The Instigator
Zerosmelt
Pro (for)
Losing
41 Points
The Contender
Protagoras
Con (against)
Winning
53 Points

In Favor of The End of Faith.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/5/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,844 times Debate No: 4916
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (38)
Votes (18)

 

Zerosmelt

Pro

I am in favor of putting an end to the act of believing something is true without using the best evidence/reasoning available.

The following speech is by sam harris

http://longnow.chubbo.net...

I ask my opponent (and anyone voting) to listen to this speech (((thoroughly)))! It's 1 hour and 20 mins long... so my opponent should have the time to spend doing this.

I will argue in defense of any proposition put forth by this speech so long as it supports my first statement: "I am in favor of putting an end to the act of believing something is true without using the best evidence/reasoning available."

I will let my opponent pick it apart and present their argument first.
Protagoras

Con

Typically, I would never do this, but I am so "against" this topic that it frustrates me to simply write this response.

Remember: As the contender, I have the right to debate everything that exists within my opponent's opening statement, one of these components is the very notion that it is obligatory for both the voters and me to watch an hour and twenty minutes long video.

Thus I argue that it is repulsing that my opponent would assume that someone should argue against him with arguments that he himself did not draft. For that reason I will not watch the video, in interest of time efficiency my opponent MUST offer HIS own arguments, I am debating my opponent, not some stranger from longnow.net.

________

My opponent is asking for us to end faith, through the wording of the topic, I disagree, I am not in favor of the end of faith. I am against the topic namely because if we end all faith, there would never be discovery, invention, inquisition, morality, nor philosophy. Such concepts could never exist, thus creating a society of chaos, a world that is baseless, lacking in morals and virtue, no ethic no peace.

A world without faith is tantamount to a culture of violence and utter chaos. With that said I am CON.

________

In explanation of the aforementioned notion, I shall put this in an example.

Think about what would've occurred if Isaac Newton did not have faith that gravity existed, he would of never inquired the truth of why the apple fell from the tree, think about the effects that this would make to the science community. The whole point of science is for one to purpose a hypothesis, something in which the scientist would have FAITH in, if they did not have faith in it, it would unreasonable for them to research and test it in order to prove its validity.

________

That is just one example, there any many, I entreat you.

Thank you for your time and consideration,

- Protagoras of Abdera
Debate Round No. 1
Zerosmelt

Pro

Thanks for accepting the Debate Protagoras but i'm going to have to ask everyone to vote PRO here b/c you have neglected to argue against my position.

He has not countered any argument posed in the speech. Because of this He cannot win.

The purpose of me posting the speech is b/c the argument needed to prove my resolution is too long to be contained on this website. I wanted to debate this issue so i created a debate that allowed anyone to counter any part of the argument they desired. I would respond by defending it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If my opponent had listened to the speech he would have realized that His argument does not Counter my Resolution.
I will restate my resolution now. I am going to capitalize it not to be offensive but so that people skimming the debate will not over look it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
MY RESOLUTION, AS STATED:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I AM IN FAVOR OF PUTTING AN END TO THE ACT OF BELIEVING SOMETHING IS TRUE WITHOUT USING THE BEST EVIDENCE/REASONING AVAILABLE."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I purposefully AVOIDED using the word "FAITH" because it can be argued that everything we believe is according to faith.

If my opponent had listened to the speech he may have realized that.
As you can see my opponent's argument DOES NOT address my resolution.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll use the rest of this round to explain the different degrees of faith and show you that my resolution does NOT apply to all of these degrees.

Faith (i.e. "belief that is not based on proof." ) Can be shown to have all of the following degrees.

A.> Believing something to be true when tantamount evidence/reason suggests otherwise.
B.> Believing something to be true with complete lack of evidence/reason. (Blind Faith)
C.> Believing something is true b/c some evidence/reason suggests it is but the best evidence/reason suggests otherwise.
D.> Believing something to be true b/c the best evidence/reason available suggests it is.

What we typically refer to as religious "faith" falls into A,B, and C.
My resolution applies only to A, B, and C. It does not apply to D.
My opponent's argument is entirely based upon faith in the "D" degree.
Everything he has said about Newton and gravity, etc. falls in the "D" degree.
Therefore my opponent's argument does not apply to my resolution
Vote PRO.

You may be wondering why is "D" even a degree of faith at all? Well it is becuase nothing, absolutely nothing is definitively provable. Everything and everyone you know may be nothing more than a figment of your imagination. Just as gravity may have been a figment of Newton's imagination. It is fundamentaly impossible to definitively prove that it is anything more. <<<>>>>

The *best*, emphasis on "best", evidence/reason suggests that everything you know isn't just a figment of your imagination. As you can see this is Faith Degree "D".
----------------------

I will state again, MY OPPONENT HAS NOT COUNTERED MY RESOLUTION SO YOU MUST VOTE PRO.

