The Instigator
BangBang-Coconut
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
socialpinko
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Which is more desirable, Faith or Reason

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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/18/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,344 times Debate No: 15462
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (4)

 

BangBang-Coconut

Pro

The topic of this Debate will be which is more desirable, Faith or Reason.
Rules-
There is no power of fiat. If you feel there is not a clear winner the debate end in a tie

Both sides have the burden of proof to prove their side over the other.

Round one is for acceptance, definitions, and clarifications

Rounds two through four are for debate, clash, and voters.

Con may make any rules they feel are necessary in the next round so long as they are not abusive (i.e. a rule saying they win just by accepting)

I look forward to my opponent's response!
socialpinko

Con

Definitons
=======

Reason: the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Faith: belief that is not based on proof
http://dictionary.reference.com...

I have nor rules that I wish to add. I await your opening arguments. Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
BangBang-Coconut

Pro

I thank my opponent for their acceptance and definitions!

Now the first thing I plan to do before laying out my constructive, is to challenge my opponent's definitions based on the sources he provides. It is my belief that his definitions severely limit the Pro's ground and thus I will counter-define them based on his sources.

First "Reason" [1] following the link my opponent provides there are multiple definitions for this term, to which my opponent claims the definition (2 a.) I however make the counter claim for definition (1 a.) the first listed definition on this list, that being "a statement offered in explanation or justification " I claim that this is the better definition because it is listed first

now second on his definition of "Faith" [2] again following this link my opponent offers you the second definition in the list. however challenge this as well and say we must look to the first definition, that faith is; "confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability. " again this definition is more reliable as it is at the top of the list.

Now with this in mind, I will now set in with several reasons warranting why faith is more valuable than

Contention 1: Humans must believe in something-

It is with in our nature to believe, to have faith in something. Whether we believe in a system, a religion[3], a person, and idea, or even ourselves we must have faith in ourselves to do anything

First, in order for a person to have religion they believe in their belief ultimately comes down to faith. For example I am a Christian; not because I have any kind of solid proof, or reason to be one. But because when I read the bible it fills me with hope and love. Therefore although I have no proof nor reasonable logic I have faith.

Second, not having a religion or considering yourself to be an Atheist also takes faith. Atheism for the most part is a belief based on the fact that since there is no proof for a God there is no reason to believe in a God. However while there is no way to know that there is a God, there is no way to know there isn't one; therefore saying there is no God is a belief based on faith.

Finally, much reason relies on faith. For instance if Monday is trash day, and you cart your garbage out the curb before going to work then reason stand to argue that then you got back home that night the garbage is gone because the trash man came and took it. However who is to say the garbage was not stolen by some-one who planned to dig through it and try and steal your identity. Or maybe the trash was taken by some-one who wanted to decompose it and use the nutrients to feed their plants. The point is that at the end, of all reason it is ultimately backed by faith since nothing can be known beyond the shadow of a doubt. Whether a person believes in themselves or others they still have the need to believe.

This is the only contention I will provide for now, I now hand the debate back over to my opponent!

Sources-
[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[3] http://www.adherents.com...
socialpinko

Con

I will keep my definition of reason. There is more than one definiton and the one I used is the one which I believe most clearly represents what I am arguing in favor of.

Also, I do not accept your definition of faith. Faith as opposed to reason is belief in something for reasons other than proof or evidence. Faith in this debate is supposed to be the antithesis of reason. To believe in something because of reason is to believe it based on proof or evidence. To believe something on faith is to not take evidence or proof into account.

On to your contention that humans must believe in something I agree. However believing in something because of reason or faith are two different things. Advocates of reason favor evidence based thinking or a critical examination of proof before one believes it. Faith on the other hand is belief without proof. One may be right in what they believe in but they do not believe it because the evidence available warrants it.

"not having a religion or considering yourself to be an Atheist also takes faith"

This contention is also false. Just because one believes something(has a belief system) does not mean one has faith. As I mentioned earlier it is the reason one believes something that is to be taken into account. Believing that man evolved or that we live in a godless world does not require faith, although one may believe those things on faith. When one uses reason to find their way around the world they are trying their best to see the world for what it truly is and not what they would rather want it to be.

