The Instigator
van77maxon
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Pennington
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Belief Is Dangerous And Should Be Avoided

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Pennington
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/15/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,459 times Debate No: 32515
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

van77maxon

Pro

Humans have held many absurd and, at times, hazardous beliefs. Examples can be found in our various traditions, myths, cultural biases, superstitions, regulations, legends, miracle stories, advertisements, etc. Further, if we look closely, the ruinous controversies, conspiracies and conflicts all around us link back like branches to our core beliefs.
If we want to kill a tree, we don't just go out and start tugging the leaves off or gnawing on a few branches. Instead, we take a chainsaw or an axe to the trunk. Similarly, major global issues (poverty, injustice, war, pollution, etc.) and their destructive results will persist as long as we're unwilling to deal with the beliefs driving them. We have to attack the root of the problem... within ourselves.
Pennington

Con

Thank You Pro for creating this debate.

My opponent did not set-up any round structure so I will make my argument in the next round. I will not rebuttal my opponents remarks this round but instead use this round for acceptance.


I think we should start by showing just what it is we are debating.


My opponent makes the claim that 'beliefs are dangerous and should be avoided.' Since Pro is the Instigator, they must provide the BOP in this debate. I will go about showing that peoples beliefs are important for their judgement and in making determinations in their lives, while also rebutting Pro. Let's define the language used by my opponent and see what we need to look for in determining if Pro is right or wrong.


Definitions:


A 'BELIEF' is- : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing.


http://www.merriam-webster.com...


Dangerous-


1 : exposing to or involving danger; 2 : able or likely to inflict injury or harm. http://www.merriam-webster.com...


Avoided-


3 a : to keep away from : shun; b : to prevent the occurrence or effectiveness of; c : to refrain from. http://www.merriam-webster.com...


I believe these definitions maintain the spirit of the debate and the intentions by my opponent. I reserve myself rights to present my on argument while also rebutting my opponent next round. My opponent should put forth his full argument next round. I wish Them luck and I await their response.

Debate Round No. 1
van77maxon

Pro

First of all, I'd like to thank my opponent for accepting the debate. I apologize for my lack of structure. I agree with the definitions provided and accept the burden of proof. Before we proceed, I want to acknowledge my hypocrisy in that the title of the debate itself is a belief. A more appropriate title might look something like this: Belief Can Be Dangerous and In Most Cases It's Probably In Our Best Interest To Avoid It. Also, in keeping with my position in this debate, I will try to avoid dogmatic statements that spring from personal opinion.

I doubt that my opponent will disagree that at least some beliefs can be dangerous. The American Psychologist published a report called "Dangerous ideas: Five beliefs that propel groups toward conflict."i I will summarize the five beliefs they discussed just in case my opponent wants to take the position that all beliefs are entirely benign:

Superiority- A foundation for conflict is constructed because they see themselves as meriting privileged status and members of other groups as contemptible, lazy, unmotivated, and inferior.
Injustice- Some groups have a belief that the world is out to get them. They often misinterpret events as unfair that, in truth, are merely unfortunate. Expressions of regret for mistakes or misfortune by the "other side" are dismissed out of hand.
Vulnerability- Groups who interpret themselves as chronically vulnerable feel chronically afraid and anxious. The story of the Middle East teaches us that retaliation can be never ending.
Distrust- When a group assumes hostile intent, it fails to distinguish between actions that are hostile and those that are not. All actions are seen as hostile.
Helplessness- When you believe nothing you can do will make a difference, you usually do nothing at all. Belief in helplessness is more incapacitating than any external circumstance.

Assuming that my opponent accepts that some beliefs can be dangerous, it is my goal to persuade the audience that all beliefs present a threat of harm.

1) Belief is optional.
We can base our perception of reality on facts, knowledge and experience. We do not need to take the extra step of developing a belief. For example, say someone owns a blue car. It's a testable fact. By definition, "belief" does not require evidence or testing. It is the mere addition of "trust or confidence" which can be done regardless of the evidence. I can "believe" the car is black or red or orange but this has absolutely no bearing on what color the car actually is. Through testing, we find that it would be more accurate to say that the paint that has been applied to the car reflects light in the spectrum that some humans refer to as 'blue.' But we're not going to find that a blue car is really black.
This example supports my position that belief can be dangerous because, historically, many of our beliefs have turned out to be wrong. If belief isn't necessary, then it is cumbersome and keep us from sticking to the facts which can certainly be dangerous. I assume the audience agrees with that assertion.

