The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
3 Points

Should humans be logical or faithful orientated? (Against logical or for logical)

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/18/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 482 times Debate No: 91421
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




In cases such as Nash's Equilibrium humans are seen as logical beings who choose the best SAFEST option possible. Although humans are also capable of compassion and faithfulness. Is it better for humanity to continue to play it safe as logical creatures, or is it possible for our species to evolve into a faithful race?


Since Pro hasn't stated any round structure, I'll briefly give an opening argument.

Pro, I believe, is arguing that faith is more important to mankind than reason. The word "faith" has multiple definitions, including:
1. strong religious feelings or beliefs
2. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

Due to Pro's wording, I will assume that they are referring to definition number 1. However, I will explain why reason and logic are more important than spiritual beliefs.

While I cannot deny the massive amount of good religion has done for the world, faith unchecked by reason can cause widespread death and suffering. Look at pre-Enlightenment times, when modern science was nonexistant and religion dominated the Earth. There were numerous conflicts caused by blind faith, with The Crusades, the French Wars of Religion, the Thirty Years War, and the Muslim conquests as just a few examples, that led to the deaths of tens of millions, if not more. If the Knights Templar had used reason to deduce that they could coexist peacefully with the Turks, or if the French Catholics and Huguenots had decided to live together in harmony, rather than allowing religious passion to control them, their lives may have been spared.

Today, there are no wars fought based on religion. While there are still some extremist groups with ultra-religious ideology, they are regarded as terrorists by most everyone. We have moved past the age of blind faith, and now rely on reason to settle international issues.

Let us now look at the definition of "reason": the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic. It is easy to go through life mindlessly following the doctrines of your religion, but with reason, you can analyze what you have learned, form opinions, ponder about the world around you, and think for yourself. Rather than swallowing what you are taught without complaint, you can use a skeptical attitude to make sure that your ideas are supported by facts and evidence. In the words of the brilliant philosopher René Descartes, "If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things."

Con states: "Is it better for humanity to continue to play it safe as logical creatures, or is it possible for our species to evolve into a faithful race?"

Please elaborate. What does faith have to do with evolution? And humans have been a "faithful race" for thousands of years, if by that you mean relying almost totally on religion to function.

I am by no means saying that faith is a bad thing; it can be a source of strength and comfort to many. But reason is not only far more important, but necessary. I will now allow Con to present their counterargument.

Debate Round No. 1


Alright :) sorry about that! Still getting the hang of this thing.

I would have to agree that faith in a higher power can be good as a reviving factor but also extremely dangerous when someone has to defend it.

But I guess that's not exactly what I was asking/arguing. In Nash's Equilibrium* both parties have a chance to be "faithful" or trust worthy in one another, and in result end up with a better outcome. Although that comes with a risk factor. In the Equilibrium both parties play it "safe" and end up choosing the concrete option that is not as appealing as the former, but is much less risky.

My question is should humanity be accepting the safer option or taking the risk in trusting their own species? Or, another way to put it is: how far should a person's faith in humanity as a whole go? Logical being not at all and faithful being extremely.
(I really didn't make any of that clear but if you want you can take either side.)

*"the Nash equilibrium is a solution concept of a non-cooperative game involving two or more players, in which each player is assumed to know the equilibrium strategies of the other players, and no player has anything to gain by changing only his or her own strategy."


"My question is should humanity be accepting the safer option or taking the risk in trusting their own species? Or, another way to put it is: how far should a person's faith in humanity as a whole go?"

My apologies! You didn't make the topic quite clear at first, so I assumed you were talking about religion. But it's still fine because I have very little faith in humanity, and can argue as to why this is better.

Con keeps using Nash's Equilibrium as an example of "logical" thinking. Obviously, if cooperating would result in the best possible solution, then humans will naturally cooperate. However, this doesn't imply faith in human nature so much as trust that humans are self-serving. If A and B do the most good for themselves by working together, then what reason does either A or B have to stop working? Nash's Equilibrium proves nothing but the selfishness of man, trust has nothing to do with it.

Humans evolved to satisfy their own needs and wants, and should they conflict with the wants of others, the individual will normally come first. Besides, as plenty of social experiments have shown, humans have a disturbing tedency towards violence (when put in a position of power) and blind obedience (when given commands by an authority figure). Look at the Stanford prison experiment [1], where out of 24 participants (with complete psychological stability and no criminal background), 12 were assigned the role of "prisoner" and the other 12 were assigned the role of "guard". After only a few days, the guards had resorted to cruel, humiliating, and sadistic tactics to assert their dominance over the prisoners, even though they had not been instructed to do any such thing. This experiment shows the horrific exploitation of power that humans are prone to. Also observe the Milgram experiments [2], where participants, believing they were taking part in a memory test, were instructed by an authority figure to press a button whenever the subject missed an answer. This button, they were told, would deliver an electric shock to the subject, who was actually an actor who would make contortions of pain whenever the button was pressed. Almost every participant simply did what they were told, with a massive 65 percent delivering what they were told was 450 volts - a fatal shock. Humans, it can be concluded, will usually follow whatever any authority figure tells them, even going so far as to take a human life for the sake of an experiment.

I hope that this pertains more to what you had in mind, Con, and I will now let you make your final argument.

Debate Round No. 2


413gallowscalibrator forfeited this round.


Con has forfeited the final round of this debate. The voting period now begins!
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: Muslimdebater// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: Cons argument was more valid. Com have some really nice speech and evidence to prove his point. Moreover pro wasn't as active. Even though con might have forfeited the last round. Yet pro didn't provide any argument either

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain conduct. (2) "Nice speech" is not a basis for affording the S&G point - the voter has to explain why Pro's argument was significantly more difficult to read. (3) Arguments and sources are insufficiently explained. Being "more valid" and having "evidence" are not bases for awarding this point " the voter has to analyze specific arguments made in the debate by both sides and explain why those sources were reliable, even if the opponent provided none.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lord_megatron 2 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con argued that humans must have faith in each other to work together, pro argued that humans work together because it is logical. Con forfeited