"Finally, much reason relies on faith."

This contention is also false and comes from a lack of understanding of what faith and reason are. They are simply two different reasons for believing something. You can believe that the garbage men came to take your garbage on faith, or without taking into account all the necessary evidence available. Or you can believe the garbage men came to take your garbage because they have come to take it every week before and you know the city schedule. You can believe the same thing but it is the reason that matters.

Reason has given the world so many great things. It has given us cures and treatments for diseases. Doctors did not have faith that disease would heal by themselves, instead they used critical examination of the information available, combined with evidence based thinking and saved lives.

If they were to have lived by faith, they could believe anything they wanted to about the nature of diseases and the human body and whether they were right or wrong, they would never know because they would not take evidence into account.

One does not need faith to be an atheist as you stated earlier. One may not believe in god because one has looked at all the evidence available or that the theist has given and using reason, comes to the conclusion that there is not god. It's actually exactly the opposite of faith.
Debate Round No. 2
BangBang-Coconut

Pro

Ahh, so now we come to some of the core clash of this debate.
One, is on the definitions.
Two, is one the correlation between faith and reason.

Therefore before I go directly into my own refutations; allow me to negate my opponent's prior claims.

One is on the definitions; I have expressed this many times and I will do so again now. I absolutely cannot stand definitions debates; There is a reason I did not define these two terms in the beginning, and that was because I assumed my opponent would provide definitions that would give us equal ground to debate.

He did not do this; but instead his definitions where beneficial only to him.

Therefore as opposed to breaking a rule I set in place by re-defining, I simply challenged my opponent's definitions via his own sources. Therefore as opposed to allowing this portion of debate to come down to viability of definitions; let us look at it like this. Both are credible definitions from the same exact source, so I simply implore the voters to adhere to or accept whichever they deem most appropriate.

Now two is on the correlation between faith and reason. My opponent claims that Faith is supposed to be the antithesis of reason, whereas is simple not true. Say we where debating Batman v.s. Superman, and my opponent chose Superman. Does that make Batman the antithesis of Superman? absolutely not! It simply means would be debating which better, Batman or Superman.
This fallacy my opponent has picked out is along the same reasoning as to say that Evil is the antithesis of Good. We typically associate them this way, but it is an utter fallacy. Good is supposed to be perfect, and with-out blemish; whereas Evil is simply the absence of good.

Therefore we are not debating under this ideal my opponent has falsely conceived.

With that, I will go onto my opponent's attacks to my stance/

So first off, I feel it's important to point out that my opponent has conceded the base idea of this contention; that everybody needs something to believe in. And he also makes the correct statement that there is a difference between believing in something because of faith, and believing in something because of reason. However this is where my opponent stops making sense, he completely skips over my point that we can know nothing beyond the shadow of a doubt. Lack of evidence is not sentient evidence not to believe in something; Therefore reason in and of itself relies heavily on faith. Without faith reason could not exist.
Now my opponent also claims that a belief my be true because the evidence available warrants it, but this thought process leads to a multiple causation fallacy. The reason being is because the belief is based on only what you know and perceive, and not on total understanding and comprehension of the idea or situation as a whole.

Therefore again, everything ultimately comes down to a belief.

Now going down to the clash on whether or not it takes faith to be an Atheist;
My opponent refutes by saying that while an Atheist may not believe in God for reasons of Faith that he just couldn't exist, others may not believe in him because they believe in the theory of evolution. Well first of all we could only begin to consider this if the person who held this belief studied on the subject first-hand, as every other person who held that belief would not believe so on first hand findings, but because they read about it; where taught it was true; or watched a documentary on it.
They cannot know that it is true, thus though it would be partially based on reason that the theory makes sense, since we cannot know it is true beyond the shadow of a doubt, faith still plays a hug role and Atheists still base much of their beliefs (that there is no God) on faith.

Now going onto the argument that much reason is based on faith, my opponent offers a refutation here; however it still only proved my point. While the faith it take to believe that the garbage man took the trash away is not purely based on faith, it still plays a part because of the element of assumption that plays into a situation like this.

