The Instigator
drpessimistic
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
TheOrator
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points

Can Science and Religion co-exist?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
TheOrator
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/16/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,388 times Debate No: 24306
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (20)
Votes (2)

 

drpessimistic

Con

Introduction
  • This is my first debate on this site, I am more than willing to debate anyone. I posed the question can religion and science co-exist. This is should be a rather short debate so please, insure that you arguments are set up in a way that no further elucidation is required on your part to explain the argument. Do not bore the people with superfluous language, or, offend the people with destructive language.

Argument
  • My argument is rather simple however, one hopes that it would make for good debate; provide the readers with elucidation. Religion in one form or another make claims at some time or another that are in direct contradiction with modern science. These claims are not properly tested, peer reviews and most of all, these claims are not falsifiable. From where one stands religion attempts to posit another world in addition to the one we already inhabit. This is not a scientific mindset therefore it can not be reconciled with the rigors of peer reviewed science.
TheOrator

Pro

Well let me be the first to welcome you to the site! I hope you find this a worthy and memorable first debate.

Burden of Proof
As the pro, I am effectively making the statemnet that Religion and Science can coexist, therefor, the burden of proof is upon me in the round. Unfortunately I don't know the debate background of my opponent, but in the pursuit of fairness I will explain the BoP as though she doesn't know what it is (although I don't doubt that she does). The Burden of Proof simply means that the party who possesses it must prove a statement true, and if they cannot meet this burden then the statement must be considered false.

Definitions:
Coexist: To exist together, at the same time, or in the same place[1]

Religion: belief in, worship of, or obedience to a supernatural power or powers considered to be divine or to have control of human destiny[2]

Science:
a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.[3]

Constructive Case:
Contention 1: Religion and Science can exist together .
As the definition of Science is explanation of natural phenomena, and religion is the belief in a deity, then I must prove that the two are able to exist together in the same place at the same time.
Subpoint A: Christian Private Schools
One area where we would look for the presence of the two together would obviously be a place where relgion is taught, more specifically the Christian religion. Obviously, courses like physical science, Chemistry, Biology, and other forms of Science would be taught in the same environment where religion is not only present, but taught[4]. Because they can both be taught in the same place, the burden of proof has been fullfilled.
Subpoint B: Famous Christian Scientists
Another example of the coexistance of religion and science would be that of famous Christian scientists. If religion and science truly cannot coexist, then there couldn't be religious sceintists who could make a major impact on the scientific world. If this were true then scientists such as Sir Francis Bacon, Galileo, Descartes, and more[5] couldn't have existed or else made major contributions. However, as science and religion have clearly both existed in these scientists, and it didn't stop them from contributing to the scientific community, the Burden of Proove is upheld.

Contention 2: Evolution
A common argument against the resolution is that because religion discredits the Darwinistic Evolution theory and so the two cannot coexist. However, some Christian schools are already teaching the evolutionary theory in Biology classes, and it's a trend that's likely to increase and continue[6]. Because evolution is already taught in Christian schools, and it's not likely to change, this is not a valid attack.

I look forward to rebuttals from the Con.

Works Cited:
1.) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
2.) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
3.) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
4.) http://www.aopschools.com...
5.) http://www.godandscience.org...
Debate Round No. 1
drpessimistic

Con

First and foremost, I am incredibly appreciative that you have taken time out to debate me. I do understand debate terminology I have debated quite a few times before so there is no need to explain thank you for being courteous thought (no sarcasm intended). I am a male by the way although many have confused me for a female from afar. On to the debate, being that I did not give definitions I expected semantic misunderstandings that was my fault; instead of simply changing the definition I would like to explain why your definition is ineffective due to its generic nature and general public oriented source.