2) Belief keeps people from searching for new, and possibly superior, information.
When someone decides to believe something, the learning process is hampered. The true believer usually doesn't continue to honestly explore the available evidence on the subject. Take, for example, Albert Einstein's belief that "God does not play dice." This belief, based on 18th century determinism, kept Einstein from exploring the apparent randomness in nature. Other scientists pushed ahead and developed a more acccurate theory, known today as quantum mechanics.ii Einstein refused to explore the possibility of uncertainty because of his belief.
As another example, take the archaic belief, promoted for thousands of years in many different cultures, that mental illness was caused by demons. Ancient people developed a surgical procedure called trephining in which a hole was drilled into a suffering person's head. This procedure was performed to "cure beating headaches, epilepsy and insanity"iii and to allow "the exit or entrance of spirits believed to cause illness."iv For thousands of years, mentally ill people had holes drilled into their heads because of a belief.
These examples support my position that belief can be dangerous because it shows that belief can cause us to cling to inaccurate positions, limit possibilities and keep us from finding real solutions.

3) Belief is the motivating force behind confirmation bias.
Confirmation bias is defined as "a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses."v Take for example the practice of bloodletting to cure or prevent illness and disease. Bloodletting was based on the belief that "humors" (blood and other fluids) "had to remain in proper balance to maintain health."vi This practice stayed in place for almost 2,000 years, despite the fact that it is entirely useless. As psychologist R. Nickerson points out, "If a patient recovered, medical authorities counted the treatment as successful, rather than looking for alternative explanations such as that the disease had run its natural course."vii
This example supports my position that belief can be dangerous because it shows that belief can lead us to perpetuate our own delusions and inflict suffering on others.

4) Belief can make us cruel. For example, during the Inquisition, "confession would allow the suspect to acknowledge the crime " the key to repentance, the salvation of their soul, and possible readmission to society."viii In essence, the inquisitors could justify torturing people because they believed it was for their own good.
In a more specific instance, some men recently killed a fourteen-year-old girl because she was a "relentless advocate of education for girls." A spokesman for the conservative religious group called her promotion of education "a new chapter of obscenity" and said, "any female that, by any means, plays a role in the war against [us] should be killed."ix
These two examples support my position that belief can be dangerous because they show the cruelty inflicted on innocent people was justified by belief.

In conclusion, it seems that belief is optional, that it keeps us from exploring new ideas, that it causes confirmation bias and can be used to justify cruelty. I would like my opponent to attempt to refute these claims. If these assertions stand, I do not see any way to avoid the conclusion that belief can be dangerous and in most cases it's probably in our best interest to avoid it. If my opponent cannot refute my claims, I ask that my opponent would make an attempt to explain why we should continue to use them and ignore the risks I have highlighted.

i lson, Roy J.; Eidelson, Judy I. Dangerous ideas: Five beliefs that propel groups toward conflict The American Psychologist (March 2003)
ii Hawking, Stephen Does God Play Dice? Retrieved April 16, 2013 from: http://www.hawking.org.uk...
iii Parr, Nicolette Intentional Cultural Modifications to the Skull University of Florida Retrieved April 16, 2013 from: http://www.clas.ufl.edu...
iv Brought to Life: Exploring the History of Medicine Science Museum Retrieved April 16, 2013 from: http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk...
v Retrieved April 16, 2013 from: http://en.wikipedia.org...
vi Retrieved April 16, 2013 from: http://en.wikipedia.org...
vii Nickerson, Raymond S. Confirmation Bias; A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises, Review of General Psychology
viii Herzog, Tamar Torture in Early Modern Spanish and Latin America (1999)
ix Ghitis, Frida Girl's Courage, Taliban's Cowardice CNN Retrieved April 16, 2013 from: http://www.cnn.com...
Pennington

Con

Thank you Pro for your opening argument. I would like to say I appreciate my opponents curtious nature but he usually can not change the resolution after the debate has been accepted. My opponent makes the correct assessment that his resolution is a belief in itself. Though since my opponent has been civil in this debate to date, I will accept his revised resolution and precede. I would ask the readers to think about these changes throughout the debate.

