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

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

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.

-->
@Username

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.

Anyone going to vote on this?

-->
@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.

-->
@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.

-->
@fauxlaw

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

Enjoy your debate.

-->
@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.]

-->
@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.

-->
@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.

-->
@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.

-->
@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.

-->
@MisterChris

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

-->
@Death23
@Intelligence_06

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

-->
@MisterChris

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

-->
@MisterChris

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

-->
@Death23

i will delete all ur votes

-->
@MisterChris

Tis too late

-->
@Death23

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

-->
@Username

As a mod I approve

-->
@Intelligence_06

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

The skelly is hungry

-->
@Death23

Mad lad.(gender assumed)

-->
@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.

-->
@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?

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

-->
@fauxlaw

My theory is that no one wants to out themselves as a witch, and for good reason; if I knew there were witches among me I would burn them at the stake and toss em into the river.

I challenge anyone, even non-witches, to take up their cause. Of what are y'all afraid?

-->
@Intelligence_06

Speaking from experience? (ಠ⌣ಠ)

-->
@MisterChris

A lot of witches now are recreational.

I'd be genuinely surprised if anyone actually takes this one. I'm not sure we have any witches on DART

-->
@fauxlaw

It could actually be a good part of an argument, to showcase the scientific method.

Another useful source to showcase it:
http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=scientific_method

-->
@Barney

Damn! I just watched my DVD of M.Python on Sunday night and... voila, the influence of the subconscious to introduce my debate proposal yesterday. I was going to use that scene in my argument, but you blew it for me!!!

just kidding, but I did watch the movie on Sunday, and who knows if it generated my debate? More mysticism than empricism, I'm afraid.

At least the identification of witches uses the scientific method:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g

-->
@Jeff_Goldblum

I don't think there are a lot of witches in DArt, consider this is a place of rationalism and logics, not rituals and emotions. I think there are only a handful of them at most.

-->
@Jeff_Goldblum

Well it might. I certainly receive a lot of grief from the atheist community, as do others of my stripe. I believe in equal-opportunity tick-off.

-->
@Intelligence_06

However, my proposal is not an either/or proposition. I am clearly arguing that witchcraft is both pseudoscience AND superstition, so my BoP is that both apply. ButI I will not argue the case here.

This is going to tick off DART's witch community.

-->
@Barney

However it is superstition though, and it is not compatible with the scientific method. It not being a pseudoscience does not make the other two false.

-->
@Intelligence_06

That brings up an interesting K someone could run: That witchcraft does not rise to the level of being even a pseudoscience, therefore the resolution is false.

-->
@Barney

I just watched tens of videos about witches then came to a conclusion: Witchcraft is not trying to be scientific because they are rituals and traditions and maybe beliefs. It couldn't even qualify as a pseudoscience because it is not trying to give a system of explanation to anything.

I see some ground for the contender to have a case, but it would border on semantics. Were I to argue this, I would build a case around how much witchcraft would benefit from using the scientific method (which I would expect pro to counter to pointing out the key benefit being when it turns away from such stupidity, via all the experiments having negative outcomes).

Neatly I had a debate a few months ago, basically on if medicine is comparable with the scientific method:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1560/physicians-are-scientists

-->
@Username
@K_Michael

I know I've seen DNA evidence previously, but I'll have to find it again. I don't think any volume I have in my library discusses it. As I remember, it was very curious to me. It was South American in origin, and the link was mitochondrial, but not through Leah [mother of Judah, therefore, of Jewish derivation, and from Judea, but further north; Galilean, and potentially from Rachel, mother of Joseph, and grandmother of Ephraim and Manasseh.

The cross figure, while not having Jewish origins, does have Viking linkage [different shape, with all legs basically equal], and we now know early Scandies, even pre-Christianity, did cross the ocean in antiquity, so that may be the link

-->
@Username

Quetzalcoatl, the main Aztec god, was depicted as light-skinned and bearded by a culture that had little-to-no facial hair and darker skin. I've also seen people cite the use of crosses as symbols in certain Native American tribes as evidence, but that seems false to me as the cross has no Judaic connections and would not be associated with Christianity for several hundred years, as it didn't yet exist.
As far as I know, DNA tests haven't shown anything, but I haven't looked into it very fully. Unfortunately, the Book of Mormon is fairly vague when it comes to geography, especially distances, but I have seen the Central American region as a top candidate for matching the descriptions that are given, namely, a sea on each side.

-->
@fauxlaw

Very interesting... thank you for these book recommendations!

Is there historical evidence of these Native American Jews (I'm not really sure if that's the correct term) outside of the Book of Mormon?

-->
@Username

I hold Judaism in high esteem. You would find it is also honored highly within the pages of the Book of Mormon, which, if you've never read it, reads biblically [or by the Torah, as well] in terms of structure [book, chapter, verse], and actually records the history of a group of people in the timeframe of the Babylonian invasion, occupation, and displacement of Judea and Galilee, circa 600 BCE, and continues, mostly chronologically, for the next 1,000 years, to ~400 CE. These people escaped Jerusalem [they were descendants of Manasseh, son of Joseph, son of Jacob], and sailed to the Americas. Where they landed is not described. They followed the Law of Moses, but looked forward to the advent of Christ, the Messiah, whose visit among them following his resurrection is recorded. It is believed that some of the Native Americans were descendant from this people. I encourage a read, not as an effort of convincing, but as a superb history.

As for mistakes, I agree. We're on the same page.

-->
@fauxlaw

I also write R1s before I start debates. Working under a timeframe is stressful so I like to take advantage of when I don't have that.

Making mistakes is the best way to learn, and any debate where you learn from mistakes is a win regardless of voter outcome. It's not like I did perfectly either - I'll have some things to carry over with me into future debates, too.

I thought it was a very good debate, and I learned a lot of very interesting things about Christianity from you as a result of it. I was raised culturally Jewish and have been drifting in and out of the religion for some time, but I've also always been fascinated by the story of Jesus and his teachings. The quote "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” was a quote that you shared that I really liked in particular. I'm still excited to see what the voters say whether they vote in your favor or in mine.

-->
@shadow_712

Just the kind of challenge I relish trying. First personal rule: I am not afraid of failure. But then, I actually have several first personal rules. One of them is: I fear failure. When I figurer out that conundrum, I think my mission in life is complete.

-->
@Username

Thanks for that.

To your question, I never launch a debate without having at least a first round composed. It may alter a bit before publication, particularly if there are negotiated factors created pre-argument phase based on my description - something I recognize I did poorly in our debate Regardless, other than our kerfuffle, I thought it was a good debate with good arguments both sides.

-->
@fauxlaw

Who in the world can defend this? almost impossible.

-->
@K_Michael

Statistical hypothesis? Or, rather, statistical data in a hypothesis? There's corkscrew logic. But, even corkscrews have a logic, so...