This is not a debate about Gods or not, good or bad etc. It's a conclusion about that form of debate: some believe (believers) on arguments that some others don't accept (nonbelievers). It's a question of personal choice in the validity of certain arguments. Deduction of knowledge and truths. Some say it's valid some say it's not. That is the question.
I say absolutely not. The wast majority say absolutely yes. I say it's not productive, they say it's just that etc. Whatever the argument about the argument is, it just celebrate or refutes it. This makes the rhetorical situation a debate about what kinds of arguments we should embrace or not. This is, if you ask me, the core of the problem and the most important question to explore. The question to debate if you like to make the whole 'supernatural vs naturalist' debate productive.