----------------------
it should also be noted that by saying "putting an end" I do NOT mean forcefully.
Protagoras

Con

No problem Zero, nonetheless, I am not here to befriend you, rather, I am here to criticize your nonsensical opening statement. :X

Despite my opponent's delusional rhetoric, I ask you to not vote PRO, this is because I HAVE NOT neglected my opponent's position. If you have read my round one, you should probably already know this.

My opponent clearly misinterprets my advocacy, through this misinterpretation, he poorly attempts to dismiss my arguments as "non responsive", through this he clearly drops the most important components of my rebuttal.

My opponent states that the purpose of him posting the video link is because the argument is too long tobe contained on the website.

This is clearly unfair, and partly the reason for as to why I accepted this debate in the first place. My opponent fails to understand that this is UNFAIR to me. He admits that the argument is too long to put it on this debate site, this means that I would have to make a legitimate response to an hour and a half long speech within an 8 thousand character limit. Do not accept the video as a legitimate means to vote PRO. Debate.org establishes a set of rules to make the site fair, one of these rules is that your opponent cannot make arguments that are longer than 8 thousand characters, my opponent is clearly violating this rule whenever he submits a video of a guy that makes an hour and a half speech. Unless that person in the video speaks at like five words a minute, we cannot accept this video as an argument.

Since I cannot make a proper rebuttal to some hour and a half video when I only have a 8 thousand character limit, you ought to dismiss the video in its entirety.

_______________________

My opponent does not know what his own resolution states, the resolution actually states,

"IN FAVOR OF THE END OF FAITH"

DO not allow my opponent to change the resolution, the topic is clearly indicated at the top of this debate round. This is quite embarrassingly, self-explanatory.

He says the he purposefully AVOIDED using the word "FAITH". This is completely nonsensical to the extent that his exact wording uses the term, "faith". Therefore, my argument DO ADDRESS the resolution, my opponent is either pretending to be delusional, or he forgot the resolution that he actually rote himself, either way, his argument is moot in light of the fact that the resolution (topic) is indicated at the top of this page.

_______________________

His "degrees of faith" argument, is irrational and, more importantly, it has no relation to what I am advocating. My opponent thinks that I am attacking the theory of gravity, I AM NOT attacking the legitimacy of the theory.

Allow me to explain:

Isaac Newton saw that an apple fell from a tree, he observed that maybe the apple fell from the tree because it has some relationship with the earth, thus he constructed an hypothesis, he tested his hypothesis, creating a theory of gravity, etc.

The only reason why he tested his hypothesis is because he BELIEVED that he was correct, he had FAITH in his hypotheses, without this faith there wouldn't be a theory.

My point here is that faith is a necessary component to any scientific evaluation, it is illogical to assume that a scientist would test a hypothesis that he did not have faith in, unless he was paid to do so, and EVEN if he were paid to do so, it was because SOMEONE has faith in the idea. Faith is a necessary constructing, and it ought not be dismissed as unnecessary or illegitimate.

Thus I negate.

_______________________

Let it also be noted that whether or not putting an end to faith is forcefully or not, it is an irresponsible maneuver on my opponent's behalf.

Thank you for allowing me to discuss this issue,

- Protagoras of Abdera
Debate Round No. 2
Zerosmelt

Pro

Lets keep this brief.

1. There is some confusion about what the purpose of this debate actually was. My opponent believes that the purpose was for him to argue against Sam Harris, offering a rebuttal to all of Harris's arguments. That was NOT the purpose. The purpose was to allow someone to choose whatever argument they wanted from Harris's speech so we could debate the validity of that argument. I'm tremendously sorry if Protagoras didn't understand that, it was either my lack of clarity or his misunderstanding that caused this. I don't think that is unfair.

2 My resolution was clearly stated in R1. When debate.org asks for the topic of the debate they do not ask for a resolution. It is a topic. My description of faith couldn't fit in the topic. So I properly explained what i was in favor of in R1.

3. Protagoras fails to show how my degrees of faith are irrational. They are completely rational and every example my opponent has used falls into the "D" degree. I was not attacking the Theory of gravity.

Protagoras:
"The only reason why he tested his hypothesis is because he BELIEVED that he was correct, he had FAITH in his hypotheses"

Newton's hypo. was that the apple might have "some relationship with the earth" The reason he BELIEVED it was correct was because he OBSERVED it. That observation was a form of evidence. In fact It was the best evidence available. (there was no evidence suggesting otherwise) I hope you can now see how Protagoras's examples do indeed fall into the "D" degree. Just as my faith in my own existence does. I have evidence that I exist; my experiences are a form of evidence. But i can't prove that i exist. So my belief that I exist is faith in the "D" degree. Which is NOT what i was arguing against.
Protagoras

Con

To conclude this debate, I will address my opponent's points and then tell you why you shouldn't vote for this nonsense.

