Instigator / Pro
4
1702
rating
77
debates
70.13%
won
Topic
#2173

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

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
2
0
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...

Death23
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
12,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
5
1553
rating
24
debates
56.25%
won
Description

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

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

First off, this debate left me literally dizzy from going in pointless circles so much.

Not doing point numbering due to the Gish Gallop like nature of this debate; instead I’m just taking highlights from each round.

R1:
I can basically assume pro meets his BoP on 2 out of 3 claims, as Con opens with a statement to immediately limit his attack the affirmative pseudoscience claim. To which we have the OED definition “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.”

R2:
Pro nitpicks grammar, seeming to miss the point (it’s a bad stance to lead with). Complains of the lack of sources. Then asks that readers re-read some of his claims which touched on pseudoscience. He does better here pointing out that he had sources which referred to it as pseudoscience within the scientific community.

Pro goes on to talk at length about Catherine Bell and a TV show.

Con on the other hand reaffirms his stance and adds a good detail of contrasting it to counterfeit money. He does a strong conclusion using pro’s 19 sources against him in that if there was good evidence, surely pro would have found it?

R3:
A ton of nitpicking before getting back on topic… Ah, a positive review for Catherine Bell’s TV show; it sounds like they pretend to be scientists on TV? Ok, a good note of Monty Python demonstrating the scientific method against witches (for this type of thing, I seriously suggest a link to the video). And ending with an original poem written by pro.

Con basically repeats that pro has BoP to show that witchcraft rises to the level of a pseudoscience, and that he cannot prove the negative (his definitions actually imply this, with “magical arts” instead of “magical sciences,” suggesting that he indeed could prove that it falls below the threshold).

R4:
Pro clarifies why he believes it is a prescience, in that hundreds of years ago people attempted to use it in a similar manner (even without similar results) to things we would use various sciences for today.
Con explains why faith healing does not claim to do the rigorous study and questioning of itself as seen with science. He reminds us “pseudoscience is a spurious or fake science rather than activity which conforms to the scientific method,” which has been implicit throughout his earlier arguments. And of course concludes with pointing back to his R1, and finally complimenting pro’s quality of writing.

---

Arguments:
Con leveraged BoP against one of the claims. Pro came closer to conceding that witchcraft is compatible with the scientific method, than showing it is a pseudoscience (he repeatedly insisted it attempts to duplicate the scientific method). Con on the other hand stuck to his points that it logically is not a pseudoscience, even if a TV witch uses it as a science to change the world.

Sources:
I agree with con that sources are not absolutely necessary. That said, pro still put the work into his research, and gets credit for that (even if so much focus on that TV show tempted me to wholly ignore sources). I will also note that con easily could have sources witches acting very non-scientific, which would have greatly sped this up.
Let’s see, to cite one: Pro was very creative in using the absence of alien DNA to suggest that witchcraft is indeed superstition, a point not merely dropped, but outright conceded by con.

Conduct:
Leaving this tied. I will note there is a certain degree of irony with pro telling us how to vote, rather than letting things like the imbalance of sources speak for themselves.

S&G:
Also tied. There’s no benefit in obsessing over every typo, when people were still fully understandable without any major distractions from that.