The Instigator
FREEDO
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
Strikeeagle84015
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

There are Things More Important Than Reason.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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...
FREEDO
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/30/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,476 times Debate No: 12444
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (40)
Votes (2)

 

FREEDO

Con

My opponent made this statement and I expect him to defend it.
Strikeeagle84015

Pro

Now my opponent has made no attempt to claim any definitions or anything of the sort so my definition should be the ones that hold sway throughout the debate. I would also like to point out that even though I am Pro the burden of proof rests upon my opponent because they are trying to prove that the most important thing is reason, whereas I simply have to prove that reason is not the most important thing and one final thing of note, in this debate we are using the reason as it relates to logic and thought not the reason of purpose
Definitions
Reason:
The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence.[1]
Logic:
A method of human thought that involves thinking in a linear, step-by-step manner about how a problem can be solved[2]
Rationality:
the quality of being consistent with or based on logic[3]
Rational:
Being consistent with or based on logic (based on definition of Rationality)
Important:
Having relevant and crucial value[4]

Now I will bring up several things that are more important than reason and then explore some of the problems with having reason be the most important thing.

1. Purpose
2. Happiness
3. Morality
4. Truth

1st Purpose
Now purpose is the drive or reason for doing something, it is what motivates to action and causes things to happen. This supersedes reason in importance because if we have no purpose than we have no action and reason cannot provide purpose (more fully explained below)

2nd Happiness
Now if we assume that there is no God and that there is no life after death, and that once we are no longer alive that is the end of the road, then we must place ultimate value on immediate pleasure as we have no idea when our life will come to an end. As such pleasure and happiness should be our ultimate goals for there is no reason beyond our own insignificant lives and as such no amount or reason will avail us anything for we shall all die at some point.

3rd Morality (this is the morality as in doing what is right)
Now if we use completly opposite assumptions than we used in our last post and we believe that there is a God and the human spirit is eternal then morality become more important than reason for we can reap eternal happiness and glory and exultation for all time if we act morally regardless of how reasonable we were in life, which means that reason didn't avail us anything but rather our morality did.

4th Truth
Truth is also more important than reason for reason exists only as something to help us discover truth, so truth is the destination reason is only the vehicle without a destination then a car will not help you at all

Problems with Reason:
Now in the definition we have equated Reason = Rational = Logic therefore Reason = Logic. So in this first round the first problem I will state with using reason as something of ultimate importance is that reason cannot give tell you what to do. Reason and Logic simply describe things they cannot tell you what you should do if you think that a value can be inffered from logic you are commiting the Natrualistic Logical Fallacy
http://www.csun.edu... fallacy

With that I turn the time over to my opponent
[1]http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[2]en.wiktionary.org/wiki/logic
[3]wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
[4]en.wiktionary.org/wiki/important
Debate Round No. 1
FREEDO

Con

=== RESPONSES ===

"I would also like to point out that even though I am Pro the burden of proof rests upon my opponent because they are trying to prove that the most important thing is reason, whereas I simply have to prove that reason is not the most important thing"

>> My opponent clearly doesn't understand the burden of proof.
The title of this debate is a positive statement, that is, it is making an assertion.
My opponent is Pro. Thus he is making the assertion.
Thus he has the burden of proof.
He can try to argue against this if he wants but the voters aren't stupid.

"Definitions"

>> I accept his definitions.

"Purpose"

>> He claims that purpose supersedes reason. This assertion fails because reason is required to both come to a conclusion on one's purpose and to even understand the concept of purpose.

"Happiness"

>> My opponent claims that if we lack a belief in life after death than pleasure and happiness become our purpose. I contend that this is true and that there is nothing wrong with it. I also contend that this is not the whole story. For it matters not whether we believe in life after death or not; pleasure and happiness are still rationally our highest goal. You don't hear of many people believing that we will go to hell for having self-denial and then choosing self-denial any way, because they see it as "right". Religious people have self-denial because they believe it will actually be in their self-interest in the after-life. You're just as selfish as I am.
Furthermore, how does this attack reason? You need reason to decipher any of this.

"Morality"

>> My opponent claims that morality is more important than reason.
I contend that if your morality is not founded on reason than it is unreasonable.
And as such, has implications of immorality.
My opponent says that the morality he speaks of here is the morality as in doing what is right.
Is not doing what is rational what is right?
If what is right is not rational than upon what concept is the nature of righteousness made?
He may say God. He believes in an omniscient God, does he not? Would God not be rational?
What a poor lot we are if we have an irrational God.

