Instigator / Pro
14
1922
rating
117
debates
97.44%
won
Topic
#2152
THBT: The ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH is CHRISTIAN
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
3
Better sources
4
2
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2
After 2 votes and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...
oromagi
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 5,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
9
1598
rating
20
debates
65.0%
won
Description
THBT: The ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH is CHRISTIAN
DEFINITIONS:
The ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH is "the largest Christian church, with approximately 1.3 billion baptised Catholics worldwide as of 2018. As the world's oldest and largest continuously functioning international institution, it has played a prominent role in the history and development of Western civilization. The church is headed by the Bishop of Rome, known as the pope. Its central administration is the Holy See.
CHRISTIAN [adjective] is "of, like or relating to Christianity or Christians"
CHRISTIANITY [proper noun] is "An Abrahamic religion originating from the community of the followers of Jesus Christ"
BURDEN of PROOF
Burden of Proof is shared.
PRO is defending the established definition of Roman Catholicism as a Christian religion.
CON must prove established tradition wrong, that Roman Catholicism is not a Christian religion.
PRO is requesting sincere and friendly engagement on this subject.
No trolls or kritiks, please.
- RULES --
1. Forfeit=auto loss
2. Sources may be merely linked in debate as long as citations are listed in comments
3. No new arguments in R5
4. For all relevant terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the rational context of this resolution and debate
Round 1
Pro
#1
thanks, Athias!
THBT: The ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH is CHRISTIAN
PRO argues that this statement stands by itself as true by any commonplace understanding of this English language sentence.
PRO further claims that this statement stands as proven tautologically- simply by benefit of definition.
TAUTOLOGY:
- Hanson and Borden explain:
- "What is a tautology? Well, the Oxford English Dictionary defines tautology as “A compound proposition which is unconditionally true for all the truth-possibilities of its elementary propositions and by virtue of its logical form.” For those of you who haven’t taken a course in modal logic lately, a tautology is an argument that is true by how the arguer defined it."
- PRO has defined the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH as "the largest Christian church"
- PRO offered this definition in the debate description and by accepting, CON has agreed to this argue this definition of ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.
- PRO has defined CHRISTIAN as "of, like or relating to Christianity or Christians." Is CON really prepared to show that ROMAN CATHOLICS have no relationship to Christ or Christianity? The history of Western Civilization says otherwise.
TRUISM:
- Hanson and Borden go on:
- "A truism is distinct from a tautology in that it is not true by definition. Instead, a truism is an argument that is considered to be true by the vast majority of people; it is an argument that really is not disputable. For example, the argument that “genocide is bad” is a truism; virtually no one is going to argue that a genocide is good."
- By any ordinary understanding, the majority of people accept that the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH is a CHRISTIAN RELIGION.
- The ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH is "the world's oldest and largest continuously functioning international institution,"
- Including any other Christian institution.
- Roman Catholics represent the majority of all Christians. This has been true since at least the emergence of Christianity as the State Church of the Roman Empire. Anybody who states as fact that Christianity is the world's largest religion is confirming as fact that Catholics are Christians since without the1.3 billion baptized Roman Catholics, Christianity would not be largest.
- Encyclopædia Britannica:
- "There are more Roman Catholics than all other Christians combined and more Roman Catholics than all Buddhists or Hindus. Although there are more Muslims than Roman Catholics, the number of Roman Catholics is greater than that of the individual traditions of Shiʿi and Sunni Islam. These incontestable statistical and historical facts suggest that some understanding of Roman Catholicism—its history, its institutional structure, its beliefs and practices, and its place in the world—is an indispensable component of cultural literacy, regardless of how one may individually answer the ultimate questions of life and death and faith. Without a grasp of what Roman Catholicism is, it is difficult to make historical sense of the Middle Ages, intellectual sense of the works of St. Thomas Aquinas, literary sense of The Divine Comedy of Dante, artistic sense of the Gothic cathedrals, or musical sense of many of the compositions of Haydn and Mozart."
- Is CON prepared to argue that the majority opinion of Christians should not apply to the criteria for defining Christianity?
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY:
- PRO asserts that FREEDOM of RELIGION is a fundamental human right.
- The UNIVERSAL DECLARATION of HUMAN RIGHTS affirms in Article 18:
- Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion;
this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and
freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or
private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice,
worship and observance.
- Implicit to this right is the freedom to identify ourselves by any we choose to nominate. No other human holds the right to define an of age human's religion for them.
