Throughout the whole debate, John Lennox has managed to present strong points with a touch of humour in it. His strengths were ultimately being able to give a good and convincing reply to whatever Richard Dawkins had to say. These strengths also managed to capture most of the audience’s attentions and they seemed to respond better towards Lennox instead of Dawkins. For instance, on the topic of blind faith, in response to Dawkins, Lennox questioned Dawkins faith in his wife, in a joking manner; and true enough, Dawkins could not reply to the question. This is because Lennox has a very detailed knowledge about what the word “faith” represents, where as Dawkins does not. John Lennox also stated that the belief in atheism itself is a faith.Besides that, another of Lennox’s strengths is that he presented his arguments in a confident way. An example of this is when Lennox talked about the morality of humans. According to Dawkins, the moral values within a human are not embraced through a book; be it the Bible or the Koran, but rather through their own selves. He also claims that “there is something in the air” is driving us to be morally right, rather than just some holy book telling us to do so. Lennox then argued that “humans around the world show a common core of morality showing that we are made in the image of God”. He also says that what Dawkins meant was that ethics cannot be extracted from science, and there is no design, justice or purpose. In other words, Dawkins was saying that there was no such thing as good or evil, and that DNA which makes up of every human being doesn’t know or cares, but rather, it was just there. Lennox then gave a strong argument that if Dawkins said that there was no such thing as good or evil, how can he be sure that Atheism was good, and Theism was evil.