"Truth"

>> My opponent claims that truth is more important than reason because reason is merely a means of acquiring knowledge of the truth.
This is purely semantical. It also doesn't work.
Truth is an objective state of being; not something that can be chosen. Reason is on the part of the subjective.
Truth is something to be valued. Reason is a value itself. This debate is concerning values.
I contend that to value truth, the value you are using is the value of reason.
In this my opponent has unwittingly made a case for my side.

"So in this first round the first problem I will state with using reason as something of ultimate importance is that reason cannot give tell you what to do. Reason and Logic simply describe things they cannot tell you what you should do if you think that a value can be inffered from logic you are commiting the Natrualistic Logical Fallacy"

>> http://i228.photobucket.com...
Even though my opponent linked to it, he apparently has no idea what the Naturalistic Fallacy is. Extend his logic to it's rational ends and there should be no such thing as value.
---
This is the Naturalistic Fallacy:
This is the fallacy of trying to derive conclusions about what is right or good (that is, about values) from statements of fact alone. This is invalid because no matter how many statements of fact you assemble, any logical inference from them will be another statement of fact, not a statement of value. If you wish to reach conclusions about values, then you must include amongst your assumptions (or axioms, or premises) a statement of value. Once you have an axiomatic statement of value, then you may use it in conjunction with statements of fact to reach value-laden conclusions.
[1]
---
I do have an axiomatic statement of value. IT IS CALLED REASON. I will show how it is axiomatic in my argument.
My opponent derives his value from God. But the concept of God is not axiomatic.

=== ARGUMENT ===

. Reason is axiomatic.

An axiom is something which is self-evidently true because in any attempt to dismiss it you must actually apply it.

Any possible argument you could have for reason being absolute was derived through an attempt at reason itself.

In-fact, it's really quite funny! The only way my opponent could win the debate is if all his arguments are irrational, but that in itself also disqualifies his from winning. So it is paradoxically impossible for my opponent to win this debate.

It is impossible for my opponent to have any reasonable argument against reason since that is self-defeating.
[2]

=== SOURCES ===

1. http://www.csun.edu...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Strikeeagle84015

Pro

Strikeeagle84015 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
FREEDO

Con

My arguments still stand.
Strikeeagle84015

Pro

Strikeeagle84015 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
FREEDO

Con

Last chance.
Strikeeagle84015

Pro

Strikeeagle84015 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
40 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
Yo dude, there's still one round left.
Posted by Strikeeagle84015 6 years ago
Strikeeagle84015
I apologize for my forfeiture of the last round however there is the most interesting and slightly humorous story behind the
Posted by Ayedewynn 6 years ago
Ayedewynn
In regard to the Burden of Proof dispute:
Traditionally, Strikeeagle84015 would bear the burden of proof, seeing as how he, being Pro, made the statement that is being debated. As goes the Latin saying: "semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit." The translation is: "The necessity of proof always lies with he who lays the charges."

However, in order for one party to bear the burden of proof, the other party must thereby maintain the benefit of assumption. Basically, the person not proving his argument must only refute the proof given because he is arguing on the side of what is generally accepted. In this case, I myself would generally accept that there ARE, indeed, more important things than reason. However, this can, in itself, be debated seeing as how each person may hold a different standing. Therefore, the burden of proof, in fact, lies with both Pro and Con, because neither hold the benefit of assumption.

Good luck with the rest of the debate!
Posted by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
Sorry, I don't tend to read them through after typing.
Posted by innomen 6 years ago
innomen
Just do me one favor: understand the difference between 'then' and 'than'.
"I contend that if your morality is not founded on reason than it is unreasonable."
It drives me nuts, and you're smarter than that.
Posted by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
Cody: "That's probably the most pointless statement I've ever seen."

More pointless than existence exists? =) Both statements are meant to be obvious.
Posted by innomen 6 years ago
innomen
vbaculum is correct. Logic and reason is a tool, without it's end product it is a frivolous dalliance - meaningless. The end product of logic is of greater value than the logic that provides it. The food in the cart is more important to the hungry than the cart itself.
Posted by Zetsubou 6 years ago
Zetsubou
Yvette talking about bad voting?

HA!
Posted by Zetsubou 6 years ago
Zetsubou
Quite easy on Pro's part,

Irobot, anyone?
Posted by vbaculum 6 years ago
vbaculum
So far I think Con has argued well. However, I value happiness over reason. I realize, in most contexts, greater happiness can only be obtained through the employment of reason. This fact, however, does not make happiness less important than reason. Can you change my mind FREEDO?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by wjmelements 6 years ago
wjmelements
FREEDOStrikeeagle84015Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
FREEDOStrikeeagle84015Tied
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