- Catholics have the right to identify as Christians and Christians have the right to recognize Catholics as Christians as most do. There is no state or institutional test that might justly apply to the question of one's own identity.
THEOLOGY:
- Likewise, PRO asserts that no religious or doctrinal test of some Christian principle may with justice apply to an individual's spiritual self-identification.
- Any such test necessarily fails as an appeal to purity, the informal fallacy of NO TRUE SCOTSMEN.
- We have defined our terms, no ad hoc re-definitions of Christianity according to minority theological principle should override our right to name our faith as we please.
SUMMARY:
- PRO has shown that by commonplace definition and with the authority of ordinary understanding and use, The ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH is irrefutably CHRISTIAN.
- To say otherwise is to disrespect the good faith intentions of Catholics who all call themselves Christians by creed and the Christian non-Catholics who nevertheless count Roman Catholics in their number.
PRO looks forward to CON's R1
Con
#2
I want to thank my opponent, oromagi, for accepting this challenge and instigating this debate.
The house believes that the Roman Catholic Church is Christian. My opponent submits pertinent descriptions for both the Roman Catholic Church and the term Christian to which I do not object save the adjectival qualifier, "Christian," when applied to the Roman Catholic Church. With that said, I have a few descriptions of my own to submit:
Roman Catholicism: The beliefs or religion of the Roman Catholic Church.
- Catholic Church, synonym occurring in English language since the 17th century.
- Latin Church (one of the particular churches of the Catholic Church)
- (Catholicism) One of the 24 particular churches (sui juris) in full communion with the Holy See and the rest of the Catholic Church which uses the Latin liturgical rites.
- A believer in Christianity.
- An individual who seeks to live his or her life according to the principles and values taught by Jesus Christ.
Prayer: an invocation or act that seeks to activate a rapport with an object of worship through deliberate communication. In the narrow sense, the term refers to an act of supplication or intercession directed towards a deity (a god), or a deified ancestor.
- Lucifer: (biblical) The King of Babylon who named himself after the planet Venus as mentioned in the King James Version of Isaiah 14:12.
Bible:
- The main religious text in Christianity
I submit these descriptions in a supplementary manner. There are no re-definitions.
Before, I proceed however, there is a clarification needed to made. My opponent has demonstrated a misunderstanding of the "No True Scotsmen Fallacy." He asserts that "no religious or doctrinal test of some Christian principle may with
justice apply to an individual's spiritual self-identification." The No True Scotsman fallacy delineates when a conclusion is made about an individual that doesn't necessarily apply to the description of the characterization. The example given in my opponent's reference is "No True Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." From this we can see that the inept conclusion. It is neither insinuated nor required that one puts sugar on his porridge to be a Scotsmen.
With that said, the No True Scotsman fallacy isn't imputed when the conclusion is applicable to the characterization. Case in point: No true Christian would reject Jesus Christ. As my both my opponent and I have show through our descriptions, to follow Jesus Christ is to be a Christian. (I'm going to presume that my opponent didn't make the reference to identify those who "follow"--keep close proximity--to Jesus Christ.) So no, my opponent attempt to apply the No True Scotsmen to a religious or doctrinal test of some Christian principle does not hold because maintaining said principle is pertinent to the description of being a Christian unlike that conveyed in the No True Scotsman Fallacy.
For Round One, I'd like to keep attention to focus my attention on deification, idolization, and worship of those other than God, and Jesus by extension. \
In Exodus 20: 3-5, it states:
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
Yet millions of Roman Catholics visit St. Peter's Square and bow to Peter's graven image.
As I shown by description, prayer is to a God or deity, yet Roman Catholics pray to Mary:
Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death, Amen.
In 1st Timothy 2:5
For, There is one God and one mediator who can reconcile God and Humanity—the man Christ Jesus.
In Revelation 19:10
Then I fell down at his feet to worship him, but he said to me, “You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God.” For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
And as my description shows, the Bible is the main text of Christians.
I will proceed further with more evidence as the debate goes on.
Round 2
Pro
#3
thx, Athias
THBT: The ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH is CHRISTIAN
TAUTOLOGY:
My opponent submits pertinent descriptions for both the Roman Catholic Church and the term Christian to which I do not object save the adjectival qualifier, "Christian," when applied to the Roman Catholic Church
- If CON accepts the definition of the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH as "the largest Christian church," then CON accepts the adjective. If CON rejects all common encyclopedic definitions of the term, then CON must show why his authority on the subject is superior to encyclopedic authority.