I have read your file and understand that you are on your school's debate team. I do not know how your school structures debates but, in all the debates I have been in providing, definition bases from purely Internet sources with no educational ties is seen as a red flag because of the definition's seductive simplicity. With that said looking at your sources website there is something there that you should read and I will quote it for you:

"Disclaimer: All content on this website, including dictionary, thesaurus, literature, geography, and other reference data is for informational purposes only. This information should not be considered complete, up to date, and is not intended to be used in place of a visit, consultation, or advice of a legal, medical, or any other professional." [1]

This is a formal debate and in the debates I have participated in you would be penalized. Here is a more complete definition of the verb 'coexist' "existing peacefully together" [2] Keep in mind that by your definition the Israelites and Palestinians coexist as well but, I am not quite sure they would take it that way.


In the spirit of your format (which I rather like) I will follow suit.
Constructive case:
Contention 1: Religion and Science can not coexist together.
Being that you have made contentions the burden of proof is back on me, science itself is a branch of knowledge. If you look at my source and read each and every type of science you will see that it is tangible either directly or indirectly but, more importantly if you look at the part meronym you will see the definition for a "Scientific Theory (a theory that explains scientific observations) 'scientific theories must be falsifiable')" [3]. Keep in mind that everything in Science is a theory even the scientific models. Why? This is because they are based on observation either direct or indirect. With this in mind Science and religion can not coexist because there would be conflict. The claims of religion are not only faith-based claims but, they are claims that are not falsifiable.

Subpoint A: If Science is taught in Christian private schools then the teachers are more than likely not teaching proper science because the students would immediately pick up the clear contradictions between the conflicting ideologies. When you listed the courses you stated that "Obviously, courses like physical science, Chemistry, Biology, and other forms of Science would be taught in the same environment where religion is not only present, but taught" [4] Anyone who has taken these courses will quickly tell you that Physical Science is a basic overview of basic physics and chemistry principles. However, in physics there are also many scientific theories that contradict the doctrine of the private school (i.e. The Law of Conservation Energy, Heisenberg uncertainty principle, the light speed barrier). Your information about evolution being taught is accurate your prediction I will concur with as well. However, your burden of proof has been not been met and proper refutation has been put in place.

Subpoint B: As for your famous Christian scientist I would acknowledge that Sir Francis Bacon was a Christian but. I would argue in another debate that Galileo was more than likely a deist. However, without needing to go further when you read my opening statement you would see that I specifically said "Modern Science" these men were great scientist and contributors but, it does not prevent them from being wrong in their beliefs. The Science they had back then was not on the level for what we have now.

I look forward to your response as well.

Works Cited:
1.) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
2.) http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... or http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...=
3.) http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
4.) Your first round re
sponse.
TheOrator

Pro

I'd like to start the round by saying that was an excellent rebuttal, and I'm sorry about the gender mishap. I should have investigated more thoroughly before making the assumption.

Semantics:
I currently debate in the Lincoln-Douglass form of debate, created by the National Forensics League and hosted at NFL (and unfortunate acronym, but that's what I'll most likely be using in a debate unless it's about sports) tournaments. In an LD debate, definitions can make or break a case (For example, in the Districts and State topic, how you defined "Targeted Killing" could win or lose you the round, but it's not normally that important), so semantics are important. They accept any source that is credible and gives a fair and accurate representation of the word, wheter it be an online dictionary or an expert in that field.