Again we must look to the obvious truth that you cannot know beyond that shadow of a doubt that the garbage man too your trash if you are there when he does. Thus the assumption he did take it, is faith that your own personal experiences are reliable.
Despite the fact that you know your cities trash schedule, you know that it is trash day, and you just know in general that is seems most plausible the trash man took your garbage.

The point is, there is always an element of faith to any manner of reason. The reason my opponent believes otherwise is because his basis of faith and reason are far too shallow, and he does not recognize their correlation. By me advocating that faith is greater than reason I am not blasting reason. I am simply pointing out that while faith can exist independent of reason; Reason can never exist independent of faith.

Going on;

My opponent is correct in saying that Doctors do not have faith that diseases will heal themselves, but they do have faith that medicine and treatment will. Just because a treatment works once does not mean it will always work, thus faith is involved and required.

As for my opponent's final thoughts on A(theism), I feel my prior refutations earlier on in this rebuttal are sufficient for this line of though, thus I simply extend them. The Atheist still cannot know beyond the shadow of a doubt that there is no God; thus faith comes into play to support the idea.

Now with that said, and My stance on faith presented I would now like to point out that my opponent has not made a case to vote for reason, but has simply refuted my own stance. Thus you have to vote for the Pro as my opponent has not upheld his burden of proof to advocate Reason.

Thank you, Vote Pro :3!
socialpinko

Con

I do not want to debate about definitions either, but I am arguing about reason over faith according to the definitions which I laid out and which you did not define yourself.

The definitions are not beneficial to either of us. If you have a reason to believe in something than you do not have faith in it. If you have faith in something then you do not have a reason to believe in it. Reason is most certainly the antithesis of faith.

"So first off, I feel it's important to point out that my opponent has conceded the base idea of this contention; that everybody needs something to believe in."

This is not what the resolution states. The topic of this debate is whether it is more desirable to believe something based on reason or based on faith. Me conceding that everyone needs something to believe in does not help your case.

"he completely skips over my point that we can know nothing beyond the shadow of a doubt"

This does not mean one has faith in everything they believe. I for instance do not believe there is a god. This does not mean I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is not god. However, I base my beliefs directly proportional to the evidence which is available to me. This leaves absolutely no room for faith.

And to your contention that all reason is based on faith, it is not. I believe things based on reason because reason works. As I said earlier, when doctors treat patients they do not use faith. They use reason and their reason is in no way dependent on faith. They do not have faith that their medicines will work. They believe their medicinees will work because the evidence and more importantly reason tells them to.

My opponent then claims that without faith reason could not exist however this is just not the case. One believes in reason because time and time again one is led to the correct conclusions based on reason. When a doctor realizes that time and time again patiets die when he/she does nothing he/she uses reason to conclude that he/she should do something. And when certain treatments allow patients to love, using reason, those doctors conclude that they should use those treatments.

Faith is what you use to believe in something which reason tells you is ridiculous. Faith is why people used to believe in witches, that the earth was flat, or that we were the center of the universe. Reason is what has shown us that witches are things of fairy tales, that we live on a circular planet, and that we merely orbit a medium sized star.

"My opponent refutes by saying that while an Atheist may not believe in God for reasons of Faith that he just couldn't exist, others may not believe in him because they believe in the theory of evolution."

I was not saying that people do not believe in god only because they believe in evolution. I was merely using that as an example of people evaluating evidence and using reason to believe in something. One may also be an atheist because the alleged evidence which theists have brought forth in no way adds up. It is up to you guys to prove your god exists.

And to your contention that because we can knonw nothing beyond the shadow of a doubt everything talkes faith, you ignore plausability. That is when one takes into account all available evidence and from that deduces that something is plausibly not true or true. Theists have brought forth many allegeed proofs of god's existence and after reviewing that evidence I have concluded that god's existence is incredibly implausible.

"The Atheist still cannot know beyond the shadow of a doubt that there is no God; thus faith comes into play to support the idea."

Of course here you are merely trying to refute strong atheism and are not doing a very good job at it. This says nothing of weak atheism or a simple lack of belief in god. As for strong atheism, one can become a strong atheist by following evidentualism. One may look at qualities of a supposed god and using reason will conclude that it is impossible for that being to exist.

