"Faith is ignorant" would be a more appropriate way to phrase the debate, as a lack of knowledge is necessary to faith. Faith describes a belief despite a lack of knowledge. Ignorance is that lack of knowledge.

You can always vote for whomever you want. Political parties have no power over voters that voters haven't given them.

To align one's self with a political party is not the same as accepting blindly the groupthink of the party. That is equivalent to saying that we should not think of ourselves as American citizens because we don't agree with every decision made by our government. The idea of a political party is to organize individual's who have similar beliefs and wish to become more than the sum of their parts. The problem is not with the idea of political parties, but with the way in which we use them. Most Americans are too lazy to think about their vote. They would still be too lazy even if they didn't have a party to tell them what to think. They would just find someone else to tell them what to do.

I can prove that your body exists. Can you prove that your soul exists? The burden of proof lies with you, just as proving the existence of the platypus would if no one else had ever seen one.

Maybe we should apologize to the Jews for taking so long to stop the holocaust.

You are calling into question the very nature of certainty. The question asks whether it has been "scientifically" proven, not whether it is "absolutely without a doubt flawlessly claimable."

I agree that the question is far too general, but it asks "would you," not "would you always."

I agree. There's no reason by we couldn't have two separate systems in place: one for the overall democratic vote (one vote per member) and a separate system for rating individual arguments.