Now that the unclearness of the semantical aspect of my normal debating is cleared up, I'll move on the definitions themselves. The main accusation against my definitions would be that it's not from an educational source and so its definitions are flawed due to their "seductive simplicity". However, I would argue that this in fact an educational site (education: tending or intended to educate, instruct, or inform[1] (semanticception. Untill the thefreedictionary.com's dispute is cleared up I didn't want to use it as a source to counter a claim against it)) as it intends to instruct and inform its viewers on the meanings of words and how they are properly used. Furthermore, when looking for the credibility of these words (let's use the site's word of the day, meddlesome, as I can't compare every word in the dictionary) you can simply take a defintion from my site and compare it to other sites to see if it gives an inaccurate representation.
Thefreedictionary: Meddlesome- Inclined to meddle or interfere[2]
dictionary.reference: Meddlesome- given to meddling; interfering; intrusive[3]
merriam-webster: Meddlesome- given to meddling[4]
And even my opponent's site: Meddlesome- intrusive in a meddling or offensive manner[5]
As we can see, even though it's not provided by a school, it's definition is on-par with the definitions provided by legitimate written dictionaries (merriam-webster) used in schools, as well as a princeton site, so it does not give an inaccurate definition. Therefor, we can assume that this site is of educational quality, and the disputation falls. As my opponent's definitions were based on mine being inaccurate, and they have been proven not to be inaccurate, mine are still used as the accepted definitions in the round. Although I do not doubt the fact that the disclaimer exists, I couldn't find it in the page linked. However, I'll work off of the assumption that it's true as I have no reason to doubt your integrity. This disclaimer is most likely used to ward any of the sue-happy individuals who are all too common in today's society, however even the disclaimer states that the site is used for informational purposes, thus making it an educational site.

My Opponent's Case:
Contention 1
:
I'll divide my refutation of this into two parts
1.) The definition of scientific theory
My opponent's first attack in the contention is a semantical one. It states that because Christian claims are not "falsifiable", they cannot be considered scientific. However, "falsifiable" is defined as (and I'm using his site to get the proper context): capable of being tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation[6], and Christian Views have certainly been tested through observation [7,8]. Not believing your views are false does not make something unfalsifiable, it just makes you confident in their validity. For example, morally I'm an egoist, and I don't believe that egoism is false. Sure, someone might be able to beat me in a debate on it every now and again, and i'd be reluctant to admit it's wrong if I'm beaten, but that doesn't mean that it's unfalsifiable. Similarly, Scientists who cling to String theory or the denial of String theory wouldn't want to give up the stance that they're correct and would likely defend themselves with the same amount of faith that a Christian would put into their beliefs, but that doesn't mean the theories are unfalsifiable.
2.) Conflict
The second argument my opponent brings up is that because faith and science would at some point conflict, the two cannot coexist. However, you can look to my string theory argument in "1.)" as an example of how science actually conflicts within itself. As my opponent stated, science is just a bunch of theories. This means that different theories can be held on the same issue, and they will surely conflict if they are on opposite sides. Using my opponent's reasoning that co-existance cannot occur with conflict, then the entire scientific field would not be able to coexist with science, and that's incredibly flawed reasoning.

Defense of my case:
I put this under my case as both subpoints are in direct contradiction to mine. If my opponent finds this misrepresentive, I'll rearrange my structure next round.

SpA:
My opponent's only attack here is that teachers are "likely" to misrepresent information as some of it contradicts religious beliefs. However, this is a rather serious and substantial claim, and you would need evidence to back it up, of which my opponent has none. So, we cannot put faith in such a serious accusation if the only reason it's being brought up is idle skepticism

SpB:
I'd like to apologize for overlooking the "modern science" part of my opponent's opening. I'll instead replace it with a list of modern scientists who meet the same criteria, and I apologize again for wasting my opponent's time. In order to narrow down the search and eliminate individual assumption on what constitutes "modern" as it has not yet been defined, I'll propose that "Modern science arose in Western Europe in the 16th and 17th Centuries" [9]
These are just a few of the scientists who meet the criteria: Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo (although you claim him a deist, you did not source it. "Galileo remained faithful to his church, despite the opposition of individuals in the academic and ecclesiastical establishments who were unable to accommodate his discoveries to their Aristotelian view of the world:), Newton, and Boyle [9].