"Now with that said, and My stance on faith presented I would now like to point out that my opponent has not made a case to vote for reason, but has simply refuted my own stance. Thus you have to vote for the Pro as my opponent has not upheld his burden of proof to advocate Reason."

I think my part about how reason alone is what cures diseases and allows us to gain credible knowledge of the world around us is a case enough.

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 3
BangBang-Coconut

Pro

So first off I thank my opponent!

as I am incredibly short on time at the moment; I will be fairly brief here. I'll simply cover the debate thus far and concentrate on some key voting issues.

That said let's start off with the definitions;
I do not want to make this a semantics debate, both sources are credible and from the same source. Both have been provided and have analysis on them; therefore to the voters whichever terms make more sense to you, accept those terms.

Next, Faith is not the antithesis of reason; for this to be a true statement they would have to be polar opposites and one could not exist with-out the other. A belief can be rooted in both faith and reason, so while I can believe that the bus is going to stop at the bus stop to pick me up because reason would indicate that it is true; I also have an element of faith to believing that.
As per contrary to what my opponent would have you believe, Faith is not blind belief; but a belief not utterly reliant on evidence/ what man perceives to be true / or what an individual perceives to be true.

Next, I concede here, the resolution is not whether or not everybody needs something to believe in. However I never advocated that; My mentioning of this point is in conjunction with the fact that we can know nothing beyond the shadow of a doubt only goes on to prove my point that faith is both necessary and more reliant than reason.

Next, my opponent claims he bases his beliefs going off of the evidence directly available to him, thus leaving no room for faith to come into play. However again this is not true, since he does not know all sides to the issue, he has faith that the evidence he is using to base his beliefs are true.

Next, instead of just blindly trying to refute this point by further disagreement and blatant argumentation with-out a base; there are a couple of things we need to consider.
First; reason is not exclusive to evidence; but also includes logical analysis which can completely and utterly rely on only faith and faith alone.
Second; Extend my prior argumentation that a belief can be based in both faith and reason (bus stop example)
Finally; for anyone to take a medicine they have to at on point in time rely on faith to some degree. That's what trial medication and such is for in the first place.

Next, my opponent assumes that because I hold faith to a higher value, I give not value to reason. This is simply not the case! There is a time and a place for reason, and my opponent's doctor example was an excellent illustration for that; however even there is no reason to believe that medicine will work again just because it's worked in the future. That prescription could be bad, or there may an allergic reaction, and it certainly takes faith for the patient to take the medicine.

as for my opponent's arguments about witches, and the world being flat; this is a new argument. And also this is faith, but it's a bad example of faith. This is an abusive argument as it is just like comparing all reason to logical fallacies, or all races to one racial stereotype. This is otherwise known as a correlation causation fallacy.

Next, to my opponents; If you did not mean for the Atheist and evolution example to be reciprocal, then why have you even brought it up in this debate? I don't have either the time or the characters limit to argue in depth point that you eventually plan on dropping anyway.

Next, the thought of plausibility takes faith that you know enough to warrant a true belief. You say that based on evidence you think God's existence is implausible, but if God is real then his existence is beyond comprehension; Thus since he cannot be proven, your plausible thought process is utter flawed when you say you take nothing on faith.

Next, on strong and weak Atheism; I implore you, believe me when I say I know the difference. We have spoken of Atheism prior in this round and you haven't brought this up as an issue yet; but at the base level my statement is still true. Since you cannot know beyond the shadow of a doubt that there is no God faith comes into play.

Finally, my opponent still give you no reason to vote on faith. refutation of a stance is not adequate grounds to accept an alternate stance.

All that said, if for no other reason than my opponent provides nothing for you to vote for him on; you have no reason to vote Con, and you must vote Pro.

I thank my opponent for a fantastic, and intellectually stimulating debate!
socialpinko

Con

"Next, Faith is not the antithesis of reason; for this to be a true statement they would have to be polar opposites and one could not exist with-out the other. A belief can be rooted in both faith and reason, so while I can believe that the bus is going to stop at the bus stop to pick me up because reason would indicate that it is true; I also have an element of faith to believing that."

