Pragmatic Empericism??

So it seems that after the first two days of discussing how or if "pragmatic empiricism" creates a neutral ground to debate naturalism and supernaturalism. From what conclusions we have come to in class, it seems that "practical empiricism" favors naturalism by virtue of removing a large chunk of what supernaturalists can talk about. Since supernaturalism requires faith in something that has no evidence, and the belief in said thing is subjective at best, we have to remove it from the discussion, thereby giving Naturalists the advantage.

In the interests of a "fair” or at least "neutral" playing field, we would need to find an alternate style of debate. However, the question of should we even try to level the playing field has not come up.

Since Supernaturalism cannot be proven, is subjective, and only has a bias in our lives because we have decided for some reason that it deserves one, it really isn't something that can be used in a logical debate, because all of it is founded on that which cannot be proven by repeated experimentation.

Perhaps the best answer to agree to leave the concepts of Naturalism and Supernaturalism eternally separate, because there really doesn't seem to be a way to fairly debate the two.