The Instigator
bizzer10
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Rezzealaux
Con (against)
Winning
61 Points

there is no such thing as faith

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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/8/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,853 times Debate No: 4372
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (19)

 

bizzer10

Pro

there is no such thing a true faith

because, it is impossible for a person to belive something without evidence
Rezzealaux

Con

I negate, that "there is no such thing as faith".

My opponent has the burden of proof to show that his side is correct. He is the one that started this debate, therefore he is the one asserting that a certain statement is true. My job as the contender is only to prove that the resolution is false. Think of the resolution as a claim, such as "Noodles taste good". If the person that claims that noodles taste good fails to prove it, then you automatically vote for the other side, as the other side does not have to prove anything at all.

He says, "it is impossible for a person to beli[e]ve something without evidence".

1) He doesn't prove why it's true. Why CAN'T we believe something without evidence?
2) Dictionary.com defines "faith" as "confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability." It does not say anything about how faith and evidence are mutually exclusive, so his point that faiths have to be without evidence is null. The fact that bizzer10 says "true faith" and the possibility that "true faith" might have a different meaning than "faith" is irrelevant, as the resolution talks about faith and not true faith.

My opponent has no further contentions to prove his side as true. Due to burden of proof, you are currently voting CON.
Debate Round No. 1
bizzer10

Pro

ok, when i say faith, i mean beliving something, anything without evidence

many religious people say that you have to have faith to belive in god

so they claim to belive in god without evidence.

this isnt true because they do have what they belive is evidence, wether it be a miracle they thought they saw, a voice they heard or something of the sort.

these experiences are evidence for them, its just not regared as evidence because they cant prove that they are telling the truth to others.

this is an example

your turn
Rezzealaux

Con

"ok, when i say faith, i mean beliving something, anything without evidence"

He did not provide a definition in R1, so I provided one. This refutation here does not fit under the definition of faith for this debate and on top of that, I cite a source and he doesn't. All in all, he loses this argument.

The rest of his R2 basically talks about how religious people claim that their faith is without evidence and that they actually do have evidence for their faith. However, his example does not matter as 1) not everybody uses his definitions, and 2) that's not the definition of faith in this debate.

The definition of faith in this debate is "confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability."

His example does not show how there is no such thing as faith.

Since none of his points stand
And since none of his points prove his side
And since he cannot make new arguments in R3
It's game over and you vote CON.
Debate Round No. 2
bizzer10

Pro

ok, let me be specific,

dictionary.com says faith is belief that is not based on proof

i gave an example of how something that is belived to belive without any evidence is actually using evidence.

now, i will admit that you win this debate if you can give me one example of

a sane person beliving in something with aboslutely no evidence

even if a person cant prove it, they have their reasons for beliveing it, even if its wrong.

if you says something along the lines of:

a boy beliving in magical unicorns because his parents told him,

that dosent count because the boy thinks that his parents (people he looks up to) belive in unicorns aswell. so that is his evidence

dictionary.com definiton for evidence: something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign

you cannot give me an example because it is impossible. which is exactly my point. good day!
Rezzealaux

Con

"ok, let me be specific, dictionary.com says faith is belief that is not based on proof."

My definition stands above his for two reasons:
1>>> You cannot define words in the last round of a debate. It would be a shifting advocacy, in which case you reject the argument.
2>>> My definition is the first one. His is the second. Since he gives no other reason as to why his is more important than mine and since our source prioritizes my definition over his, you take my definition, which is "confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability."

"now, i will admit that you win this debate if you can give me one example of a sane person beliving in something with aboslutely no evidence even if a person cant prove it, they have their reasons for beliveing it, even if its wrong."

1>>> This is a new position. He never asked me to do it.
2>>> I'm not going to fulfill his request, as if I did I would be a shifting advocacy.
3>>> His "admittance" of this debate to me is irrelevant, as he is not my judge.
4>>>I need not show any examples to prove that my side is right, I only need arguments to show that his side is not right. He gives a few examples, sure, and they could very possibly be used as warrants... if only we were under his newly planted definitions. Pity we're not.

