed above. Not only does it ignore the actual root and usage of the term itself, Pro intends on inserting a baseless word for one concept while leaving another concept, that has historical claim to that word, wordless. If we were to take Pro's case then it does by necessity remove what are 'atheists' and that definition.

This isn't the only concern however. Pro begs the question when trying to assert his position:

"This person has not engaged in the system of argumentation called atheism and so is not an atheists even though he or she can be said to not believe in a god."

Attempting to prove his definition by using it as a premise does his case no favour. The error extends further than this though. By attempting to define atheism as 'what atheists do' he engages in a cherry picking exercise. To assert that 'what atheists do' in relation to 'atheism' and assert it retains a relation to the existence of god both seeks to ignore the root base of atheism and its current meaning, while striving to maintain the etymological link. Either the etymology and current use is true or what atheism means is meaningless to Pro's position - he can't have it both ways. By ignoring the root and use of atheism, 'what atheists do', is open to anything atheists do. If atheists suddenly start enjoying coffee groups while discussing arguments and this movement spreads to where atheists drink coffee all over, then atheism can be said to be 'one who drinks drink coffee'. It is this type of fluidity that Pro can't control unless he acknowledges what atheism actually means.

Does it even work as it is? Not really.

"I propose that atheism is a system of argumentation that is developed *in response to* the
religious claims that a freethinking person may find him or herself exposed to and possibly the victim of. Most Westerners are familiar with the instantiation of atheism that is in response to the claims of the Abrahamic religions."

A system of argumentation. Of what? Non existence? Anti-religious? Anti-theist? As a system it is not a system if, as you state, it is *reactive* to another set of positions, it is a system that is always required to be fluid, hence, not a system at all. Can one be 'atheist' and non anti-religious? Yes under my definition, doubtful under Pro's. We see the same concern arising repeatedly. By denying the traditional definition of atheism you deny and destroy many definitional aspects that can be related leaving them definitionless.

A system of argumentation. How? Logic? Logic is already a system. Empirics? Empirics is already a system. Philosophy? Pro denies it is a philosophy (while maintaining it is a system no less). Reason? Reason is a mental process that uses other systems, not a system itself. Will all atheists agree with this system? Is it your system of arguments? Someone else? The person who compiles the largest list? Any? Does that make all arguments in response to theistic ones 'atheistic'? If so an atheist under your definition is required to adhere to every single argument. Either that or forgo the word atheist all together. Doing that is again nonsensical however.

What doesn't Pro's 'system' entail? Where are the non believers? Who are they exactly now that atheism is gone? There is no longer an 'atheist' as it is now under, Pro, simply 'the definition of atheist but we won't call it atheist because I want that word'. Pro's idea is flawed for many reasons. It ignores the actual meaning and usage based on a nonsensical premise. Pro additionally tries to assert a new meaning that doesn't hold up at all either as a 'system' or as a replacement for a word in current existence and usage.

[1] Martin. M. (1992). Atheism: A Philosophical Justification.
Debate Round No. 1
vbaculum

Pro

I may not have fully understood some of your more subtle points so let me apologize now if I
inadvertently misrepresent your views or argue against something you did not assert.

I will reassert, in the light of your objections, my argument that atheism is not a lack of
belief in a god. Cats and babies should not be called atheists because they can't be said to
have rejected a belief in a god. Likewise, a human who has never needed to refute a religious
claim is not called an atheist.

Consider a man who was raised under a totalitarian government which strictly and successfully
prevented its subjects from every being exposed to a theistic ideas. This man has never been
exposed to an atheist argument either because that would require an exposure to theistic arguments.
I ask you: Is this man an atheist. Is it fair to call him an atheist when he has never been given
an opportunity to consider atheistic or theistic arguments. Please answer this in your rebuttal.

Con: "Why isn't atheism a set of arguments? well the first reason is addressed above. Not only
does it ignore the actual root and usage of the term itself, Pro intends on inserting a baseless
word for one concept while leaving another concept, that has historical claim to that word,
wordless. If we were to take Pro's case then it does by necessity remove what are 'atheists'
and that definition."