Revised Resolution Accepted: Belief Can Be Dangerous(I agree) and In Most Cases It's Probably In Our Best Interest To Avoid It(I disagree)

My objective then is to show that it is in peoples best interest to use belief systems(we should not avoid it but embrace it.)

A belief is a state of certainty that's held about specific people, things, ideas or experiences of life. Our beliefs come from a variety of places like our environment, past experiences, our families, through education, and just creative thinking.[1] The greatest belief you can have is belief in yourself or for the theist, it is confidence in God. If it is God or yourself, you need to believe you can do whatever you need to do. Self-confidence relates to self-assuredness in one's personal judgment, ability, power, etc.[2]

The field of social psychology suggested that positive illusory, or irrational, beliefs can be beneficial for the promotion of well being and mental health. They identified in particular three different types of beliefs which they thought contributed to the promotion of mental health. These were unrealistically positive views of the self, illusions of control and unrealistic optimism.[3]

Predisposed to believe

There is no one cognitive tendency for all our beliefs. People search for meaning, particularly during times of uncertainty, research suggests. A 2008 study in Science (Vol. 322, No. 5898) by Jennifer Whitson, PhD, and Adam Galinsky, PhD, found that people were more likely to see patterns in a random display of dots if the researchers first primed them to feel that the participants had no control. This finding suggests that people are primed to see signs and patterns in the world around them, the researchers conclude.[4] Such research also supports the notion that belief is in many ways an unavoidable by product of the way our minds work.

Neural underpinnings

Neuroscience research supports the idea that the brain is primed to believe, says Jordan Grafman, PhD, director of the cognitive neuroscience section at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. This tendency, he says, is spread throughout the brain, and probably arose from neural circuits developed for other uses.[4]

Conclusion

As pointed out, believing is part of our nature and is essential for our growth throughout life. Belief and development are seemingly inseparable. Conceptually religions

provide believers a guideline about life and the life-after and thus provide much-needed

incentives for indulging in productive activities during a lifetime. Most of the empirical studies point to a positive relationship between beliefs and economic growth and development.[5]

REBUTTAL

Superiority-

My opponent misses the mark here as so many believe they are not superior to anyone. Most people have a tendency to seek and believe in freedom and rights toward their fellow man. There are abuses and fanatic beliefs but my opponent must show they out weigh the common variety of social beliefs.

Injustice-

My opponent gets into physiological interpretations and not just beliefs here. My opponent is correct in his assessment that unfair and unfortunate things happen but he must show that a majority of people believe in this and it causes more harm to society than it helps.

Vulnerability-

My opponent beliefs in this instance accuses him of the same thing he is implying. My opponent must show the threat of vulnerable thinking and the effect it has on society.

Distrust-

My opponent makes assertions here. My opponent assumes that all hostile parties can not determine what is hostile and what is not hostile.

Helplessness-

My opponent gave us no example for helplessness. I am not familiar with beliefs that portray helplessness.

1) Belief is optional.

To base our perception on facts, knowledge and experience, it would take belief in what is the facts and what determines knowledge. If we did not believe in what we perceive then how could we ever be sure of anything? My opponent forgets that when one finds facts and knowledge then belief in those facts and that knowledge form. I have shown how it is essential that beliefs are formed. My opponent also identifies that even facts and knowledge we think are true could actually be untrue.[6] Therefore we can not just rely on facts and knowledge but also beliefs from perception. My opponent also uses the fact that, to learn we must make mistakes, as a shot to say that beliefs should not be necessary. We have many beliefs that have been shown as facts by our perception and those facts occurred because of trial and error on beliefs previously held.

2) Belief keeps people from searching for new, and possibly superior, information.

If we did not believe in something then we would never even have a learning process. Anyone who is honest, a believer or not, will continue to search for knowledge. This point is simply for a specific people who do not want to seek more knowledge and not confined to just believers. People have a right for self interest for what moves them. If one chooses to block out certain knowledge because their interest is else where, that does not even constitute actual belief but intrigue. Therefore some may explore more narrower avenues then others. My opponent also takes lack of scientific knowledge for exposing belief as harmful. Should my opponent also say that because a doctor believes he knows how to perform a triple by-pass, we should not have belief that he can? Also we can take a look at all the beliefs that were true but denied and the people who pushed for the truths to be exposed. Should we say they should have not believed in their theory? My opponent fails to see that belief also has found solutions, cures, and philosophies, for society.