This is again where we unfortunately disagree on the definition of faith and reason. I claim that if one has faith that the bus will arrive at the bus stop, I am not using reason to come to that decision. And if I use reason to deduce that the bus will arrive at the bus stop then I am not including any element of faith in the matter. One cannot believe something because of faith and reason.

"Next, I concede here, the resolution is not whether or not everybody needs something to believe in. However I never advocated that; My mentioning of this point is in conjunction with the fact that we can know nothing beyond the shadow of a doubt only goes on to prove my point that faith is both necessary and more reliant than reason."

I certainly do not believe that I know anything beyond the shadow of a doubt, but I do not compensate for this by bringing in faith. There is a philosophy called evidentialism and it is one which doctors and scientists most certainly follow, as do I.

"Person S is justified in believing proposition p at time t if and only if S's evidence for p at t supports believing p."
http://www.iep.utm.edu...

That means that one believes only what the evidence supports. There is no compensation with faith. Because there does not need to be. One can believe something only because the evidence supports that belief. I believe that the garbage men will come by my house every tuesday because they have every preceding Tuesday and the city provides that garbage men come to houses in my area once every Tuesday.

This does not mean that I believe this beyond the shadow of a doubt but I do not need to. I go where the evidence is. And you cannot mix unwarranted with warranted reasons for belief. At least you do not need to.

"Next, my opponent claims he bases his beliefs going off of the evidence directly available to him, thus leaving no room for faith to come into play. However again this is not true, since he does not know all sides to the issue, he has faith that the evidence he is using to base his beliefs are true."

Again you are mistaken here. I do not follow evidence because I have faith that it will lead me to the correct conclusions. I follow the evidence because in almost every case, reason leads one to the correct conclusion. Doctors do not use reason to find cures for diseases because they have faith that they are using the correct method. They follow reason because it is the most proven method of finding solutions to problems in this world.

If reason did not work then I would not use it, however it has proven itself time and time again as the most effective way of forming conclusions about the world around us. There is no element of faith in my or anyone's decision to follow reason.

"First; reason is not exclusive to evidence; but also includes logical analysis which can completely and utterly rely on only faith and faith alone.:

I do concede that reason may also include logical analysis but disagree that logic can realy on faith alone. Extend my argument form above that the only reason people follow logic to form conclusions is because it works. It is a purely pragmatic view and realies in no way on faith.

"Finally; for anyone to take a medicine they have to at on point in time rely on faith to some degree. That's what trial medication and such is for in the first place."

This again is the wrong conclusion. When one takes a trial medication, the only reason they are approved to take it is because doctors and researchers have poured a long time into researching and testing said medication before it goes anywhere near a human being. Doctors do not just whip together a new medication in an hour or two and give it to a patient in the hopes that it will work.

"Next, my opponent assumes that because I hold faith to a higher value, I give not value to reason. This is simply not the case! There is a time and a place for reason, and my opponent's doctor example was an excellent illustration for that; however even there is no reason to believe that medicine will work again just because it's worked in the future. That prescription could be bad, or there may an allergic reaction, and it certainly takes faith for the patient to take the medicine."

I do not assume that you do not give value to reason. I am just saying that reason is more useful as it relies on evidence and as you pointed out, logical analysis of the world around us. And of course there is reason to believe the medication will work. Doctors do not just pick out a medication at random and give it to a patient. No, there is always evidence based thinking or logical analysis of a patient's symptoms and history before one is assigned a medication.

"as for my opponent's arguments about witches, and the world being flat; this is a new argument. And also this is faith, but it's a bad example of faith. This is an abusive argument as it is just like comparing all reason to logical fallacies, or all races to one racial stereotype. This is otherwise known as a correlation causation fallacy."

I will concede that argument if you think it was abusive or logically fallacious.

"Next, the thought of plausibility takes faith that you know enough to warrant a true belief. You say that based on evidence you think God's existence is implausible, but if God is real then his existence is beyond comprehension; Thus since he cannot be proven, your plausible thought process is utter flawed when you say you take nothing on faith."

You do not have faith that you know enough to warrant true belief, you base your belief on logical analysis and available evidence. And if god is real then there would be some type of evidence to prove this. Take the Christian god for example, or even the Jewish or Muslim god. One can analyze prayer. After all, many faiths proclaim that prayer's can be answered. If one were to do a study on this and find that religious people had their prayers answered at the same rate as nonreligious then isn't that evidence of non-existence?