As my opponent's rebuttal has been proven false, my case still stands and the Burden of Proof is fulfilled
Works Cited:
1.) http://dictionary.reference.com...
2.) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
3.) http://dictionary.reference.com...
4.) http://www.merriam-webster.com...;(warning before you go, this site spams ads and pop-ups since apparently a written dictionary doesn't bring in enough money (:/) so I try to avoid it)
5.) http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
6.) http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
7.) http://www.garyhabermas.com...
8.) http://www.errantskeptics.org...
9.) http://www.cslewis.org...
Debate Round No. 2
drpessimistic

Con

Introduction
Exemplary rebuttal from Pro however, the both of us seem to have veered a bit far off from our debate.
Semantic Argument
First off to deal with the semantic situation because we do not want to turn this into a debate of semantics and gloss over the topic at hand. My opponent made a point that I see as both valid and invalid first in foremost he attempted to argue the validity of the source by giving examples in various comparisons between dictionaries however, as the opponent stated the definitions can make or break the debate. With this in mind I reject that this is an educational site because it has not indicated so in file extensions (i.e. ".Edu"). This rule of course holds only to the definitions because information from a third-party source can still be reliable. Definitions are critical therefore when a word is being defined any and all words must be defined accurately and in detail; which is not done on my opponents primary site. Also, arguing the validity of your site based on the site's word-of-the-day definition will only prove that the site has more detailed definitions for a certain word. Using this site in a formal debate after reading the disclaimer (which is at the bottom of the page) is to be in accordance with the False Attribution Fallacy; regardless of what you think their motive is for placing the disclaimer on the site (which could be true) it does not nullify the fact that it is still there and it still applies. As for your example which you used to support your argument, it is in accordance with the Ignoratio elenchi fallacy because although those particular definitions may be accurate across multiple sites it is irrelevant because it does not apply to the words we are using in the debate. Lastly, in the disclaimer it does say the site is used for informational purposes but, wikipedia also in its general disclaimer [1] makes similar references about the site being used for informational purposes, however, I am sure that you and I both know what will happen if cite wikipedia in a formal paper or debate.

Pro's Case:
Contention 1:
This is where Pro and I disagree majorly, in the definition of falsifiable (which I completely accept) it clearly states capable of being tested by experiment or observation. I am afraid Pro has put himself into a bit of a bind when he stated "Christian Views have certainly been tested through observation" even with your sources (which I raise a brow to) only deal with a few of the Christian views (which become claims by virtue of their assertions). This is a generic statement and I will hold you to it. Keep in mind that we are talking about Religion as a whole so, I really did not want to get hung up on Christian mythology. Anyway here are the claims/views of the Christian faith please provide peer reviewed evidence or even peer reviewed research that is non-biased to either refute or validate the following claims"
  • The claim that Jesus resurrected from the dead is in contradiction with Biology (i.e. Animals have never be observed coming back from the dead)
  • The claim that God created the universe is in contradiction with physics and chemistry (Law of Conservation Matter/Energy)
  • The claim that God is omnipotent and all-knowing is in conflict with quantum physics (Heisenberg uncertainty principle)
  • The claim that God exist outside of time and space is a claim that is not observable or testable. The proceeding are just a few claims that are the cornerstones of Christianity and many other religions.

These are conflicts of thought and can not be reconciled no matter what semantic trickery is invoked. The burden of proof is on you to prove these claims false/true due to your generic statement. Also, your egoist example is flawed because you invoke "belief" this is not a question of rather the religion believes that it is correct. I am not concerned with beliefs, I am concerned with the legitimacy of the claims made by the religion. Whether or not you believe egoism is irrelevant conceptually and in this debate.

