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

My opponent truly feels that his simple disregarding of logic and reasoning is called "refuting". Sadly, regardless of his feelings, it is not. His initial argument, that people do not have the right to absolute freedom to believe whatever they want was neither adequately argued, nor were my numerous examples of such a mindset being dangerous and ignorant dispelled in any way. Each of his main points were carefully answered and refuted only to be disregarded and never addressed directly by him. He failed to properly define what is truly "scientifically verifiable" and failed to prove that every belief and viewpoint can be scientifically proven, such as past events and eyewitness testimoney, which is the basis for most beliefs, specifically religious ones. He argues from a position of cynicism rather than objective truth, comparing the beliefs of most people to that of rapists, even claiming that they do not believe their actions to be wrong. This demonstrates a deep lack of understanding when it comes to human nature and psychological processes. He attributes science that proves previous theories false to "paradigm shift" and, essentially, changes in what is true from the time of the last theory. He uses science as the ultimate measuring stick even when it lacks the precision to call the idea truth. He refuses to acknowledge that the decision to believe something, for many people, goes through much the same process as scientific theories. It is based on observations, data gathering, testing, evaluation, documentation, and continual observation. Of course there are many who simple take faith at its word, as there are those that do the same for science. But, although the instruments of measurement are different, the process in the eyes of a believer is the same. He has also displayed a lack of understanding when it comes to faith, believing that people simply wake up and believe crazy things. He also believes that everyone who acts irrationally is truly following their faith, although their own faiths contradict the dangerous behavior that are practicing. My point about that being a sign of a LACK of belief or faith in their religion falls on beaf ears. He explains that actions are determined by belief. Again, such a narrow and baseless statement can be refuted many different ways. Actions are the result of judgement, compulsion, addiction, pride, greed, anger, jealousy, envy, joy, etc. - even when those things CONFLICT the belief of an individual. Many people of faith struggle because they know what they believe, but find that their actions are hard to bring into alignment with that belief. When those two things meet, we see the rare individual who has disciplined their actions to match their belief or values. He states that there is no difference between a core value (a subconscious basis for decision making) and a belief (a conscious choice to subscribe to a value SYSTEM). Again, those two things seldom match in a person. It is the process of discipleship that attempts to brings those things together. And, again, you cannot submit as evidence to your argument a LACK of evidence, which is my opponents basis for disbelieving and suggesting the removal of a person's right to believe what THEY have experienced or witnessed. He then states that only those things which can be scientifically proven can be believed, which rules our testimony and the word of witnesses. This idea would be quite surprising to those who work within the judicial system and depend of the word of eyewitnesses to make judgements. I urge you to vote CON on this issue. It is the right of each individual to believe as he or she feels best to explain the world around them and the purpose of their own lives. But, it is the duty of each individual to apply common sense and continually evaluate the truthfulness of those beliefs, being willing to change them if verifiable evidence conflicts those beliefs. until then, we can do the best job we can at due diligence.