There is nothing to argue when someone pleads faith. It is not evidence, so what is there to discuss. Is a person's conviction about something equivalent to the thing being true? No. People can be wrong. People are wrong all the time.
I have seen people convinced that the world was going to come to an end based on their religious observances. They had great conviction, sold all of their stuff, got into a bunker and prayed. They were wrong.
When a person says 'I have faith' it is speaking to something unverifiable, something unassailable. They are saying 'they believe, cannot change their mind, even in sight of evidence that may contradict their position'. What is there to discuss at that point? Nothing, really.
Someone says blind faith, you respond 'that is not convincing, and the point of the debate is to convince me because your word, your conviction alone did not do that'. The fact that you are in a debate means you are not willing to take the other side's word for it. So you are basically just restating why you are having the debate. Ends up with a circular discussion.
Many people find faith very hard. Blind faith is even harder. Blind faith means faith in the absence of a reason to believe something is so. If you are involved in a debate, people want concrete or abstract support for your arguments. They don't want to hear that they should believe something just because you believe it is so.
You can not be 100% sure about a claim without logical evidence supporting the claim. Thus, if you use blind faith to try and prove something is true, there is no way that you could win. Taking something face value and trying to sell it to others without checking the story behind it or how it came to be will get you in trouble. Blind faith is selling a name, a label, a title, with no meat to back it up. If you can't prove it to be true, it is of no use in a debate. However, I do see the slight possibility for it to get you somewhere in a debate. It can serve to throw the opponent off track or rile them up so that they slip. It can be used to make a point about the topic of "blind faith." Someone could go as far to argue that blind faith is all we have. That every piece of so called evidence calls for you to have faith in it and in its existence. I think this would be the case with solipsists who would have a field day arguing this. Now back on track, I feel that I don't entirely agree or disagree with this statement because of all the possibilities and parameters that would restrict this statement are not available. It is just yes or no, and I think logically, it is a yes.
When you have blind faith that something is occurring you do not have any proof that what you are believing in is completely correct. Faith itself is believing something without any evidence and bringing debate into a debate would just make you lose the debate since there is not hard evidence that what you believe in is the right thing to believe. So yes an appeal to blind faith gets you nowhere in a debate.
I believe that appealing to blind faith is inconsistent in a debate. We have had many debates before and people generally look for rationality in a debate. If you go into debate, and say you just know something because of blind faith, you will most likely get ridiculed. Logic and reason is usually the best way to approach a debate. I do not think that blind faith will get you anywhere in a debate. Just saying that you know something because you simply believe it is illogical reasoning.
Faith actually has a strong basis in reason, so an appeal to blind faith is an appeal to assertions outside of reason. In a debate, the object is to compel others to accept your position. An appeal to blind faith offers no reason that others should accept your position; thus, you are failing in your most basic responsibility.
Appealing to blind faith is always a bad move when you are debating someone else. There is no way another person can be persuaded by your faith, and faith by definition is not something you can reach through logic. So when you appeal to blind faith in a debate, it basically shuts down anywhere the debate can actually progress to.
An appeal to blind faith won't get you anywhere purely because that would destroy the point of a debate. You can have blind faith in anything, but the whole point in a debate is to come to the logical and rational conclusion. An appeal to blind faith would destroy this purpose.
Ultimately, all arguments have to be based on unproven premises, because it's impossible to give an infinite series of proofs leading up to a final conclusion. An appeal to blind faith may be an example of an unproven premise. However, the only time such appeals are effective is when the other person already shares that premise. If the other person doesn't share that premise, then you have to give some kind of justification for it. But if you have justification for it, then it's not an appeal to blind faith. If you don't give a justification for premises your opponent rejects, then it gets you nowhere. Calling it "blind faith" just makes things even worse.
Appeals to blind faith are useless in debates. Debates need to be conducted based on facts and not emotional appeals. Plus, the opposing debater may not have the same faith for value systems, and that would render such an appeal useless. People need to argue facts and not how they "feel."
Blind faith can appeal in a debate. For one, blind faith is pretty much religion. Part of blind faith is to be able to trust something or someone, for instance god. There are a lot of religious or superstitious people out there. Although there are different forms of blind faith other people can understand what you are saying and that puts weight behind what you say.
No, an appeal to blind faith does not get one anywhere during a debate. This is because one can't use faith in order to reason inductively or use it for logic. However, I do believe that faith can be the basis of a discussion. At the end, I think faith is more of an underlying factor in our lives; something that we don't necessarily interact or think about.