In a hierarchy of value, evidence is more valuable to society then belief.
Debate Rounds (4)
Round 1 is definitions and contentions in proving your value.
The rounds to follow will be on-case arguments/rebuttals.
Observation 1) Definitions:
*Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
*Belief: something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.
Observation 2) Voting Criteria: Value hierarchy, meaning that when posing these two values and making them conflict one is higher up in the hierarchy than the other. (Imagine a "V")
Observation 3) Contentions:
Contention 1- Voodoo Science:
Throughout history there have been people (snake oil salesmen) that preach and sell remedies for problems and bank on the inherent belief that people give them. These same people spend (waste) their hard-earned money on something WITHOUT evidence and loose out on the money and live through very negative consequences, such as: sever side-effects, loss of bodily functions and even death. Here we can see that without evidence than belief becomes obsolete and unnecessary it is only through evidence that society can benefit. Even in modern times (2014) these same snake oil salesmen continue to thrive. There are magic diet-pills, "holistic" approaches to curing cancer and AIDS, but once again without evidence these items get marketed with belief that they will work and they don't. Time and time again you can see commercials on the air about a medicine that was supposed to do something but did not and, "if you know a loved one or have yourself taken this pill, call this number because there is a law suit you can be a part of"... you get the point. evidence is clearly the most important value to society considering only the two here.
Evidence (A thing or set of things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment.)
Pro brings up contention 1 which has to do with people using medicine without them being tested.
In order for these people to try these medicines they have a belief that they will work, even if they don't have evidence they do research and they believe and have faith that the product will indeed work
Lets use leaches for example
Leaches(1.Any of various chiefly aquatic carnivorous or bloodsucking annelid worms of the class (or subclass) Hirudinea, of which one species (Hirudo medicinalis) was formerly widely used by physicians for therapeutic bloodletting)
Many doctors say that using leaches as a detox for your body is bad.
Leeches are not inherently dangerous, but the bacteria that live in and on them due to the conditions they live in can be dangerous. You can actually get leeches that have been grown in sterile conditions from a hospital pharmacy. They are still used to keep blood flow going to small parts like skin flaps and reattached fingers. Their saliva has a great natural anticoagulant, and the mild suction keeps the blood vessels in the area open.
That being said, leeches are not going to cure "an allergy in your blood" by bloodletting. I'm not sure whether you mean you have an allergy or a blood disease, but they are very much not the same thing, and would be unlikely to be helped by leeches. Please ask your doctor to explain your disease to you again, because you have obviously misunderstood something.
There are a few rare diseases (hemochromatosis, polycythemia) where it can actually be a treatment to remove some blood occasionally, but that is done at the hospital or at a Red Cross blood bank, not by removing the small amount that a couple of leeches could get.
If has been proven that leeches can cause a bacterial infection, but people still d it anyways not because of the evidence but because they believe it is beneficial.
I will begin by addressing the top case of the first con argument:
Your argument is that,
"In order for these people to try these medicines they have a belief that they will work, even if they don't have evidence they do research and they believe and have faith that the product will indeed work".
My argument is that it sounds that what you are speaking to is The Scientific Method, The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis. (Evidence)
Here again we see that although the belief in something, in this case leeches or medicine, might be a starting point for something that if the end result does not validate (provide evidence) than it is merely discarded for it is worthless. In this example (which you provided, thanks for that!) further proves that evidence is clearly the highest value in this debate.
Now here is contention 2: Come one, come all, follow Christ (or any other world religion)!
Religion is the one thing that brings millions and millions of people together to believe in something (have faith). Like with all faith and religion, they are EVIDENCE BASED. I will use the Christian faith as an example because I am familiar with it. The entire religion (organization) requires the belief in the following: the bible, a sacred text that tells stories and articulates the doings of God. In it are hundreds of pages that are full of EVIDENCE for the acceptance of God and Christ. The Cornerstone of the faith is the resurrection of Christ, and simply by saying that he resurrected was not enough, so they documented it in the bible (EVIDENCE). Therefore without the bible (the evidence of the church) the entire church would be non-existent, it would dismantle and be nothing. People do not just give their lives on the word of someone that has an inspiring message about salvation ect. They need evidence to make that change, people of this faith are taught to point to the bible when engaging non-believers; because it is the evidence of the church. Once again, evidence has proven to be the highest value in this debate.
The funny thing about faith and evidence is that no matter which way the pendulum swings, there is equal amounts of both on either side. It requires just as much faith to believe that there is not a God, as it does to believe that there is.Believers find just as much evidence in their world that there is a God, as nonbelievers do not. What I am trying to say, and this must be a very difficult concept to grasp, (because I am not having any luck convincing either side of this), but for every bit of evidence that there is, there is an equal amount of uncertainty. That makes both side completely even.
Is truth merely what is real and right to me? Or is it more?
Is proof a matter of personal perception of reality?
You can't ever have a faith vs. Evidence because to a believer faith is evidence.
Its simply about what you feel deep down inside is real and right to you. What is real and right to me may not be real and right to you. Its Moot to even have arguments about who is wrong or right spiritually.
Also if someone has faith evidence is worthless unless it"s something so overwhelming its life changing. Because only something that powerful could cause someone to change their perception of their reality
While it is true that faith requires some element of the unknown, i think most people wrongly presume that those who do have faith- do so blindly without any intelligence, thought, or proof.
Faith is not completely blind! There are things that you and i have faith in that we do not completely understand (ie: gravity, or even our automobiles). But we make judgements on those things based on our interactions.
The Bible is historically, aracheologically, and experientially true. In addition there are numerous prophecies that have proven to be true.
Contention 3- The way this debate will be decided is through EVIDENCE.
So basically what I am saying here is that because of my first 2 contentions and answers to your arguments I have provided the debate.org community with enough evidence to vote for me. It doesn't matter how much I believe or you believe that tou won, plain and simple the outcome is decided on evidence. So, even in this short (but powerful) contention we can see that once again evidence is shown to be the most important value to society in this round, for without it a winner could never be decided.
Lets use some scriptures since were on religion to clarify.
1 John 5:1 ESV / 5 helpful votes
Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him.
Hebrews 11:1 ESV / 5 helpful votes
Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen
This next scripture is first off a belief then followed by evidence.
Genesis 1:1 ESV / 2 helpful votes
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
Grammar and spelling tied
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by JayConar 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Ironically, in this debate, the only person to actually use evidence is not the person arguing that evidence is important. Therefore, con gets the point for sources. Having said that, con's sources are not necessarily relevant to the debate. Then again, not much that was actually said in this debate had anything to do with the debating topic. Pro tends to make statements that aren't linked to any sort of contextual basis in the actual debating topic. Therefore, both arguments are quite poor. The first topic brought up by pro is rebutted well by con, and the second topic is somewhat confusing as the bible has to be believed as it was written so long ago that it cannot be seen as evidence for anything without a certain amount of belief. Whilst this is pointed out by con ('it is true that faith requires some element of the unknown') con does not expand upon it in any meaningful way. Therefore, I have to give the argument to Pro. Con's spelling and grammar was marginally better than Pro's
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.