That atheism is a set of argument seems indisputable. The problem of evil, the argument from
inconsistent revelations and the argument from nonbelief all combine to form a set.

I do ignore the etymological root of the word. The Greek, Latin, Germanic, etc... origin of a
word rarely corresponds to its current use anyway; so why wouldn't I ignore the root? I don't
ignore the current usage of the the term - its refutation is the very subject of this debate.

I call the historical claim to this word in question. There is no reason history should dictate
that we continue to misuse a word.

Con: "Attempting to prove his definition by using it as a premise does his case no favor. "

My proposition rejects this definition though.

Con: "The error extends further than this though. By attempting to define atheism as 'what
atheists do' he engages in a cherry picking exercise. ..."

I do explicitly ignore the root base (I assume this means etymological root). My definition
severs the etymological link and seeks to clarify the current meaning, which I believe to be
misunderstood and therefore in need of clarification. It does not follow, however that this
renders the word meaningless. I was very clear that I thought the true definitional boundaries
of "atheism" must be restricted to an engagement mentally or verbally with a set of arguments.
What should be striking about this definition is its restrictiveness, not it's fluidity. I was
adamant that the meaning of the word "atheism" could never logically seep into the domain of
politics, beliefs about the uses of conversation or anything else (such as coffee consumption).

Con: "A system of argumentation. Of what? Nonexistence? Anti-religious? Anti-theist? ..."

Saying "As a system it is not a system if" seems to be saying A != A. I don't thing you are
saying that but it makes the rest hard to follow. Atheism is a system of argumentation or a
set of arguments against (not "of") the claims of theism.

You are right to say it is reactive. An infinity of religious claims and deities could
potentially be proposed, given an infinity of time or space and a number of human beings to
populate these dimensions. Therefore, a countervailing refutation of these claims must be
developed and employed if the mythologies are to be resisted. This is atheism, and in this
sense, it must be fluid because religious claims are fluid (i.e. they are always changing or
being invented). Who says systems can't be fluid (i.e. adaptive) by the way.

If one is an atheist one must be anti-religious if being anti-religious means to doubt/question
the claims of a religion.

Your last statement is untrue. I do deny (I would say "refine") the traditional definition
of atheism. By doing this, I deny that there are certain things (political philosophies such
as communism) are attributable to atheism. It does not follow that communism, for example,
is definitionless.

Con: "A system of argumentation. How? Logic? Logic is already a system. Reason? Reason
is a mental process that uses other systems, not a system itself."

Unfortunately, I cannot understand this so won't be able to respond to it.

Con: "Pro denies it is a philosophy (while maintaining it is a system no less). "
This seem reasonable enough. Why must a system be a philosophy?

A computer system isn't a philosophy. I think I may have been clearer though if I had simply
used the phrase "set of refuting arguments". What do you think Con. Would that have helped?

Con: "Will all atheists agree with this system? Is it your system of arguments? Someone else? The
person who compiles the largest list? Any? "

Atheism is not that complicated. Any set of arguments against theism could rightly be called atheism
whether they are good, bad, mine or someone else's.

Con: "Does that make all arguments in response to theistic ones 'atheistic'."

All arguments that refute the claims of theism are atheistic.

Con: "If so an atheist under your definition is required to adhere to every single argument. "

There is no reason an atheist must adhere to all atheistic arguments.

Con: "What doesn't Pro's 'system' entail? Where are the non believers?:

It would be impossible for a person to be a non-believer because everybody has beliefs. I
simply don't use the word and am not clear on what you mean by it in the context of this debate.

Con: Who are they exactly now that atheism is gone?

Atheism is still here. Atheism is the set of arguments that refute the claims of religion. People
still adhere to the set of arguments and use them in discourse and in their thinking.