TRUISM:
- CON dropped or at least does not deny the the commonplace, popular understanding of ROMAN CATHOLICISM as a CHRISTIAN tradition.
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY:
- CON dropped or at least does not dispute that Catholics possess the human right to believe what they will and to worship as they see fit, including the right of Catholics to identify as Christians and the right of the Christian community to welcome Catholics into their ranks.
THEOLOGY:
My opponent has demonstrated a misunderstanding of the "No True Scotsmen Fallacy." He asserts that "no religious or doctrinal test of some Christian principle may with justice apply to an individual's spiritual self-identification." ...the No True Scotsman fallacy isn't imputed when the conclusion is applicable to the characterization. Case in point: No true Christian would reject Jesus Christ
- CON's point illustrates PRO's argument well enough. Acceptance/rejection of Christ is precisely the sort of purity test that doesn't apply.
- Saul of Tarsus rejected Christ and persecuted Christians before becoming St. Paul himself. Acts 8: 1 & 3 tells us:
- "And
at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was
at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions
of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.
- As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison."
- St. Peter rejected Jesus three times on the night of the Last Supper. John 18:17,25-27 reports:
- "Then saith the damsel that kept the door unto Peter, Art not thou also one of this man's disciples? He saith, I am not.
- And
Simon Peter stood and warmed himself. They said therefore unto him, Art
not thou also one of his disciples? He denied it, and said, I am not. One
of the servants of the high priest, being his kinsman whose ear Peter
cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him? Peter then denied again: and immediately the cock crew."
- Some Christian Atheists and Jesusists reject the supernatural Christ aspects of Jesus while still identifying as followers of Jesus.
- Our definition of CHRISTIAN is not "a follower of Christ" but "of, like, or relating to that religion originating from the community of the followers of Jesus Christ."
- Peter and Paul were of that community of followers and so Christians but both had moments of rejecting Christ.
- One can go to church but not believe a word of it and still be called Christian.
- One can only practice "love thy neighbor as thyself" and still legitimately claim to be Christian.
- As predicted, CON has applied a religious test to our definition of Christian that fails as an appeal to purity, better known as the informal fallacy of NO TRUE SCOTSMAN.
CON1: IDOLATRY
- CON argues:
- P1: The First Commandment says not to worship other gods
- P2: Catholics pray to saints and statues of saints, which CON interprets as a violation of that Commandment
- C1: Therefore, Catholics are not Christians
COUNTER1:
- Violation of a Commandment can't be grounds for excommunication from the Christian community.
- Lying and cussing are also forbidden by Mosaic law- are all liars and foulmouths likewise non-Christians?
- God commanded Christians to remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy. Work is strictly forbidden from sunset on Friday to sunset on Saturday, but almost no Christians adhere to this commandment.
COUNTER2:
- The Catechism of the Catholic Church explicitly forbids worship of any entity except God.
- "Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in place
of God, whether this be gods or demons … power, pleasure, race,
ancestors, the state, money, etc"
- and teaches
- "The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. The honor paid to sacred images is a
"respectful veneration," not the adoration due to God alone: Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate.
- When humans speak to dead loved ones, we aren't worshiping the dead but remembering them, asserting the soul's immortality and communing in spirit. Catholics teach that to extend that veneration and communion to other figures in the church is right, proper, and in no more idolatry than speaking respectfully to a photo of some dead loved one.
PRO looks forward to CON's R2
Con
#4
Rebuttal:
If CON accepts the definition of the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH as "the largest Christian church," then CON accepts the adjective. If CON rejects all common encyclopedic definitions of the term, then CON must show why his authority on the subject is superior to encyclopedic authority.
I do not accept the definition as a valid description particularly in its qualification of the Catholic Church as a "Christian" delineated by both our cited definitions of "Christian." I accept it as a pertinent submission as it relates to the subject.
CON dropped or at least does not deny the the commonplace, popular understanding of ROMAN CATHOLICISM as a CHRISTIAN tradition.
I cannot deny this because it's true by definition. Popular understanding of ROMAN CATHOLICISM is informed by its Catholic demographic, which is the most populous. But the subject over which we debate isn't whether Roman Catholicism is popular. It's whether or not Roman Catholicism is Christian, informed by the descriptions we both offer.
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY:
- CON dropped or at least does not dispute that Catholics possess the human right to believe what they will and to worship as they see fit, including the right of Catholics to identify as Christians and the right of the Christian community to welcome Catholics into their ranks.