"if you says something along the lines of: a boy beliving in magical unicorns because his parents told him, that dosent count because the boy thinks that his parents (people he looks up to) belive in unicorns aswell. so that is his evidence"

Irrelevant. Based off of the wrong definition.

"dictionary.com definiton for evidence: something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign"

New definition, therefore you throw it away.

"you cannot give me an example because it is impossible. which is exactly my point. good day!"

It is quite possible. The definition of "faith", again, is "confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability". He already provided us with an example of how faith exists in R2, when he mentions religious people. Religious people have faith in the ability of God, or gods, or Goddess or goddesses, etc. Therefore, faith exists. Therefore, the statement "there is no such thing as faith" is false.

Therefore, he loses.

Since all of his current contentions are either
1) based off of a definition that we are not using in this debate and
2) are new arguments that he made last round,
And since all his previous arguments have been eliminated by me and dropped by him,
And because he has failed to meet the burden of proof to show that there is no such thing as faith,

You vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
CON wins on conduct since PRO provided no arguments in the first round.
CON wins on spelling/grammar as can be seen by PRO's poor diction in the first round (actually, in all of his rounds).
CON wins on convincing arguments because PRO failed to fulfill his burden in proving that it doesn't exist. Since PRO did not challenge CON on the rendering of BOF, I accept it and hence VOTE CON on these terms.
Nobody wins on sources.
Posted by SexyLatina 8 years ago
SexyLatina
Faith exists because one can fabricate evidence for anything. You simply believe that there IS evidence for whatever you have faith in, and suddenly, to your perception there is! To the perception of all non-believers, there might seem to be no evidence at all, because they do not alter their reality to include the evidence. So, while there may not be general consensus that there IS evidence on something, people would still believe it because they perceive nonexistant evidence.

Or does that agree with you?

It's late and I explained it badly.
Posted by Im_always_right 8 years ago
Im_always_right
lol so true....

(25 characters)
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
Alto: I used to.
evil: Debate is war. War is never fair.
Posted by evilkillerfiggin 8 years ago
evilkillerfiggin
That wasn't really fair. You could see the boy meant something different than what the dictionary defines as 'faith', and instead of acting on that you steamrollered over him with your own more authoritive definition.

You allowed the words to get in the way of the meaning behind them and won the debate by effectively being pedantic instead of addressing the issue your opponent wanted to discuss.
Posted by BrownEyedAlto932 8 years ago
BrownEyedAlto932
Rezzealaux, do you debate through the NFL? I recognize a lot of the terms you use
Posted by sonofzapp 8 years ago
sonofzapp
GODDAMN! 18 to 1! I'd hate to debate her. Either she's really good or he's really bad.
Posted by PublicForumG-d 8 years ago
PublicForumG-d
@Alex: No, not really. Faith can be (and often is) rational. Its knowing 99% empirically and hoping for the other 1%. Its not chanting in the dark.

And Con could've slaughtered him so much better, but he nonetheless slaughtered him. Vote CON.
Posted by DrAlexander 8 years ago
DrAlexander
Yeah, that's what I said earlier. Lack of conclusive evidence is what makes faith unique.

:D!
Posted by bthr004 8 years ago
bthr004
I dont understand how difficult it is to understand or have faith in something,.. You couldn't call it faith if you require evidence!!!
19 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
bizzer10RezzealauxTied
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 
Vote Placed by Im_always_right 8 years ago
Im_always_right
bizzer10RezzealauxTied
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 
Vote Placed by sonofzapp 8 years ago
sonofzapp
bizzer10RezzealauxTied
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 
Vote Placed by ozzie412 8 years ago
ozzie412
bizzer10RezzealauxTied
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 
Vote Placed by Olhando 8 years ago
Olhando
bizzer10RezzealauxTied
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 
Vote Placed by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
bizzer10RezzealauxTied
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 
Vote Placed by mmadderom 8 years ago
mmadderom
bizzer10RezzealauxTied
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 
Vote Placed by Oolon_Colluphid 8 years ago
Oolon_Colluphid
bizzer10RezzealauxTied
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 
Vote Placed by worldskye 8 years ago
worldskye
bizzer10RezzealauxTied
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 
Vote Placed by JTSmith 8 years ago
JTSmith
bizzer10RezzealauxTied
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