Con: "There is no longer an 'atheist' as it is now under,Pro, simply 'the definition of atheist
but we won't call it atheist because I want that word'.

I don't "want" the word "atheism". I want to argue what it must mean in language and what it could
not possibly mean. I want to propose a definition of atheism that is free from contradictions and
absurdities. That's to say, a definition that accurately maps on to the world of linguistic concepts
which language must do to be useful.

Con, you said you would ignore most of my arguments. I was wonder if you could provide your
opinion of them anyway. If not, could I at least trouble you to indicate which you agree with
and which you don't. Thanks. Here they are in their original form:

Atheism is a set of refutations to religious claims (I refined this for clarity as I mentioned above)
Atheism is only a set of refutations to religious claims (If not, what else is it briefly?) .
Atheism is not a lack of belief in a god or gods.
Atheism is not the type of thing that comes in different forms.
Atheism is not a philosophy or belief system.
Atheism is not a conviction that there are no gods.

In conclusion, I want to say thanks for this debate. This is my first one here so let me know
if I failed to follow any of the established rules in the comment section.
Puck

Con

"Cats and babies should not be called atheists ..."

Refer to R1 where I specifically state applying a status of belief claims to entities unable to formulate belief claims or even religious perspectives is nonsensical to begin with.

"Consider a man who was raised under a totalitarian government ..."

Hypotheticals that do not deal with reality are generally only useful in respect to the hypothetical themselves. That said, again refer to R1 where I specifically state that the notion of entities incapable of forming belief claims related to religious perspectives are a nonsensical source for actually applying belief claims related to religious perspectives. There is no disagreement here, but it doesn't make your case at all, quite the opposite. Non belief is a negative *stance* as I defined in R1. Any entity incapable of taking such a stance by virtue of that, are irrelevant to the term itself.

"That atheism is a set of argument seems indisputable."

And yet your case is simply 'it is'. Surely such an indisputable claim would have proper argumentation to back it.

"The problem of evil ..."

Theodicies, proofs, syllogisms etc., fall under logic itself. That one can use logic towards a specific end is the entire point of logic itself; a system that deals with concepts. It doesn't make logical arguments related to existence of deities, ‘atheism' however. Again, as per R1, it requires you to acknowledge the root of the word in relating to god while additionally seeking to destroy the words meaning itself. Either atheism is non belief in God or you need a new word altogether. You don't even have an evolution of the word atheism on your side (yes word meanings shift, that hasn't occurred here however). To be clear, you haven't argued why the current usage is wrong beside it leading to what *you see* as absurdities. However I have already addressed that multiple times, and it's an argument you ignored entirely ...

"I do ignore the etymological root of the word ..."

Because the word itself as used now, which is the determinate factor, is supported by its root base and the term you seek to turn it into is entirely unsupported as it stands. Simply because people called X do Y does not make Y related back to X.

" I don't ignore the current usage of the the term - its refutation is the very subject of this debate."

Yet you can't even decide what the word is, as per the majority of your R1. You spend a lot of time trying to say what it isn't without first defining as it stands now. Additionally you have utterly failed to address the very essence of your argument itself - why it should be called a system of argumentation. You have simply boldly asserted the claim under the banner that it should be because you disagree.

"I call the historical claim to this word in question ..."

Strawman. I never argued that words don't evolve - the specific argument is that the word *now* is *properly* defined as 'non belief in gods' and that the current usage is the proper meaning. To assert it should be shifted requires more than a connection to what some atheists do - see the analogy, R1.

"My proposition rejects this definition though."

Still begging the question. You can't use your premise as the conclusion.

"I do explicitly ignore the root base ..."

By severing the etymological root you have no claim to the word atheism at all. May as well call fbuzzle the system of argumentation against god.

"I was very clear that I thought the true definitional boundaries of "atheism" must be restricted to an engagement mentally or verbally with a set of arguments."

And again, what arguments? All? An atheist is therefore one who adheres to all arguments? Again it simply doesn't work. God doesn't exist because I shave in the morning, though nonsense is still ‘atheism' under your ‘system'. It's not coherent and it's trying to assume a set where none exists.