3) Belief is the motivating force behind confirmation bias.

My opponent brings up a hypothesis that was used for 2,000 years, yet useless, was not detrimental to the patients. This is less belief than a lack of knowledge. Many of the cures we have today are formed from beliefs in that cure. My opponents examples are more about lack of knowledge then just beliefs. If beliefs were that harmful as my opponent suggest then we would not have many of the things we have today we consider useful.

4) Belief can make us cruel.

People can be cruel regardless of beliefs. The point is that if we did not believe that cruelty is harmful then we would not even be talking about it now. Only just beliefs can fight against harmful beliefs. As so in my opponents examples, people believed against the Inquisition, torturing and killing people and stopped it.

To conclude we see that beliefs are essential and we rely on them for our everyday desicions. There are risks in beliefs, some are harmful, but most lead to the world we have today. To say that beliefs are dangerous and should be avoided is to say that our current world and its growth should be avoided also. I send it back to Pro.

SOURCES:

[1] http://www.joe.ie...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[3] http://www.deakin.edu.au...

[4] http://www.apa.org...

[5] http://www.u21global.edu.sg...

[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 2
van77maxon

Pro

REBUTTAL
The definition for belief that we discussed in the beginning was "a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing." At the outset of your argument you attempt to modify this definition by adding "ideas or experiences of life." I do not consent to your modification because it could be misconstrued as an attempt to alter the definition to support your argument. I ask that the audience reject this modification and assume that Con was not attempting to undermine my arguments by changing the definition.

I disagree that beliefs come from "places like our environment" but this debate is not about where beliefs come from. We are also not debating what "the greatest belief you can have" is.

I accept Con's implied assertion that 'self-confidence is a belief' and agree that this is one case where it's not in our best interest to avoid belief entirely. However, the goal of my argument is to "persuade the audience that all beliefs present a threat of harm." Believing in oneself too much definitely presents a threat which we have words for: overconfidence and pride. I assume most people attribute negative connotations to these words.

Con states that "positive illusory, or irrational, beliefs can be beneficial" for "well being and mental health." I don't think it's valid to disregard the dangers I presented for the positive feelings that come from delusional beliefs.

Con stated "There is no one cognitive tendency for all our beliefs" but forgot to put quotes around it. I went to the study he cited and the words were actually spoken by Mr. Barrett. I will assume that lack of quotes was a mistake rather than an intentional deception. I encourage the audience to do the same.
Con cites a study that concludes "people are primed to see signs and patterns in the world around them" and that "belief is in many ways an unavoidable by product of the way our minds work." This contradicts my assertion that "belief is optional." The key words in these statements are "primed" and "in many ways." First, how are people "primed?" Certainly our brain looks for "signs and patterns" naturally but it's difficult for me to ignore the fact that most children on our planet are programmed with beliefs by their parents at a young age. A lawnmower can be primed but that does not mean that starting the engine is unavoidable. Second, the statement that belief is "in many ways an unavoidable by product..." is quite ambiguous. Also, the qualifier "in many ways" implies that there are other "ways" that belief is avoidable.

Con states "As pointed out, believing is part of our nature and is essential for our growth throughout life." I did not see enough evidence these assertions. Con makes the jump from "belief is in many ways an unavoidable by product" to "belief is part of our nature." How does Con explain the qualifier "in many ways"?

Con states, "Belief and development are seemingly inseparable" but again does not put quotes around the statement. The actual quote, made in the conclusion of Con's reference #5 is "Religion and development are seemingly inseparable." The attempt by my opponent to substitute the word "Belief" for "Religion" seems like an extremely deliberate attempt to deceive the audience. I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt when Con previously attempted to change the definition for belief and failed to use quotes for a statement made by someone else. However, the additional step of changing what the reference was saying seems to reveal the true intention. As a result, I encourage the audience to be very skeptical of Con's willingness to engage in honest debate.

Con states that religions "provide believers a guideline about life" that provide "much-needed incentives for indulging in productive activities." Con assumes that this is a good thing.

Con writes (without quotes) "Most of the empirical studies point to a positive relationship between beliefs and economic growth and development." The actual quote is "Most of the empirical studies point to a positive relationship between religion and economic growth and development." Again, the subsitution of belief for religion. Since my opponent chose to end the argument on this note, I will just say that Con's objective "to show that it is in peoples best interest to use belief systems (we should not avoid it but embrace it)" has been undermined. Whatever belief "system" my opponent is using seems to condone deliberate deception. For one, I have no interest in using it.

