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

Your contention is that logic and reason cannot be applied to the world as we know it, correct? Let me know if my interpretation is a little off. Anyways, this isn't true. Logic and reason is all that we humans have. Once those are taken away, we don't have much. Yes, some may argue that our conscience is all we need. But where do you think that conscience comes from? It's all about human intelligence, or reason. So, really, you don't have much of an argument until you present something that is better, more effective than logic/reason. Your contention is that we cannot use logic to structure our world. But how else would you go about doing so? If we looked at everything from a purely abstract point of view, nothing could be accomplished, as things would always be misconstrued, misunderstood, or just not agreeable to people. Now to take on your specific arguments: "...we cannot break down the world into linear and cause effect relations. Doing so assumes a world...where we can predict and manipulate objects to achieve a desired end." First off, what are there other than cause/effect relationships? Aren't those the only kind of relationships? They are the best and only way to interpret different situations. If we figure out the cause of something, odds are we can solve it, so that the affects don't happen. Also, what's wrong with predicting/manipulating society? If we don't live in a predictable world, chaos will ensue and we will basically have anarchy. But, I can see where you might go with this: people have and will always abuse the system. Then maybe we need to used logic and reason to sort out why this happens, and come up with a solution. You can't do this by looking at things abstractly. You need a practical, rational solution to problems. "This framework is inherently contradictory because it embraces a kill to save logic -- a framework that justifies certain life as valuable and other as worthless cannot articulate an objective meaning to life." Who said that logic justified murder/death? If you say that people like John McCain have logically justified death (the war), but this isn't the case. He has simply played upon people's emotions in order to gain approval. Think about it. Why do people think we need to go to war? Because they are constantly told through the media and our representatives that we are in extreme danger. Is this the case? Maybe, maybe not, but that's besides the point. The point is that if people would sit down and go through the causes/effects and the pros/cons of war, I'm sure most would conclude that war is, generally, bad. "Attempts to conduct foreign policy with the point of view that we have the correct solution, and that we have the correct blueprint/reading of the world is dangerous and arbitrary." Anyone can say that their solution or blueprint is correct and/or logical. Because people claim something logical doesn't make it so. Logic is not subject and reason is not relative. Again, if the powers that be would sit down and just think, "What is, honestly, without any bias or greed, the most logical solution possible?," then we would live in a much better place. "Ontological questions come first, before we can understand the implications of policy action, we must understand its methodology and ethical constructions." Good point. But how else would you go about doing this without logic/reason? My opponent has made some good points, but has failed to propose a solution to his contention. If we can't use logic/reason, what else can we use? He must answer this question to win. Also, he has stated some scenarios where rationality has caused harm. But isn't that an oxymoron? Rationality causing harm? True rational cannot cause harm, becuase that totally defeats the purpose.