"What should be striking about this definition is its restrictiveness, not it's fluidity."

Irrelevant to your case, however you stated it was specifically arguments in relation to theist arguments which by virtue makes it by necessity fluid.

"Saying "As a system it is not a system if" seems to be saying A != A."

Not at all, your claim is that it is a system, and yet in the same sentence claim it is in response to other claims. You are equivocating strongly if you wish to assert a system as that what happens later on.

"You are right to say it is reactive ..."

Should note that all of this is a side debate to the actual issue. What any argument against existence is, is irrelevant to the claim that it is atheism. To make your case you needed to present a clear reason why it is indeed the case. What you have done is gone, atheists argue which doesn't lead to your conclusion at all as demonstrated by your earlier begging the question. To make your case you must first assert your case as true under the premises it contains - not just using the conclusion as the base. It just doesn't work.

"If one is an atheist one must be anti-religious if being anti-religious means to doubt/question the claims of a religion."

What claims? All? Every claim? All religions? Again it begs the question and again it is simply too broad a brush. One can be atheist, 'non belief', and not be anti religious or one may be atheist and be anti theist. Under your definition the former no longer exists, and it is an issue you fail to address. By seeking to transform the word as you do, you destroy additional definitions that can no longer exist.

"It does not follow that communism, for example, is definitionless."

Strawman.

"Why must a system be a philosophy?"

For the meaning of system to be coherent it must have structure. Your explanations make it clear it doesn't.

"A computer system isn't a philosophy."

Equivocation. Note I never argued that your system was a philosophy, just that your claims are inconsistent. :)

"Atheism is not that complicated. Any set of arguments against theism could rightly be called atheism
whether they are good, bad, mine or someone else's."

Ignoring the first part because it is irrelevant (someone else can take issue with it :P) - a system that is defined as 'anything goes' isn't much of a system. Again however this is still irrelevant to Pro's case itself which he has utterly failed to provide valid argumentation for.

"There is no reason an atheist must adhere to all atheistic arguments."

Then you divorce the two terms altogether if your want your definition to be coherent.

"Con: "What doesn't Pro's 'system' entail? Where are the non believers?:

It would be impossible for a person to be a non-believer because everybody has beliefs."

Strawman; ignoratio elenchi. The context is clear in this debate what a non believer is and the point isn't addressed. What is someone who has non belief in gods? No longer an atheist they must choose a new term? But the root usage is stolen by your claim and there now exists a concept where there was a definition and a term but now exists none. This was raised R1 and again ignored.

" Atheism is still here ..."

Nope - ‘non belief in' disappears to the ether. Again you create conceptual chaos.

"I want to argue what it must mean in language and what it could not possibly mean."

And yet your arguments relies on circular reasoning and that's really all you've set it on. You ignored the refutation of why assigning nonsense claims based on a nonsense claim doesn't make your argument.

==

Regards, Puck. :)
Debate Round No. 2
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by vbaculum 6 years ago
vbaculum
SPELL CHECK:
Zetsubou,
Many if not most atheists, when asked if they believe there are no gods, respond that they can know no such thing for certain. They make the point that there is no evidence for a god; making the likelihood of the existence of such an entity extremely small. The God Delusion, for example, is very clear on this.
Posted by vbaculum 6 years ago
vbaculum
Zetsubou,
Many of no most atheists, when asked if they believe there are no gods, respond that they can know no such thing for certain. They make the point that there is no evidence for a god; making the likelihood of the existence of such an entity extremely small. The God Delusion, for example, is very clear on this.
Posted by Zetsubou 6 years ago
Zetsubou
"Atheism is not a conviction that there are no gods."

I lol'd.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Madoki 6 years ago
Madoki
vbaculumPuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by belle 6 years ago
belle
vbaculumPuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 6 years ago
TheSkeptic
vbaculumPuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03