Lastly, your claim that Science is simply full of theories is absolutely true however, do not make the mistake of a false comparison between apples and oranges because in Science we acknowledge that everything we have tested is falsifiable and can be proved wrong. Religion does not make this distinction. Be careful not to use the Scientific Theory so loosely in order for something to become a theory it is tested rigorously and endlessly and can still be proved false. The following are also theories:

  • Gravity is a theory, perturbation of Planets is a theory
  • General relativity and quantum mechanics is a theory
  • Evolution is a theory

these theories have withstood the test of time because they have not been proved false despite the attempts of religious scientist and secular scientist to refute them. Your string theory example is also invalid because the act of nullifying an existing theory does not in principle cause conflict (although it can). In science if there are two conflicting theories there can only be one correct theory. For instance, you have Theory A and Theory B, if these theories are conflicting then you can only have one correct answer either A or B. In order for each to be considered a theory it must have an insurmountable amount of evidence to support it (in rare occasions aspects of both are used to forge a more complete theory). In order to truly understand the rock solid foundation of evidence in which real theories are built you must look at it and know what you are looking at. So all in all I would say my opponent was using the word theory far too loosely for my comfort as a scientist, this is simply due to the poverty of the English language but, it is a problem that must not be overlooked.

Defense of my case:

SpA:
I admit that I made quite a hasty claim and although I have pretty conclusive evidence more research is needed before I can actually utilize that claim directly. Indirectly however, we can clearly see the decrease in religiosity is conversely tied to the increase in knowledge in the paper "Education and Religion". [2] In the tables of this paper you see consistent data if it is a bit challenging to read I am sorry but, the evidence is there. See the graphs in [3] also. So indirectly we can posit that knowledge which is fact and theory oriented (theory as I explained is considered Science fact) increases more and more studies are showing that beliefs of any kind decrease. I can not illicitly prove that Christian educators are not properly teaching science however, if they were teaching knowledge based science should there stats also reflect the consistency of this data?

SpB:
I would like to apologize for using the word modern in the first place. It is a very confusing word even using my definition source. When I use modern I am usually speaking in terms of this century the year 2,000 and beyond. I am not sure what your intention was but, it was a rather tricky move on your behalf . I must call this one as what it is an equivocation fallacy. Many of the excellent Scientist at that time did not have the resources that today's Scientist do, and there is no possible way we could know whether or not their views would change.

Relevant Works Cited:

  1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
  2. http://www.economics.harvard.edu...
  3. http://religion.ssrc.org...

I look forward to your closing statement, I am sorry for not making the debate longer I was not aware I would be in for such a good debate. I am a stickler for adequate sources it is simply how I was taught, if I am being a bit troublesome in my remarks about your works please let me know. This is a mistake I will not soon forget and you are to thank. It was marvelous debating with you and hopefully those reading will cast their votes accordingly. -drpessimistic

TheOrator

Pro

As I post my Final focus, I'd like to thank my opponent for an exceptional debate, and I hope we have the opportunity to debate again in the future. I'll address your arguments as I get to them.

Semantical Argument:
In order to make this more efficient for the reader as it determines which set of definitions are used for the round (and so is very important), I'll separate the semantical aspect into the following sections: 1.) Educational Validity, 2.) Word of the Day argument, 3.) Disclaimer argument and 4.) Wikipedia comparison.
1.) My opponent's claim against the educational validity of thefreedictionary.com is that because it does not have the link .edu in the link, then we cannot consider it an educational source. However, not only does he not state why the .edu is the only acceptable way for a site to be considered educational, he completely drops the definition of educational, and so it's the accepted definition in the round. I'll restate, educational: tending or intended to educate, instruct, or inform[1]. Because Con does not give us a reason why the ".edu" link is the only acceptable way for a website to be considered an educational source, and because thefreedictionary.com meets the definition of educational, thefreedictionary.com has been proven to be educational, and the definitions proposed in round 1 (including the definition of coexist) still stands.
2.) The purpose of this was not to show which site has the most detail, but simply that it can be held as on-par with the rest of the accredited dictionaries, including that of a .edu site, by comparing definitions. However, as I could not compare every word in the dictionary with the character limit of the site (and likely the time limit), I had to provide evidence in a way that was both relevant and impartial. In order for it to be impartial, I used a word chosen by the site, the word of the day "meddlesome". In order for this example to be considered an Ignoratio Ellenchi fallacy either the thesis or the conclusion must be proven irrelevant [2]. The thesis was that the comparison of definitions of a word can show the definition quality of a site, and the conclusion was that thefreedictionary.com's definition of a random word was on-par with the quality of other sites, you must first find the irrelevance in either of the two before you can claim the fallacy. As this wasn't done due to the fact that the quality of the site was what was being brought into question rather than the specific words, it is not fallacious, and the definitions I proposed still stand.
3.) I think you might have misunderstood me, and I apologize for not being clearer. I was stating that I was working under the assumption that the disclaimer was true and not that it either wasn't true or doesn't apply to the site. What I was stating was that the disclaimer has no impact on the actual quality of the site in question, as I've proven through the "meddlesome" experiment.
4.) I'll actually address this as it's similar to the thefreedictionary.com conflict (which I'm sure is why you brought it up). Wikipedia, which although does have a nasty reputation among teachers, has actually been proven to be as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica[3], and I highly doubt you'll claim that an invalid source. I'd love to go on with further justifications, but I'm afraid I've already used half of my character limit on semantics, and the Wikipedia argument is large enough to be a debate within itself. As I'm not able to debate it personally, I'll provide a link to a wonderfully done debate, where the quality of Wikipedia was called into question[4]. Just like Wikipedia, although it isn’t a .edu site, thefreedictionary.com has accurate information that can be trusted in a debate.