RESPONSE TO REBUTTAL
In disussing the article published by The American Psychologist, I stated that I would "summarize the five beliefs they discussed" with the end goal of highlighting some dangerous beliefs.

Superiority- the point was not that "so many believe" or disbelieve but that belief in one's superiority can lead to conflict.
Injustice- Again, the point is not how many "people believe in this" or how much "harm to society" is caused but belief that one is being treated unfairly can lead to conflict.
Vulnerability- Since I was summarizing points made in the article, the statements cannot be misconstrued as my "beliefs." The threat mentioned is that belief that one is vulnerable can lead to conflict.
Distrust- The article may have assumed that "all hostile parties can not determine what is hostile." I can't speak for the authors. However, the point was that belief in the hostility of others can lead to conflict.
Helplessness- The article did not mention "beliefs that portray helplessness" but "belief in helplessness" and said that it can lead to conflict.

1) Con states, "it would take belief in what is the facts." In the interest of grammar, a more proper statement might look like "it would take belief in what the facts are."

Con asks, "If we did not believe in what we perceive then how could we ever be sure of anything?" I agree that we have to have some level of confidence in our perceptions. However, my goal is to show that all beliefs have some degree of danger. Perceptions can certainly be wrong so it would be wise not to believe in them too much.

Con states that since "facts and knowledge" might not be true that we must also use "beliefs from perception." I'm sure exactly what that means.

2) Con asserts, "If we did not believe in something then we would never even have a learning process." If we substitute "have facts and evidence" for "believe in something" I would agree.

Con states that I take "lack of scientific knowledge for exposing belief as harmful." This misrepresents my position. I used the belief "that mental illness was caused by demons" that was "promoted for thousands of years" as an example to show how beliefs "keep us from finding real solutions."

Con asserts "My opponent fails to see that belief also has found solutions, cures, and philosophies, for society." I think my opponent is confusing belief with curiosity and experimentation.

Con did not address my discussion of Einstein and misrepresented my mental illness discussion.

3) Con states "This is less belief than a lack of knowledge." I ask that my opponent show how thinking that "humors" "had to remain in proper balance to maintain health" is not a belief. Since Con accepts facts and perception as beliefs it's hard to see how my opponent can avoid this.

Con states, (in the interest of grammar) "If beliefs were [as] harmful as my opponent suggest[s] then we would not have many of the things we have today [that] we consider useful." Like what?

Con did not address the problem of confirmation bias whatsoever.

4) Con wrote, "People can be cruel regardless of beliefs." This contradicts his assertion "believing is part of our nature." If people can be cruel without beliefs, then beliefs are not part of our nature. Which is it?

CONCLUSION
I have the burden of proof. ince Con did not address many of the points I made and misrepresented others, I ask my opponent to provide a comprehensive response to my arguments.
Pennington

Con

Thank you Pro for your last round. I will address my opponents rebuttal and conclude the debate.

REBUTTAL

Pro did not like the comment I made about meanings for belief and I agree that our original definition is the only valid one. I was making a statement about belief and provided a link for that statement. Does the addition of ideas or experiences really change the definition? Do we not place our confidence in things we experience and learn from or don't we trust that our ideas are sound? I think we must if we are to ever make any kind of determination of the world. Nevertheless I am not attempting to undermine the definition but find the proper texture implied.

Many beliefs do in fact come from the environment we live in. Encouragement or criticism from society determines ones self confidence most of the time. We find encouragement to believe doctors are for our well-being. Your environment puts belief and thought in your day to day life. We must find where beliefs come from if we are going to determine if we should avoid them. We should determine if having beliefs causes enough harm or threat, that we should rid ourselves of it. If our greatest beliefs are about ourselves and naturally form from our perception of our world, environment, and learning, then why avoid it?

My opponent conceded that it is not in our best interest to avoid belief in ourselves. He further says I asserted the notion but I provided links for the thought. My opponent then tries to change the debate himself by saying that he is only trying to show beliefs have negatives. His resolution says that belief is dangerous and should be avoided. He is asserting that all belief is dangerous and all belief should be avoided.

