People do not have the right to an absolute "freedom of belief"

My opponent believes strongly that he has effectively refuted the arguments presented. However, his stance seems to only be supported by the "shooing" away of insights and facts that contradict him, claiming that they are simply ways ot sidestepping on my part. Let's get into some detail. THE DEFAULT POSITION FOR REASONING Belief is a strange thing. It requires one to gather available information and process that into a view congruent to what you are presented with. Each individual will take different measures in varying degrees in order to validated their views. For many, belief is a constant struggle, as they work hard to reconcile evaluations with situations that seem to defy their beliefs daily. It is an evolution of concepts, ideas, and viewpoint, as we kaleidoscope what we know in search of what we don't know. Therefore, the default position for any viewpoint is one of ignorance until evidence is presented to sway one into "negative" belief or "positive" belief. This is the crux of this debate. My opponent values the scientific method to a point that it seems as if he believes it is infallible. In reality, no process is foolproof. Many modern breakthroughs, especially in the fields of particle physics and biotechnology, have spit in the face of past scientific theory, proving theories wrong that great men before us died strictly believing. The bottom line is that everyone uses faith at some point and invests their belief in things that cannot fully be substantiated. It is because we begin to see evidence unfolding and have a talent to convince ourselves of "truths" even when they are not. THE EVIDENCE FOR FAITH What qualifies as evidence in science? First, observation and gather of data is conducted to provide and informed picture of the landscape one is pondering. They allows us to form hypothesis that can be tested in the most objective way possible. These tests, which are commonly referred to as experiments, give us the opprtunity to validate or invalidate the original hypothesis, with care taken as to not taint the results and mistakenly rule out a perfectly good suspicion. If the hypothesis is proven enough, it is elevated to the status of a theory. Faith is formulated in much the same way. One observes the world around him and gathers data to provide an informed picture of the landscape. The hypothesis of, say Intelligent Design, is fomulated. In testing this theory, we observe and verify uncanny complexities in the universe around us that carries somewhat of a recurring signature. We do not know who the creator is, but arrive theories of what or whom could have possibly been responsible for organized chaos around us. At the SAME EXACT time, others are formulated opposite theories and testing those as well. We come together at a point of dialogue and debate to compare notes and uncover truth. The best debate is, indeed, one that you lose. For many people, the beliefs have come from years of exposure to the world that is around them. Their experiences, victories, defeats, compulsions, and desires all constantly clashing forcing them to find a way to stay anchored. Our core values are those anchors. They come from our own observation, experimentation, and theory-making that seems very right to us, even when others see it as foolish or dangerous. However, I have seen few authentic beliefs are dangerous in and of themselves. Many times, it is not the beliefs themselves, but auxiliary motivations that cause the harm. Ignorance of being used by religious leaders, believing something simply to combat the opposite belief that hurt you, etc. are all wrong reasons to claim belief. It is really selfishness and NONbelief that forces people to take madness into their own hands. BELIEFS OF THE RAPISTS AND MURDERS My opponent continues to bring the supposed "beliefs" of rapists and murders disregarding the fact that the notion to hurt another human being has little to do with belief at all. There is something much deeper that causes people to bomb, torture, and rape others. It's a NEED - and COMPULSION - that many times defies the very beliefs of the people doing the harm. So, you are attacking the wrong piece of the person with your argument. CORE VALUES and, more importantly, SENTIMENTS are more dangerous than any single belief. They make people who belief in a transcendant love slaughter people on their way to Jerusalem. VERIFYING THE PAST My opponent also makes statements such as "This is a scientific fact, and in this case my scientific evidence is a decisive lack of evidence supporting a 'dragon's' existence." So, he states that his EVIDENCE is a LACK of evidence, which would be thrown out of any courtroom and scientific discussion. At best, one can only KNOW what one has evidence for. But, one certainly can BELIEVE and even HOPE for things that one is waiting to discover. As for dragons, the fact is that every ancient civilization has stories about them. There are legends, cave drawings, and so much more that point to SOME sort of beast that terrorized peoplem, even if that creature looks nothing like what we think of a dragon looking like. In order to believe what my opponent beliefs, you have to subscribe to the belief that everything in life can be scientifically verified. From a conversation you had yesterday to whether or not King Arthor really did have a round table. Yet, if that was true, that forums like debate.org would not exist. It is the fact that we CANNOT foresically prove everything that arguments, wars, and debates happen. Science really is one of the best tools mankind has to analyze and try to make sense of the work around us. But, faith and beliefs thrive in a places where science is not capable making clear cases. That is WHY faith and belief steps in. You would also be forced to discredit what a person believes IS valid evidence for their beliefs, such as personal experiences, historical indicators, and the sheer mass of individuals who claim the same. The reality is that many beliefs CAN be discredited because people are too egotistical to change their faith even when they know if is flawed. But, to remove the rights of people to make the necessary journey to the other side is to fight ignorance with intolerance, which is exactly what concepts communism have failed at achieving. Thank God (or Science) for that!