Contention 1:
The first argument brought up under contention one was that although my (admittedly slightly questionable) sources do bring up a few Christian arguments, it does not encompass all of religion. I recognize this and I apologize for limiting the view towards Christianity, but as that's the most prevalent western religion that's the first thing that popped into my head. I didn't consider the other religions in the world. However, the falsifiability of the arguments still stand, but out of the aspect of fairness I'll also bring up the arguments you posted towards the falsifiability of the Christian faith.
Jesus: As you stated in the round, his resurrection can be directly disproven through standard Biology, and as it's possible to be disproven, it's falsifiable.
Creationism: As you've shown through the law of conservation of matter/mass, this can be proven wrong, and do it's falsifiable through the definition.
Omnipotence: As you've shown this can be proven false, and so it's falsifiable
God's Presence: As it cannot be proven true, the burden of proof fails and it needs to be proven false. This observation makes the statement falsifiable.

On the egoism example: I simply used egoism to show how your logic merely showed that Christians aren't willing to believe their religion is false, not that the Christian faith is unfalsifiable. All the arguments that you and I brought up so far are falsifiable, and so because we cannot find an unfalsifiable argument, we cannot assume there is one with certainty.

On the Falsifiability of Science: My opponent states that the difference between Scientific theories and religious claims are that Scientists possess the belief that they can be proven wrong. However, he's confusing actual falsifiability with the belief of being wrong. Every religious claim brought up has been proven to be falsifiable, and even though Christians don't think they're wrong, that's no different than many scientists and philosophers who think they're correct. He goes on to list many theories which are practically impossible to be proven wrong, but that has nothing to do with the actual falisifiability.

On String Theory: My opponent claims that the argument over String Theory is irrelevant because there is only a right theory and a wrong theory, however he's ignoring the fact that both sides still believe they are right. This example was used to show that conflict still exists (in the form of debates, as that's the only real conflict between scientific and religious beliefs) between scientific theories, and yet they still coexist. This shows that my opponents case (which is built upon falsifiablitiy and the conflict between Science and Religion) does not actually prove that the two cannot coexist.

SPA:
The evidence in my opponents papers do suggest that a higher education leads to less religious attendance (except in the United States, where those who have a college education actually experience increased church attendance, while those who drop out of high school decrease by around a third), but there is no way that we can cross-apply this information to the argument that Christian teachers don't properly teach concepts. This is a personal experience so I can't cite it (so feel free to disreguard it), but my chemistry teacher is one of the most devout Christians I've ever seen. He's also reknowned as the best Chemistry teacher at my school, and his course is so rigorous and explains the concepts so well that those who make Ds and Cs in his class go on to make As and Bs in college Chemistry courses. Even though he's a Christian, his beliefs coexist with his scientific teachings.

