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

Continuing the previous format, with a conclusion and summary at the end: "However, his stance seems to only be supported by the "shooing" away of insights and facts that contradict him, claiming that they are simply ways ot sidestepping on my part. " Again with the euphemisms and semantics. And in the first paragraph no less. This "shooing" away of your "insights" is commonly known as refuting. As you have both acknowledged that I did indeed "Shoo" away all your points, and that you are indeed "sidestepping" my questions, one can only ask where might be your direct responses to any of the original claims I have made? Furthermore, of the countless examples I have provided, you have ignored all the ones you cannot even begin to disprove, and abandoned the ones you can no longer logically defend. It should be rather clear to all that your argument is a rather flaky one at best. "Therefore, the default position for any viewpoint is one of ignorance until evidence is presented to sway one into "negative" belief or "positive" belief. " You cannot use "therefore" unless you have written a logically coherent statement preceding this one. To assume that you have done so is rather misleading. In addition to your presumption of logical evolution, you also have made a rather significant mistake in your reasoning. The default position for a belief is not ignorance - otherwise you wouldn't be able to hold the belief in the first place because you would have no idea what you actually are "believing" in. Therefore, the default position of belief is "non-belief" as you would say, at least until proven otherwise by verifiable evidence to the contrary. "Many modern breakthroughs, especially in the fields of particle physics and biotechnology, have spit in the face of past scientific theory," I never argued that point. It seems a rather common tactic of yours to argue a point of view I don't hold, and than fault me for it. Of course modern scientific breakthroughs challenge past assertions. But that does not mean that the modern breakthroughs did not have scientific evidence which supported a paradigm shift. Furthermore, I would like you to provide a single example of a modern scientific breakthrough that was a result of faith, and not foundational evidence. I think since this is the last round and I won't be able to respond, that I'll just concede that point for you. "Faith is formulated in much the same way. One observes the world around him and gathers data to provide an informed picture of the landscape. " Do not compare "faith" and the scientific method as analogous. It is a ridiculous argument to make as they are diametrically opposed systems of thinking. Faith states that there are some things for which belief in of itself is evidence of truth or reality. Science does not indulge this logical fallacy and demands evidence for every claim we make. The two systems are by no means equal. Neither does faith, by its nature alone, provide you justification for believing in whatever you want. You cannot have faith in those things for which there is no evidence - to do so is simply an exercise in futility and human antiquity. "The hypothesis of, say Intelligent Design, is fomulated" Your ignorance of the scientific method is clear. Intelligent Design is not a hypothesis. It cannot be tested. It cannot be observed. It is not repeatable. Your argument that faith allows us to believe whatever we want is clearly and unabashedly failing in this context. "However, I have seen few authentic beliefs are dangerous in and of themselves . .. It is really selfishness and NONbelief that forces people to take madness into their own hands. " If anyone can make sense of this paragraph I applaud them. You simultaneously say some beliefs are dangerous, but that it's actually non-belief that causes them to act out violently and not the actual belief itself. Do you see the logical acrobatics you are doing to try and support your argument? It's an absurd exercise to watch. "My opponent continues to bring the supposed "beliefs" of rapists and murders disregarding the fact that the notion to hurt another human being has little to do with belief at all. " I beg to differ. Actions are determined by beliefs. To rape someone is to have the belief that you have a right to do so. This is a fact you cannot hope to refute. "So, you are attacking the wrong piece of the person with your argument. CORE VALUES and, more importantly, SENTIMENTS are more dangerous than any single belief. " What exactly is the difference between a "core value" and a belief? Nothing? Right. Semantics. "So, he states that his EVIDENCE is a LACK of evidence, which would be thrown out of any courtroom and scientific discussion. " Your ignorance of the mechanisms of science again rears its head. In many cases, the lack of evidence is a more powerful evidence for a hypothesis than evidence itself. Take for instance the "ether" experiment. I won't quote it here because doing a little research might help you out. "In order to believe what my opponent beliefs, you have to subscribe to the belief that everything in life can be scientifically verified" No. What I am arguing is only those things that can be scientifically verified should be believed in. Furthermore, even some things which are scientifically verifiable should not be believed in because they cause collective harm to the human species - a morally unjustifiable act. This is a point you are not allowed to distort. Please don't continue to try and change the frame of the debate and my position in it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Summary: My opponent not only didn't refute any of my original contentions, but barely even addressed them. He instead chose to use semantic arguments - which often contradicted themselves - in an effort to prove his point. In addition, there are several key issues I would like to address in detail: 1) My opponent extensively used euphemisms and semantics in order to "prove" his point. This is not acceptable debating style, nor does it win him any points on the logic scale. 2) My opponent deliberately and continuously clouded the issue by asserting view points to the Pro without quotation or evidence. As such, many of his arguments - in addition to being logically incoherent - were unfounded. 3) Finally, my opponent regularly avoided addressing any of the points I offered in refutation, and blatantly ignored those points for which he clearly had no response.