I haven't indulged this point because it's not falsifiable. If we entertain an "identitarian" context, then there'd be no point in offering descriptions or definitions of "Christian" because being "Christian" would be informed by one's merely "identifying" as one--even a devil worshiper--not religious principle, customs, and rites.
CON's point illustrates PRO's argument well enough. Acceptance/rejection of Christ is precisely the sort of purity test that doesn't apply.
- Saul of Tarsus rejected Christ and persecuted Christians before becoming St. Paul himself. Acts 8: 1 & 3 tells us: ...
- St. Peter rejected Jesus three times on the night of the Last Supper. John 18:17,25-27 reports: ...
- Some Christian Atheists and Jesusists reject the supernatural Christ aspects of Jesus while still identifying as followers of Jesus.
Our definition of CHRISTIAN is not "a follower of Christ" but "of, like, or relating to that religion originating from the community of the followers of Jesus Christ."... As predicted, CON has applied a religious test to our definition of Christian that fails as an appeal to purity, better known as the informal fallacy of NO TRUE SCOTSMAN.
It should be pointed out that my opponent doesn't necessarily point out how the behaviors of Peter and Saul do not disqualify them as being Christian. My opponent neglects to mention that the description, "Christian," isn't informed by a temporal aspect. That means, one can be a Christian today, a non-Christian tomorrow, and a Christian again on Wednesday. I would very much argue that at the points in time when Peter rejected Jesus, and Saul wreaked havoc on the Church, they were not being Christian. My opponent offers that merely being part of the community of the followers of Jesus informs their being "Christian" but elides the meaning of being a follower of Jesus which included conscription into the service of God, and spreading the gospel. Peter and Paul became Christians (again) when they repented. Judas Iscariot was also part of Jesus's inner circle--or his community of followers. In the advent of his betrayal, would Judas still be considered "Christian"?
And once again, my opponent is pedaling a false description of the No True Scotsman fallacy. It is only imputed when a conclusion is made which does not extend the stipulations of a characterization. My argument amounts to this, "A religion denoted by the teachings of Jesus Christ is not espoused by one who does not follow the teachings of Jesus Christ." This is well-defined and not fallacious. I warn my opponent to not use his own incredulity as a counterfactual.
CON1: IDOLATRYCOUNTER1:
Here, you can see that my opponent merely questions extending my premises to their logical conclusion; he does not refute or submit a counterargument or counterfactual. And using anecdotal evidence, I can state with certainty that the claim, "almost no Christians adhere to this commandment" is false. [I grew up Christian.]
- "Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in place of God, whether this be gods or demons … power, pleasure, race, ancestors, the state, money, etc"
You forgot:
Scripture constantly recalls this rejection of "idols" [of] silver and gold, the work of men's hands.
On to R3.
Round 3
Pro
#5
thx, Athias
TAUTOLOGY:
CON dropped PRO's R2 request that CON show why his definition is superior to the Wikipedia definition submitted prior to acceptance. Let's note that CON used Wiktionary definition #1 but his argument directly contradicts definitions #2 and #4 from the same source.
#2: Literally "universal church", the whole body of Christendom, especially before the division into Western and Eastern churches.
#4: Any Christian denomination that identifies explicitly as "Catholic" based on its affirmation of the Nicene Creed, such as any of the Anglican Churches.
Whether VOTERS prefer PRO's mutually agreed definition from Wikipedia or CON's upstart Wiktionary source, CATHOLICS are CHRISTIANS using either definition.
TRUISM:
I cannot deny this because it's true by definition.
- CON concedes truism.
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY:
- OBJECTION: The Identitarian Movement is a White Nationalist ideology. PRO rejects any association with Catholicism generally.
- Yes, even Satan worshipers retain the inherent human right to self-identify as Christian and even meet our definition of CHRISTIAN as "relating to Christianity"
- CON may not apply a "no Satan" test with justice to other people's interpretation of Christianity.
THEOLOGY:
one can be a Christian today a non-Christian tomorrow and a Christian again on Wednesday
- non-Christian as determined by CON's own personal set of rules
- Except for Catholics, apparently, who are NOT Christians when they worship Christ today because they are NOT Christians when they say a "Hail Mary" kneeling before a statue tomorrow and don't get to be Christians again on Wednesday when they say the Lord's prayer. CON's purity test is highly selective and strangely exclusive of Catholics.
