The Instigator
bruno_the_destroyer
Pro (for)
The Contender
Torvald
Con (against)

Is faith healing immoral?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
bruno_the_destroyer has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/14/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 397 times Debate No: 102992
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

bruno_the_destroyer

Pro

I believe that faith healing is an immoral practice; it is demonstrably based on falsehoods, such as the idea that western medicine is flawed, and that the solution is based on faith. despite this, on its own, this fact does not make it immoral. The immorality comes from when you charge someone money for a result that you know they will never gain. This makes it a fraud. Especially if you take money off of the terminally ill.
Torvald

Con

As con, it seems per the introductory address of the pro that my role is to establish that faith healing is not immoral. It is not specified if the dialogue "[faith healing] is demonstrably based on falsehoods, such as the idea that western medicine is flawed, and that the solution is based on faith" and "the immorality comes from when you charge someone money for a result that you know they will never gain. This makes it a fraud" is intended to be a term of the debate, or an argument therein. If it is a term of the debate then it will be my role to demonstrate or establish that faith healing is not immoral within the premise that it is based on falsehoods, but still is not immoral, and that it would be immoral if it did charge the terminally ill for services not rendered but that it does not do these things. If this dialogue is an argument supporting the hypothesis that faith healing is immoral, my role will be to refute it or bring to question its establishment of faith healing as immoral. I will establish an introductory status for the pros burden of proof to dethrone, but will make only a minimal opening argument since the pros first argument was spent...somehow.

Faith healing is defined by Wikipedia as the practice of prayer and gestures that are claimed to elicit divine intervention in spiritual and physical healing, which believers assert can bring about the healing of disease and disability through prayer and/or other rituals that stimulate a divine presence and power. Because faith healing already exists as a system of healing recognised and held inherent to the belief systems of some people, and the hypothesis is its immorality via disproof of its legitimacy, the burden of proof rests on the pro to establish that faith healing is immoral, either through illegitimacy or through some other conduit.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
Hi....So mutch fore "faith"... And"moral"...What about "healing" ??
Posted by Torvald 1 year ago
Torvald
Well, pray the gay away to you too!
Posted by CthuluAwaken 1 year ago
CthuluAwaken
pray the gay away
Posted by CthuluAwaken 1 year ago
CthuluAwaken
pray the gay away
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
Healing has no moral.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.