"Next, on strong and weak Atheism; I implore you, believe me when I say I know the difference. We have spoken of Atheism prior in this round and you haven't brought this up as an issue yet; but at the base level my statement is still true. Since you cannot know beyond the shadow of a doubt that there is no God faith comes into play."

Again, one does not need to compensate for not knowing something beyond the shadow of a doubt with faith. I already pointed out evidentialism. One bases one's beliefs completely on available evidence.

"Finally, my opponent still give you no reason to vote on faith. refutation of a stance is not adequate grounds to accept an alternate stance."

I already pointed out what has been accomplished through reason such as cures for innumerable diseases.

I also thank my opponent for a great debate.

VOTE CON!
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 6 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
hanks to ever one for voting :D
And @TUF, I asked you to voted even if you would vote me down.
If you feel I lost don't worry that I'm your friend Give SocialPinko the vote!
Posted by TUF 6 years ago
TUF
I'm not going to vote on this now seeing as I still have yet to come to a conclusion, and pro asked no to vote if decision was a tie.
I felt the definitions debate could have been bought if pro offered more explanation as to why we shouldn't use the definitions the con brought up.
Basically all he said was we can't use the definitions Con brought up because they weren't first. So then I'm left shrugging my shoulders saying "So what?". Further the Pro goes on to say he doesn't want a definition debate. Which again makes me ask why he questioned the definitions then suddenly stops caring about them?
On the contrary, con really didn't defend the definitions and agreed they didn't really matter, so I can't really accept them either. So the definition debate was a tie.

Next Pro talks about how reason relies on faith, because we have faith in each of our decisions.
Con argues that reason is also viable in adverse against faith, acting as a side constraint. Basically you both had two different Concepts of the idea of faith and reason, which you tried clashing against each other. You both argued your concepts well, but it really makes decision making hard for me.

Conduct was a tie..

S/g, both made mistakes. I found significantly more on the pro side then the neg, however in this debate I have to question whether it really even matters, seeing as this debate was the informal "discussion" type.

So I vote that a tie as well.

This is my RFD as of right now. I may come back and vote later, but for now I can't really vote on this.
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 6 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
Oh man; I don't know when I'm going to have time to post my rebuttal @-@
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 6 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
I think it's going to be a while before I have enough brain power to respond on this @-@
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 6 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
*nod*
Posted by socialpinko 6 years ago
socialpinko
Fine. I will aruge using the definition of reason which I posted.
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 6 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
Oh come social, it's a debate the point is to argue and use logic to prove a point.
If you think you definition is better than just assert is and argue it back! There's no reason to give up.
Posted by socialpinko 6 years ago
socialpinko
the first listed definition on this list, that being "a statement offered in explanation or justification " I claim that this is the better definition because it is listed first"

There are multiple definitions of the word reason. The one I assumed we were using in a debate about reason vs. faith was that reason was te intellectual faculty used in evaluating evidence. That definition seems much more fitting than a statement offered in justification.

If that was what you meant by reason than I cannot debate that.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by TUF 6 years ago
TUF
BangBang-CoconutsocialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Comments.
Vote Placed by vbaculum 6 years ago
vbaculum
BangBang-CoconutsocialpinkoTied
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: I felt Pro used a hodgepodged definition of "faith" which included: confidence in a belief, assumptions that must be made in absence of certainty, and religion. This caused the flow of the debate to have no clear direction. Clearly a belief based on reason is more desirable than one on faith. Imagine your neurosurgent telling you that his or her strategy for the operation about to be performed on you was faith-based. It's nice to know (desirable) that doctors base their practice on reason.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
BangBang-CoconutsocialpinkoTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I believe this is the first seven in a long time. Pro complained about definitions when he failed to define them, argued that the first definition was inherently superior and then ignored that definition and argued atheism is a position of faith.
Vote Placed by Zealous1 6 years ago
Zealous1
BangBang-CoconutsocialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con didn't provide any reason for me to vote for him. Secondly, his definition WAS biased towards himself. It also made sense that the first definition is the most credible one. Hello-Orange had more sources.