Logic and reason,aka humanism, cannot accurately describe the human schema

"My alternative is not to reject all forms of conceptualization, rather to understand how we've been situated such that we understand configurations genuinely." First off, your stance is that humanism or conceptualization cannot describe the human schema. That in itself is a contradiction. Second. Again, you are jumping to conclusions. You say that humanism doesn't lend itself to understanding "configurations genuinely." Even if that were the case, which it's not, you exclude the very likely possibility that no one has ever gone about examining situations logically. Maybe we have never done it the right way. That is a huge problem with your contention. "We should not ask "what ought I do" because thats jumping to the solution without posing the question correctly." Again, your jumping to conclusions. Who said that asking that question was not the correct way to phrase it? I doubt that you can prove that logic has led people to jump to an inappropriate solution, as you claim. "My argument is that we must understand the parameters working around us before we just jump into a situation and start acting." But, you don't understand. I am saying the exact same thing. The only difference is that I think that humanism and rationalism can accomplish that. We can use logic to understand parameters. How else would we do that? "Vietnam is proof of why humanism is bad, how it boiled up to the surface and showed itself." Elaborate. I think I see where you're going with that, but I want to make sure so I can rebuttal effectively. "In this value system, life has no meaning because objects become something to be used and expended. What life is valuable if it can be used up in an instant?" Aren't objects supposed to be used? I mean, pens, cars, computers, are all objects which are meant to be used. If you are referring to life as being an object, you may have a point. But I never said that this system exemplified humanism or rationalism. So that point is invalid. Also, in any system, life can be "used up in an instant." No government, no policy, and no law is going to make people invincible. There will always be a risk of death in any society. You have to prove that a system based on logic/reason devalues life. Until then, you don't have a legitimate argument. "...logic is all happy, makes us blind to the dangers that power exposes. It makes us forget and push away atrocities that have happened. To say that we should send troops to Iraq is to presuppose we have a stable and coherent notion of the world when there is none." Logic isn't happy. The conclusions that result from it, are. Doesn't it make sense to think that if something is truly logical/reasonable, that no harm will come out of it? How does it make us forget atrocities? I never said this, so you have to prove it. Also, the Iraq war was my example of people not using logic. Your mentioning of it only proves my point: that the only way people would accept and approve something like war would be to disregard any reasoning that they have. "Logic and reason is fine in a world where we understand the parameters of our actions." That is exactly what my contention is. You can't say that humanism cannot be applied to the human schema, and then say that it can be used. That is a huge contradiction, and one that could lose you the debate. "We approach a problem with a solution that we can just tack on, it is like a band aid that doesn't address the root cause." This is true. But how does that show that logic isn't applicable? Just because people make bad decisions, doesn't mean that rationality isn't the best way to approach a situation. I think that if people truly used their intelligence, then bad decisions would rarely happen. "I'll win that in an ontological sense, ie, recognizing foundations, the idea of humanism is bankrupt." Ontological arguments don't work. Asking oneself about their own existence doesn't help fight against crime, or poverty, or even war. They don't apply to real world situations, as ontological questions only ask about the metaphysical. We are concerned about the here and the now, and reason and logic are the tools we need to fix our situation. My opponent does not address my rebuttals explicitly, nor does he prove his own arguments. He ignores the points I bring up, while just rephrasing his previous examples.