I do not disregard my opponents statements about negative illusory, or irrational beliefs. I don't think it's smart for my opponent to disregard the positives I presented. He then attacks me for posting quotes from links that I cited. The intent of my sources are clear about beliefs and religion being productive in society. I gave the link and any person can see that I got my inspiration from the article I cited. Of course I used the link to support my case. My opponents links and sources are scattered and you are unable to determine where his sources were included.

Pro makes the concession that our brains look for signs and patterns as my source suggest but he ignores the conclusions of those studies. It would be correct for one to say, that just because you prime a lawnmower, doesn't mean you will start it. But, why would you prime it if you was not going to use it? I have shown that belief is a by-product of our nature and we are primed to believe, why shouldn't we use it? I have not seen a good reason why we shouldn't. My opponent obviously chooses not to believe in nothing at all and avoids it. He never shows us if there are other ways other then belief. My opponent shows us that he believes that belief itself is unnecessary.

In many ways belief is a part of our nature, meaning in numerous ways. "It is not obvious that the rules of justice are, in fact, inseparable from the species. Given that Hume finds justice to be natural in this sense, it is possible that many other features of human nature, including certain beliefs, may turn out to be inseparable from the species."[1]

RESPONSE TO REBUTTAL

Superiority- For this contention to work my opponent needed to show that most belief systems develop a superiority problem.

Injustice- Again my opponent had to show that injustice is a overwhelming flaw in belief systems.

Vulnerability- My opponent used these points for his argument so he naturally must defend them and define them. My opponent had to show that vulnerability is dominate in belief systems and because so, beliefs must be avoided.

Distrust- Again my opponent assumes the role of author when he puts others thoughts in his argument. My opponent had to show that distrust is a major by-product of belief systems and therefore we should avoid beliefs.

Helplessness- If we have no example of helplessness then how can we discuss it? Anyway my opponent never shows us that helplessness forms because of beliefs or that we should not have beliefs because of helplessness.

1) My opponent rather correct grammar then approach the point I made and he never does. Then he agrees that we must have a certain amount of confidence in perception, to have confidence we must believe. This concession by my opponent negates the resolution. My opponent then tries to shift his burden and the debate meaning, after he attacks my creditability. My opponent naturally could not show that all beliefs in the world have a degree of danger if we debated about it for a month. My opponents goal here was to show that beliefs are dangerous and should be avoided. Naturally some beliefs are dangerous but that does not mean all beliefs should be avoided.

2)Facts and knowledge can not be assured and therefore perception can give us knowledge and we can obtain beliefs from that perception. My opponent then makes assumptions without any evidence, that because we did not have proper understanding of illnesses that it was incorrect to have a cure in belief. He did not show any case of death or harm. My opponent says I assert alot but his whole case rests on assertion without justification.

3) I never claimed that 'humors' was not founded in belief but instead that lack of knowledge had as much to play in its use. My opponent never offers use any satisfactory reason to exclude belief based on the evidence he has provided. If we did not have beliefs about certain things then we would not have facts or a belief about what are considered facts.

If we did not have confirmation bias then we should not be able to exclude illogical theories. We could not exclude theories that have no evidence or reason.

4) People can be cruel regardless of belief. Everyone has beliefs no matter if they are productive or not. We would not normally think of cruelty as being a actual belief. A person may have beliefs but it doesn't mean cruelty is apart of those beliefs. A person can be cruel separate of their beliefs. One can choose not be cruel even if their beliefs call for it.

CONCLUSION

The conclusion is, even though Con tried to discredit my use of sources, he never showed us that beliefs are dangerous enough that we need to avoid them. That was the resolution and my opponents job to prove. He failed in that job and I would ask a vote for Con.

SOURCES:

[1] http://www.humesociety.org...

Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Turi 4 years ago
Turi
Claiming belief be avoided is a self defeating statement anyway since however makes that claim must also believe it to be true. Is believing belief is dangerous dangerous too?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Enji 4 years ago
Enji
van77maxonPenningtonTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments to Con: Pro showed that some beliefs are dangerous, but he didn't provide a convincing argument for why belief should be disregarded in most cases. As Con showed, humans have a natural inclination towards belief and belief can be beneficial.
Vote Placed by Misterscruffles 4 years ago
Misterscruffles
van77maxonPenningtonTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro demonstrated that belief may be dangerous, but did not demonstrate that belief is dangerous.