- If doing something Christian makes you Christian, then CON has placed himself in the position of proving that Catholics never do anything remotely Christian which acts might restore other denominations after lapses in faith. Since CON can't possibly prove that Catholics never do anything Christian, then even Catholics must sometimes be Christians and CON loses the debate by this argument.
when Peter rejected Jesus, and Saul wreaked havoc on the Church, they were not being Christian.
- According to Luke, Christ explicitly told Peter not to let his faith fail even as he predicted Peter's betrayal.
- Luke 22:32:
- But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.
- If Christ still accepted Peter as faithful in spite of sin, what grounds has CON for asserting non-Christian?
[PRO] elides the meaning of being a follower of Jesus
- On the contrary, PRO explicitly stated "Our definition of CHRISTIAN is not "a follower of Christ" That's not omission, just a flat refusal of CON's attempt to redefine the term CHRISTIAN.
In the advent of his betrayal, would Judas still be considered "Christian"?
- Of course. Christ knew in advance that Judas would betray him but explicitly reserves a throne for Judas in heaven:
- Matthew 19:28:
- Verily I say unto you,
That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man
shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve
thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
- Christ immediately offers Judas forgiveness after the revelation of his betrayal and promises to drink with him in heaven.
- Matthew 26:25
- Then Judas, which betrayed him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said.
- Matthew 26:28-29
- For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But
I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine,
until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.
- Since Christ forgives and accepts his own betrayer, who are we to deny Judas?
- CON again tries to shift the definition from "relating to Christians" to "followers of Christ" and then argues no true follower of Christ fails to follow Christ to deny the fallacy in his thinking.
- PRO explicitly prefuted CON's argument in R1, "no ad hoc re-definitions of Christianity."
- CON is still applying his own purity test to a demographic definition that allows no theological test.
CON1: IDOLATRY
- CON drops PRO's argument that a sinful act does not strip Christians of their faith.
I can state with certainty that the claim, "almost no Christians adhere to this commandment" is false
- Seven in 10 churchgoers take their Sabbath on Sunday. Few take it on
Saturday (5 percent), Friday (1 percent) or Monday (1 percent). For 23
percent, they don’t take a day of rest.
- 41% of US Christians are regular churchgoers. So, that's about 1 in 60 US Christians who strictly observe the 4th commandment.
[I grew up Christian.]
- OBJECTION: APPEAL to AUTHORITY
- PRO was also raised Christian
You forgot Scripture constantly recalls this rejection of "idols" [of] silver and gold, the work of men's hands.
- Why is CON's interpretation of scripture superior to the Catholic Cathecism?
PRO looks forward to CON's R3
Con
#6
Supplementary Arguments:
1.The Pope, Catholicism's religious leader, has retained the pagan title "Pontifex Maximus" which was given to the emperors, caesars, and high pagan priests of Rome.
2. The pope, bishops, and cardinals of the Catholic church must practice as a consequence of Catholic measure, not choice, celibacy (the practice of abstaining from marriage and coitus) not chastity.
3. In the Bible, once again, acknowledged as the main religious text of Christians--and even referenced by my opponent himself--states this:
1st Timothy 3: 2-7
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
4. Catholics practice the art of indulgences even though purgatory is not mentioned once by Jesus, God, apostle, or any other devotee of God mentioned in the Bible.
Rebuttal:
CON dropped PRO's R2 request that CON show why his definition is superior to the Wikipedia definition...
Con did not drop Pro's request; Con supplemented Pro's definition with a description of the noun form of Christian using the same source. (We both used wiktionary.)
Yes, my description contradicts the descriptions you mentioned. So what? It is my burden to legitimize this contradiction in a context that does not focus almost entirely on lexicon. Your argument thus far is predicated on Catholicism's being Christian by lexical definition, in which case a mere citation substantiates your argument. My argument is that Catholicism elides Christian principles. And the argument over principle is superior to one over mere definition in the context of Christianity.
CON concedes truism
And let's be clear: the truism to which you refer is that Roman Catholicism is "popularly understood" as Christian; not that it is Christian.
OBJECTION: The Identitarian Movement is a White Nationalist ideology. PRO rejects any association with Catholicism generally.
If PRO misunderstood my use of the term Identitarian, then Pro could have inquired into the context of my use. When I use the term "identitarian" I'm not referring to PRO's citation, but the adjectival form of "identitarianism" :
non-Christian as determined by CON's own personal set of rules Except for Catholics, apparently, who are NOT Christians when they worship Christ today because they are NOT Christians when they say a "Hail Mary" kneeling before a statue tomorrow and don't get to be Christians again on Wednesday when they say the Lord's prayer. CON's purity test is highly selective and strangely exclusive of Catholics.
