Is it just me, or is convincing someone of something in a believer vs. nonbeliever debater generally not possible because:
Belief-claims aren't wrong or right to the believer.
To the nonbeliever, a claim should be wrong or right.
Religious belief is usually faith-based, ie: unevidenced. It's unlikely to have been adopted from a critical analysis of observed or tested facts, and pointing this out will rarely change the mind of a believer. The basics are installed long before a child learns to evaluate or analyze evidence. It's hardwired.
Facts and reason didn't install these beliefs, and facts and reason will rarely change them.
Non-believers may lack belief for many different reasons. Some open to facts, some indifferent to them. On the whole, however, non-believers are less emotionally invested in their disbelief than believers are in their belief. Changing a belief, or adopting new beliefs isn't a matter of ego-identity.
Belief-claims however, can only be proven moral or immoral, if that, or orthodox or heretical.
If it can be proven or disproven, it's not a belief at all.
Good luck with proving morality. Beliefs, though, are often fact-based, and open to disproof, or to proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
How are you defining belief? Can't a belief be fact or fantasy; evidenced or imagined?
A belief is anything you hold to be true. It doesn't matter why you believe something, it's still belief, true, false or undetermined.