Instigator / Pro
4
1616
rating
40
debates
67.5%
won
Topic

Resolved: Witchcraft is pseudoscience and superstition, not compatible with the scientific method.

Status
Finished

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

Arguments points
0
3
Sources points
2
0
Spelling and grammar points
1
1
Conduct points
1
1

With 1 vote and 1 point ahead, the winner is ...

Death23
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Science
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
12,000
Contender / Con
5
1605
rating
17
debates
70.59%
won
Description
~ 2,410 / 5,000

Proposed: Witchcraft is pseudoscience and superstition, not compatible with the scientific method. The search for truth compels man to investigate by a number of methods, only one of which is a search for evidence by the scientific method, which should apply critical questioning with skepticism, careful observation, and repeated experimentation. [1] Any other method of a search for truth is pseudoscience at best, and at worst, disorganized, superstitious chaos. Witchcraft touches both extremes.

Definitions:

Scientific method: [attributed to Carl Sagan] a search for evidence of truth by critical questioning with skepticism, careful observation, and repeated experimentation.

Witchcraft: [OED] The exercise of supernatural power supposed to be possessed by persons in league with the devil or evil spirits. Magic arts.

Supernatural: [OED] Belonging to a realm or system that transcends nature, as that of divine, magical, or ghostly beings, occult, paranormal.

Pseudoscience: [OED] A spurious or pretended science; a branch of knowledge or a system of beliefs mistakenly regarded as based on scientific method or having the status of scientific truth.

Superstition: [OED] A widely held but irrational belief in supernatural influences, especially as leading to good or bad luck or a practice based on such a belief.

Debate protocol:

Rounds 1, 2, 3: Argument, rebuttal, defense

Round 4: No new argument, rebuttal, defense, conclusion

All argument, defense, rebuttal, and sourcing will be listed within the context of the debate argument rounds only, except sourcing may also be listed within comments within the debate file to conserve maximum space for argumentation, but only during the argumentation phase. No other external reference may be made within the context of the debate argument rounds.

No waived rounds. No more than one round may be forfeited, or forfeiture of entire debate will result. Concession in any round is a debate loss.

All argument rounds will contain arguments, rebuttals, and defenses, plus 4th round conclusion. No declaration of victory will be made but in the 4th round.

Arguments, rebuttals, defenses, or conclusions may not address voters directly for voting suggestions beyond statement of validity for arguments, et al, made in all rounds.

[1] Sagan, Carl, Druyan, Ann, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, Penguin Random House, 1995

Added:

This debate now has a follow up debate:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2221/resolved-referenced-sources-are-necessary-in-a-debate

Added:

NOTICE: 2 days remain for voting.

I might get around to this, but I can't promise as I have to try to recover from a terrible weekend, and knock out some important job application activities.

Added:
Contender
--> @armoredcat

Lol don't debate with him unless you can have lower rounds and character limits. If he's losing he'll just keep blathering nonsense so that voting on it will be too much work.

Added:

Anyone going to vote on this?

Added:
--> @fauxlaw

A brain without a thought but not a thought without a brain. In so much as the thought brain relationship is currently exclusive. (Seemingly)

And I agree, opinions is opinions,

And scholastically supported argument, is a bunch of onions + pi.

And logic seemingly is, whilst simultaneously, seemingly is not.

Added:
Instigator
--> @zedvictor4

I will note, for the record, that a claim of logic is not a scholastically-supported argument. Opinion is not necessarily logical. Opinion is a can of beans without an opener. Or, more to the point, a thought without a brain which is, fortunately, not generally contagious.

Added:
--> @fauxlaw

I sense that you are riled by the logic of my comments.....Very ethanesque.

Enjoy your debate.

Added:
Instigator
--> @zedvictor4

and the debate is not enjoined in these comments, but in arguments, and you're not in it, so, ma gavte la nata [or, in the vernacular you understand: put a cork in it.]

Added:
--> @fauxlaw

A druid in a henge is as dumb or not as the case may be and a druid's belief system is as dumb or not as religion or witchcraft is....And a book is a book, and there are undoubtedly witchcraft books as there are religion books, though none of these books will stand up to scientific scrutiny....Only biased opinion.....As is the nature of debate.

Fortunately my troubles are currently, few and far between.

Added:
Instigator
--> @zedvictor4

"Gods are the obvious and unavoidable consequence of this proposal..." Nope. The scientific, or empirical method, to the uninitiated in the trial of faith, cannot, by the means of empiricism alone, demonstrate God. And witchcraft, the dominant subject of the debate, does not go there, either, even though witchcraft is a pseudoscience that attempts to attract the behavior of super-natural beings in the effort to have them be agents of change to the natural world. However, to God, as recognized by adherents to the Torah, the Holy Bible, and the Qu'ran, witchcraft is an abomination. [Deuteronomy 18: 10-12, and the Qu'ran, 7:102-124] The gods of witchcraft are fleeting, and will accept any attempt to flatter any one of them by spells, even to the extent of swapping one god for another in any given spell [Nightshade, Brittany, The Book of Shadows, Preface, pg. 10]. Therefore, your claim of inevitability of gods being an unavoidable consequence to this debate is an empty cauldron, as useless to empiricism, and faith, as it is to newt's eyes. Just as stated to you in post #41. Do you have any scholarly references for your claim? I don't buy your opinion. Go find a druid in some henge to tell your troubles.

Added:
--> @Death23 @fauxlaw

Gods are the obvious and unavoidable consequence of the proposal.....Belief in a super-nature beyond scientific scrutiny....It's the best strategy in this debate....Unless you are prepared to denounce the super-nature of gods, then you cannot denounce the super-nature of witchcraft, because you are inadvertently proposing that scientific method is unnecessary.

Added:
Contender
--> @Intelligence_06

That issue is a more fundamental one regarding exactly what the burdens of debaters are. I don't think Pro disagrees with me on that point based on what he has said here. So, the issue will likely be avoided by mutual agreement between Pro and Con, or he may drop it altogether. If not, then we can get in to it.

Added:
--> @MisterChris

So far, Fauxlaw's arguments are more compelling in my eyes.

Added:
--> @Death23 @Intelligence_06

I meant I'd delete the votes in favor of Death on this debate, obviously I was just kidding anyways.

Added:
--> @MisterChris

Duh, it is not like he can vote on his own debate lol

Added:
Contender
--> @MisterChris

I trust that you wouldn't delete votes unless you held a good faith belief that there was good cause to do so.

Added:
--> @Death23

i will delete all ur votes

Added:
Contender
--> @MisterChris

Tis too late

Added:
--> @Death23

I am extremely curious how you hope to pull this off. Also you still have time to delete that comment

Added:
--> @armoredcat

As a mod I approve

Added:
Contender
--> @Intelligence_06

https://i.imgur.com/bWJAWnE.jpg

The skelly is hungry

Added:
--> @Death23

Mad lad.(gender assumed)

Added:
Instigator
--> @zedvictor4

What does God have to do with this debate proposal? Entirely off-topic, but nice try. The comparison is witchcraft to science, and naught to do with any alleged divine being of any stripe. Can't rob Peter to pay Paul. By the wauy, just becaue the definition of witchcraft references the devil, the debate does not turn on worship of any being, even Joe Biden.

Added:
--> @fauxlaw

A tempting debate.

"Witchcraft is pseudo-science and superstition, not compatible with scientific method."....Rather like the basis of the Christian Faith.

If a supernatural god is not pseudo-science then witchcraft is not.....So will you be prepared to denounce the Christian god as pseudo-science?

Added:

(and if what I said violated the TOS I'd like to clarify that I would be doing this in roblox)