Faith and reason are irreconcilable.

RESOLVED: FAITH AND REASON ARE IRRECONCILABLE.Background:It has been almost ten months since I have engaged in a debate, but this a topic that I am invested enough in to discuss at length with anyone who is up for the challenge.My interest in this topic began out of this forum thread: http://www.debate.org... and I will probably draw from it significantly in my argument. (FYI: The good stuff is on page 5.)I would prefer that I debate this with someone who actually disagrees with this position, but who understands the topic enough to offer a well considered perspective. If you don’t meet the criteria but wish to accept the debate, then post in the comment section and I’ll make the necessary arrangements if needed. I more or less want to be sure that someone doesn’t accept the debate for imprudent reasons, and the high qualifications are the best insurance policy to that end.Analysis of the Resolution:The burden of proof is equally shared among both competitors. I must argue that the resolution is the case. My opponent must argue that the resolution is not the case. Arguments should not deviate from the resolution at hand. This means that I, the affirmative, must argue that faith and reason are irreconcilable. My opponent must argue that faith and reason are not irreconcilable. Simply, that faith and reason can be reconciled or support one another.The Parameters of the Debate:Round 1 will be reserved for acceptance and various other formalities, but no arguments should be introduced. Subsequent rounds should be used for debate, and no new arguments should be introduced in the conclusion, in keeping with basic argumentative decorum.I do foresee that, in the interest of clarity, concepts will need to be defined (and probably in rounds beyond the first round of debate). Semantics should be avoided, although conceptual clash is welcome. That shouldn’t be confused for quibbling over what is or is not the proper definition of a word. Assaults on the dictionary should be avoided. In re Sources:Sources, should they become necessary (and I anticipate that they will) may be posted in the comment section, but should be referenced in text. For example, In the Text of the Debate:Ludwig Wittgenstein, in the “Tractatus” wrote “Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen.” (1)In the Comment Section:(1) Wittgenstein, Ludwig. “Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus.” London, pp. 162. (1922)(Accessed online at: http://www.gutenberg.org...)Basically, just provide enough information that I can easily identify and keep track of what sources are employed, where they can be accessed, and etc. This would best be done in a standardized way, similar (but not necessarily akin to) to Chicago style. Sources should be numbered and ordered.Additional Things to Take Note of:Arguments should be evaluated on the degree to which they support or undermine the resolution. While sources may support arguments, this should not devolve into a source war. Arguments should be judged on their own merit. Arguments that are tangential to the topic at hand should not be considered by judges. There should be no lawyering, in the sense that neither competitor should be given an automatic win or loss for a rule/conduct violation unless a forfeiture occurs.Debaters may use the comment section to ask for clarification from their opponent, and are not precluded from engaging in commentary with observers.