Which is more desirable, Faith or Reason

as I am incredibly short on time at the moment; I will be fairly brief here. I'll simply cover the debate thus far and concentrate on some key voting issues. That said let's start off with the definitions; I do not want to make this a semantics debate, both sources are credible and from the same source. Both have been provided and have analysis on them; therefore to the voters whichever terms make more sense to you, accept those terms. Next, Faith is not the antithesis of reason; for this to be a true statement they would have to be polar opposites and one could not exist with-out the other. A belief can be rooted in both faith and reason, so while I can believe that the bus is going to stop at the bus stop to pick me up because reason would indicate that it is true; I also have an element of faith to believing that. As per contrary to what my opponent would have you believe, Faith is not blind belief; but a belief not utterly reliant on evidence/ what man perceives to be true / or what an individual perceives to be true. Next, I concede here, the resolution is not whether or not everybody needs something to believe in. However I never advocated that; My mentioning of this point is in conjunction with the fact that we can know nothing beyond the shadow of a doubt only goes on to prove my point that faith is both necessary and more reliant than reason. Next, my opponent claims he bases his beliefs going off of the evidence directly available to him, thus leaving no room for faith to come into play. However again this is not true, since he does not know all sides to the issue, he has faith that the evidence he is using to base his beliefs are true. Next, instead of just blindly trying to refute this point by further disagreement and blatant argumentation with-out a base; there are a couple of things we need to consider. First; reason is not exclusive to evidence; but also includes logical analysis which can completely and utterly rely on only faith and faith alone. Second; Extend my prior argumentation that a belief can be based in both faith and reason (bus stop example) Finally; for anyone to take a medicine they have to at on point in time rely on faith to some degree. That's what trial medication and such is for in the first place. Next, my opponent assumes that because I hold faith to a higher value, I give not value to reason. This is simply not the case! There is a time and a place for reason, and my opponent's doctor example was an excellent illustration for that; however even there is no reason to believe that medicine will work again just because it's worked in the future. That prescription could be bad, or there may an allergic reaction, and it certainly takes faith for the patient to take the medicine. as for my opponent's arguments about witches, and the world being flat; this is a new argument. And also this is faith, but it's a bad example of faith. This is an abusive argument as it is just like comparing all reason to logical fallacies, or all races to one racial stereotype. This is otherwise known as a correlation causation fallacy. Next, to my opponents; If you did not mean for the Atheist and evolution example to be reciprocal, then why have you even brought it up in this debate? I don't have either the time or the characters limit to argue in depth point that you eventually plan on dropping anyway. Next, the thought of plausibility takes faith that you know enough to warrant a true belief. You say that based on evidence you think God's existence is implausible, but if God is real then his existence is beyond comprehension; Thus since he cannot be proven, your plausible thought process is utter flawed when you say you take nothing on faith. Next, on strong and weak Atheism; I implore you, believe me when I say I know the difference. We have spoken of Atheism prior in this round and you haven't brought this up as an issue yet; but at the base level my statement is still true. Since you cannot know beyond the shadow of a doubt that there is no God faith comes into play. Finally, my opponent still give you no reason to vote on faith. refutation of a stance is not adequate grounds to accept an alternate stance.