There are Things More Important Than Reason.

=== RESPONSES === "I would also like to point out that even though I am Pro the burden of proof rests upon my opponent because they are trying to prove that the most important thing is reason, whereas I simply have to prove that reason is not the most important thing" >> My opponent clearly doesn't understand the burden of proof. The title of this debate is a positive statement, that is, it is making an assertion. My opponent is Pro. Thus he is making the assertion. Thus he has the burden of proof. He can try to argue against this if he wants but the voters aren't stupid. "Definitions" >> I accept his definitions. "Purpose" >> He claims that purpose supersedes reason. This assertion fails because reason is required to both come to a conclusion on one's purpose and to even understand the concept of purpose. "Happiness" >> My opponent claims that if we lack a belief in life after death than pleasure and happiness become our purpose. I contend that this is true and that there is nothing wrong with it. I also contend that this is not the whole story. For it matters not whether we believe in life after death or not; pleasure and happiness are still rationally our highest goal. You don't hear of many people believing that we will go to hell for having self-denial and then choosing self-denial any way, because they see it as "right". Religious people have self-denial because they believe it will actually be in their self-interest in the after-life. You're just as selfish as I am. Furthermore, how does this attack reason? You need reason to decipher any of this. "Morality" >> My opponent claims that morality is more important than reason. I contend that if your morality is not founded on reason than it is unreasonable. And as such, has implications of immorality. My opponent says that the morality he speaks of here is the morality as in doing what is right. Is not doing what is rational what is right? If what is right is not rational than upon what concept is the nature of righteousness made? He may say God. He believes in an omniscient God, does he not? Would God not be rational? What a poor lot we are if we have an irrational God. "Truth" >> My opponent claims that truth is more important than reason because reason is merely a means of acquiring knowledge of the truth. This is purely semantical. It also doesn't work. Truth is an objective state of being; not something that can be chosen. Reason is on the part of the subjective. Truth is something to be valued. Reason is a value itself. This debate is concerning values. I contend that to value truth, the value you are using is the value of reason. In this my opponent has unwittingly made a case for my side. "So in this first round the first problem I will state with using reason as something of ultimate importance is that reason cannot give tell you what to do. Reason and Logic simply describe things they cannot tell you what you should do if you think that a value can be inffered from logic you are commiting the Natrualistic Logical Fallacy" >> http://i228.photobucket.com... Even though my opponent linked to it, he apparently has no idea what the Naturalistic Fallacy is. Extend his logic to it's rational ends and there should be no such thing as value. --- This is the Naturalistic Fallacy: This is the fallacy of trying to derive conclusions about what is right or good (that is, about values) from statements of fact alone. This is invalid because no matter how many statements of fact you assemble, any logical inference from them will be another statement of fact, not a statement of value. If you wish to reach conclusions about values, then you must include amongst your assumptions (or axioms, or premises) a statement of value. Once you have an axiomatic statement of value, then you may use it in conjunction with statements of fact to reach value-laden conclusions. [1] --- I do have an axiomatic statement of value. IT IS CALLED REASON. I will show how it is axiomatic in my argument. My opponent derives his value from God. But the concept of God is not axiomatic. === ARGUMENT === . Reason is axiomatic. An axiom is something which is self-evidently true because in any attempt to dismiss it you must actually apply it. Any possible argument you could have for reason being absolute was derived through an attempt at reason itself. In-fact, it's really quite funny! The only way my opponent could win the debate is if all his arguments are irrational, but that in itself also disqualifies his from winning. So it is paradoxically impossible for my opponent to win this debate. It is impossible for my opponent to have any reasonable argument against reason since that is self-defeating. [2] === SOURCES === 1. http://www.csun.edu... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org...