Which is more desirable, Faith or Reason

Ahh, so now we come to some of the core clash of this debate. One, is on the definitions. Two, is one the correlation between faith and reason. Therefore before I go directly into my own refutations; allow me to negate my opponent's prior claims. One is on the definitions; I have expressed this many times and I will do so again now. I absolutely cannot stand definitions debates; There is a reason I did not define these two terms in the beginning, and that was because I assumed my opponent would provide definitions that would give us equal ground to debate. He did not do this; but instead his definitions where beneficial only to him. Therefore as opposed to breaking a rule I set in place by re-defining, I simply challenged my opponent's definitions via his own sources. Therefore as opposed to allowing this portion of debate to come down to viability of definitions; let us look at it like this. Both are credible definitions from the same exact source, so I simply implore the voters to adhere to or accept whichever they deem most appropriate. Now two is on the correlation between faith and reason. My opponent claims that Faith is supposed to be the antithesis of reason, whereas is simple not true. Say we where debating Batman v. s. Superman, and my opponent chose Superman. Does that make Batman the antithesis of Superman? absolutely not! It simply means would be debating which better, Batman or Superman. This fallacy my opponent has picked out is along the same reasoning as to say that Evil is the antithesis of Good. We typically associate them this way, but it is an utter fallacy. Good is supposed to be perfect, and with-out blemish; whereas Evil is simply the absence of good. Therefore we are not debating under this ideal my opponent has falsely conceived. With that, I will go onto my opponent's attacks to my stance/ So first off, I feel it's important to point out that my opponent has conceded the base idea of this contention; that everybody needs something to believe in. And he also makes the correct statement that there is a difference between believing in something because of faith, and believing in something because of reason. However this is where my opponent stops making sense, he completely skips over my point that we can know nothing beyond the shadow of a doubt. Lack of evidence is not sentient evidence not to believe in something; Therefore reason in and of itself relies heavily on faith. Without faith reason could not exist. Now my opponent also claims that a belief my be true because the evidence available warrants it, but this thought process leads to a multiple causation fallacy. The reason being is because the belief is based on only what you know and perceive, and not on total understanding and comprehension of the idea or situation as a whole. Therefore again, everything ultimately comes down to a belief. Now going down to the clash on whether or not it takes faith to be an Atheist; My opponent refutes by saying that while an Atheist may not believe in God for reasons of Faith that he just couldn't exist, others may not believe in him because they believe in the theory of evolution. Well first of all we could only begin to consider this if the person who held this belief studied on the subject first-hand, as every other person who held that belief would not believe so on first hand findings, but because they read about it; where taught it was true; or watched a documentary on it. They cannot know that it is true, thus though it would be partially based on reason that the theory makes sense, since we cannot know it is true beyond the shadow of a doubt, faith still plays a hug role and Atheists still base much of their beliefs (that there is no God) on faith. Now going onto the argument that much reason is based on faith, my opponent offers a refutation here; however it still only proved my point. While the faith it take to believe that the garbage man took the trash away is not purely based on faith, it still plays a part because of the element of assumption that plays into a situation like this. Again we must look to the obvious truth that you cannot know beyond that shadow of a doubt that the garbage man too your trash if you are there when he does. Thus the assumption he did take it, is faith that your own personal experiences are reliable. Despite the fact that you know your cities trash schedule, you know that it is trash day, and you just know in general that is seems most plausible the trash man took your garbage. The point is, there is always an element of faith to any manner of reason. The reason my opponent believes otherwise is because his basis of faith and reason are far too shallow, and he does not recognize their correlation. By me advocating that faith is greater than reason I am not blasting reason. I am simply pointing out that while faith can exist independent of reason; Reason can never exist independent of faith. Going on; My opponent is correct in saying that Doctors do not have faith that diseases will heal themselves, but they do have faith that medicine and treatment will. Just because a treatment works once does not mean it will always work, thus faith is involved and required. As for my opponent's final thoughts on A(theism), I feel my prior refutations earlier on in this rebuttal are sufficient for this line of though, thus I simply extend them. The Atheist still cannot know beyond the shadow of a doubt that there is no God; thus faith comes into play to support the idea. Now with that said, and My stance on faith presented I would now like to point out that my opponent has not made a case to vote for reason, but has simply refuted my own stance.