SPB:
As I have approximately 200 characters left, I don't really have room to provide an entirely different list and citation, however I've proven that Christians (both in older times and modern (as defined by the accepted definition for the round which Pro dropped)) are also scientists, and so they coexist.

Works Cited:
1.)
http://dictionary.reference.com...
2.) http://fallacies.findthedata.org...
3.) http://news.bbc.co.uk...
4.) http://www.debate.org...
Debate Round No. 3
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
" I also thought the debate would have been better if it was, can a religious person be a scientist?" Don't get me wrong, I'm grateful you voted for me, but that's a terrible, terrible argument :P 'Scientists can't be religious' 'here's a list' 'oh, ok'. It would be a one round argument, two if they want to stretch it out.
Posted by drpessimistic 4 years ago
drpessimistic
It is understandable, it took around 7 hours of continuous typing to insure mine was correct.
Posted by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
I know I said I'd get to this today, but something came up so I'll try but it's not certain. However, I do have 5,000 characters worth of a rebuttal saved on a word document, so if I can't get back in time to do it today it'll barely take anytime tomorrow.
Posted by drpessimistic 4 years ago
drpessimistic
True however, I really was not referring to this debate. I have simply been reading others and have noticed the trend.
Posted by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
Semantics aren't such a big deal here, and in some cases are neccesary. For example, the definition of science and coexist, since the two of those are what are needed to know in the round in order to debate. Similarly, since your opening post said "modern" we would need to know what modern is to debate the topic.
Posted by drpessimistic 4 years ago
drpessimistic
Very well no rush simply try to get to it be fore the allotted amount of time has passed. I would prefer not to debate down here but, I would caution the use of semantic techniques with words such as conflict and modern. This is because in these debates I am seeing that many times the entire debate is of semantics and the Topic gets lost. Many of us debaters must understand that continuing to use our gift of recognizing homophones will irritate many intelligent but, less articulate individuals. I propose we simply attempt to use context clues more often this would save a lot of time used on clearing up semantic mishaps. However, go about your business and return at your earliest convenience I can not rush an excellent opponent.
Posted by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
I'm gonna type this quickly in a comment because unless something changes I likely won't get to your argument tonight, and although this is relevent in the round and I'll likely restate it, I'd just like to point it out before I forget, and this way I can use less characters in the actual round. When I compare something (like in this round my egoism belief to the falsifiability of religion) even though they are different, that's intentional. It's a technique used to draw comparisons using the same logical tool and showing how it applies to many things with vastly different circumstances. This time I would be showing how the same logic you use applies to two different scenarios to point out where it fails.

I know this is arguing in the comments, and it's somethinig I generally try to avoid, so I'll understand if you don't want to comment on it untill after the debate is over (or not at all).
Posted by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
Epic, good job.
Posted by drpessimistic 4 years ago
drpessimistic
No there are no typographical errors, I am 16 I skipped grades 2 and 11.
Posted by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
I noticed you stated you're a double major. Is the fact that you're 16 on your profile a typo or did you skip some grades?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by FlameofPrometheus 4 years ago
FlameofPrometheus
drpessimisticTheOratorTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: The pro won semanics and the sources he proved were still valid. Most of cons attack were sentics or incorrect use of fallacy. ( he him self stated a fallacy but it wasnt stated previously what the word "modern" ment)
Vote Placed by tyler90az 4 years ago
tyler90az
drpessimisticTheOratorTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did an excellent job with choosing how to approach this debate. All he needed to do was show how science and religion co-exist and he did. Con needs to stay more focused on disproving the contentions. I also thought the debate would have been better if it was, can a religious person be a scientist? However, I did award dr pessimistic points for reliable arguments as educational sites are generally better sources.