Instigator / Pro
5
1266
rating
119
debates
15.97%
won
Topic

Faith and belief are useless in the pursuit of truth

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
3
6
Sources points
0
4
Spelling and grammar points
2
2
Conduct points
0
2

With 2 votes and 9 points ahead, the winner is ...

drafterman
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Science
Time for argument
One day
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender / Con
14
1540
rating
6
debates
75.0%
won
Description
~ 0 / 5,000

No information

Added:
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Pro firstly defines belief as something that is automatically not factually true... You can believe a fact but a fact is beyond a belief that's how science works at least.

What Con does is dodge this nonsense by masterfully turning the definition of 'belief' against Pro. GG it's over tbph :)

You see, science is based on the belief other scientists aren't lying about their findings and methods and on top of that assumes the simplest explanation is the true one (Okham's Razor).

We see Pro throw out man insults to Con by tone alone.

Let's showcase some of Pro's grimiest Conduct moments:

"Pretty much everything you said was complete and utter bollocks, mate."

Here's a funny one (he is backing up Con's point that we blindly trust what other research says its found as true) by Pro saying "if you think the majority of humans can't be wrong about a lot of things then I don't know how to help you other than to refer you to the nearest psychiatric ward." Pro just insulted their own perspective here.

"Oh come off it you soddy pillock, this is a philosophical debate not something that can be addressed with references and citations, especially when your citation consists of cherry picked definitions and arbitrarily deciding that Karl Popper is the sole authority on how to think scientifically."

As for S&G, Pro had worse S&G and genuinely thinks the word 'accept' is spelled as 'except' but I never like to vote this as it's offensive to dyslexics and non-native English speakers.

When it comes to sources we are left at a bit of a loss with Pro, he goes so far as to say "his is a philosophical debate not something that can be addressed with references and citations." well... Then Pro concedes to lose the sources votes as Con used reliable sources throughout and justified their use of Wikipedia.

Added:
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Conduct goes to con. "Oh come off it you soddy pillock" is not acceptable. Sources go to con as they were the only ones who used it. I'll analyse the arguments later.