1. This misinterpretation was mostly due to his lack of clarification, now that I reread it, I still think that he could have been more articulate in what he was asking for. Nonetheless, this still doesn't answer my question regarding why a person should have to watch an entire video before they can debate Zerosmelt and why he couldn't have just left an argument instead.

2. For the reason mentioned above, I decided to argue against the topic. If you read the top of this page it says, Pro is "in favor" and Con is "against", meaning you are either in favor of the topic, or you are against it. I am against the topic that reads, "In favor of the end of faith". I am against it for the reasons that I have listed in my earlier speeches, these are valid points that my opponent never addresses.

3. Zerosmelt fails to show the rationality behind his degrees of faith, he fails to show how and why it is true, and not just something that he made up. But, even if were to assume that he is telling the truth and the degrees are infact valid, he agrees that his "D" degree DOES qualify as faith and he also agrees that theories fall under the "D" category, thus theory are reliable on faith.

MY OPPONENT IS AGAINST ALL THEORIES, I felt as if that needed to be capitalized because at the point in which theories are not respected and put to an "end", every scientific notion would cease to be respectable hence ending all fields of science. My opponent says that he is in favor of the end of faith, he waits until his second round to specify what degrees of faith he is in favor of, he never explicitly stated that he is in favor of ending all faith EXCEPT for "D" degree.

This third point also applies to my opponent's desperate attempt at my Newton example, an example that he quite clearly mishandled throughout this debate. Therefore, I strongly urge you to vote CON in this debate.

Thank you for your time and consideration,

- Protagoras of Abdera
Debate Round No. 3
38 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Zerosmelt 8 years ago
Zerosmelt
how would you like to debate me on whether there are multiple degrees of faith, since you don't seem convinced by my R2.
Posted by Zerosmelt 8 years ago
Zerosmelt
agreed the debate is over i have nothing else to say, and i hold no hard feelings.
Posted by Zerosmelt 8 years ago
Zerosmelt
my resolution was "putting an end to the act of believing something is true without using the best evidence/reasoning available."

not putting an end to all faith... "faith" in the title was used in the colloquial sense. Your entire argument was based on a trick of semantics which i was aware of and properly defended myself against in R1 by phrasing my relosution as such.
Posted by Protagoras 8 years ago
Protagoras
Your initial argument regarding putting an end to faith was categorical. You never exempted a certain degree initially, nor does the topic indicate that you meant only certain degrees of faith were unacceptable.

You were then disagreeing with theories and all else that falls into category 'D' according to your topic. Don't be a sore loser, you clearly mishandled my arguments and nearly switched advocacies as a means to weasel your way into an illegitamite win :/

Please stop trying to garner extra votes, the debate has concluded.

- Protagoras
Posted by Zerosmelt 8 years ago
Zerosmelt
it amazes me the degree to which protagoras has misread my arguments. I said i was against A, B, and C degrees. and in favor of D. somehow he read that i was against D? WTF?

stating that i am against all theories? huh?

No... theories fall into the D degree.

"best AVAILABLE evidence" done forget.
Posted by Zerosmelt 8 years ago
Zerosmelt
It means that you have to have a degree of faith to believe you exist... a degree of faith we usually call reason.
Posted by Im_always_right 8 years ago
Im_always_right
Okay, Zerosmelt there is no PROOF that we exist, does that mean we don't?
Posted by snicker_911 8 years ago
snicker_911
we are allowed to believe whatever we want! says so in the first ammendement n nuthings gonna change that! :P
Posted by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
Zero, we can debate the nuances of Sam Harris' Red State / Blue State argument.
Posted by Protagoras 8 years ago
Protagoras
I saw the video a long time ago. I watched it before I accepted the challenge. I just didn't see the point in arguing against someone elses points with you. You didn't make the points, some guy did.

It's annoying, and I wanted you to lose this debate so you don't ever do it again. I though you wanted us to argue against the entire video initially, but still, even choosing one small issue in an entire video becomes quite unnecessary.
18 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
ZerosmeltProtagorasTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
ZerosmeltProtagorasTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:70 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
ZerosmeltProtagorasTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:70 
Vote Placed by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
ZerosmeltProtagorasTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Vote Placed by Wayne 8 years ago
Wayne
ZerosmeltProtagorasTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:70 
Vote Placed by my.matryoshka 8 years ago
my.matryoshka
ZerosmeltProtagorasTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Vote Placed by Zerosmelt 8 years ago
Zerosmelt
ZerosmeltProtagorasTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:70 
Vote Placed by Paramountdesktop 8 years ago
Paramountdesktop
ZerosmeltProtagorasTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:70 
Vote Placed by pakipride 8 years ago
pakipride
ZerosmeltProtagorasTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Vote Placed by Protagoras 8 years ago
Protagoras
ZerosmeltProtagorasTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07