- If doing something Christian makes you Christian, then CON has placed himself in the position of proving that Catholics never do anything remotely Christian which acts might restore other denominations after lapses in faith. Since CON can't possibly prove that Catholics never do anything Christian, then even Catholics must sometimes be Christians and CON loses the debate by this argument.
No sequitur. My opponent is citing irrelevancies. The discussion which we are having is over Catholicism. If we were discussion, then they congregants would be brought up. Also, my opponent continues to appeal to his own incredulity. He has not demonstrated how my conclusions are unreasonable.
Since Christ forgives and accepts his own betrayer, who are we to deny Judas?
PRO fails to demonstrate how this makes Judas "Christian".
CON1: IDOLATRY
- CON drops PRO's argument that a sinful act does not strip Christians of their faith.
No, CON did not. PRO does not demonstrate how an habitual act of sin does not disqualify one as being Christian. Christians acknowledge sins as sins. Catholics
do not acknowledge idolatry as a sin.
OBJECTION: APPEAL to AUTHORITY
- PRO was also raised Christian
No. Con used anecdotal evidence to create an exception.
Round 4
Pro
#7
thx, Athias
TAUTOLOGY:
It is my burden to legitimize this contradiction in a context that does not focus almost entirely on lexicon. Your argument thus far is predicated on Catholicism's being Christian by lexical definition, in which case a mere citation substantiates your argument
- CON concedes tautology. Let's remember that a tautology "is an argument that is true by how the arguer defined
it."
- CON tried to give us some alternative definitions that didn't explicitly acknowledge Catholicism as Christian but never gave VOTERS a reason to prefer the secondary definition over PRO's primary.
- Only one of PRO's four main arguments is predicated on the common sense meaning of CATHOLIC CHURCH in standard English
TRUISM:
- CON conceded truism in R2
let's be clear: the truism to which you refer is that Roman Catholicism is "popularly understood" as Christian; not that it is Christian
- A truism is "an argument that is
considered to be true by the vast majority of people; it is an argument that
really is not disputable. For
example, the argument that “genocide is bad” is a truism; virtually no one is
going to argue that genocide is good"
- Similarly, virtually no one is going to argue that Roman Catholics aren't Christians
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY:
In R3, PRO continued to argue that all humans are endowed with the human right to freedom of religion. CON calls the point unfalsifiable because then even people as undesirable as Satanists might call themselves Christians. PRO replied:
- Yes, even Satan worshipers retain the inherent human right to self-identify as Christian and even meet our definition of CHRISTIAN as "relating to Christianity"
- CON clarified IDENTITARIAN (I still don't grasp CON's usage) but dropped the argument that all humans get to name their own religion by the same inherent authority over identity that allows people to control their own name. Would PRO argue that Reginald Dwight is not Elton John just because John gave himself that name? What is Christianity but another kind of label over which CON (and his personal interpretation of the Bible) has no jurisdiction and no authority?
THEOLOGY:
OBJECTION: CON calls non-sequitur instead of addressing PRO's argument which was quite on point.
CON claimed in R2:
one can be a Christian today a non-Christian tomorrow and a Christian again on Wednesday
- meaning one is Christian when one acts Christian and non-Christian when one acts non-Christian
- PRO argues that's except for Catholics who CON refuses Christianity based on idolatry and apparently no subsequent Christian act restores their Christianity (as CON suggests it does for non-Catholics)
- CON drops this point
- CON wrongly projects this argument as an APPEAL to INCREDULITY, but only CON has made any statement of personal belief here.
- As stated in R3, PRO's conclusion is unreasonable because Catholics are held to a different standard. CON argues that Christians are in or out based on acts except for Catholics who are always excluded on principle
- If Christ still accepted Peter as faithful in spite of sin, what grounds has CON for asserting non-Christian?
- Dropped by CON
- PRO explicitly stated "Our definition of CHRISTIAN is not "a follower of Christ" That's not omission, just a flat refusal of CON's attempt to redefine the term CHRISTIAN.
- Dropped by CON
- PRO fails to demonstrate how this makes Judas "Christian"
- No. PRO showed in R3 that Christ built Judas a throne in Heaven and welcomed him there even after his betrayal
- Christ's personal invitation is sufficient qualification for any Christian, even if CON's doctrinal checklist is unmet.
- CON is still applying his own NO TRUE SCOTSMAN purity test to a demographic definition that allows no theological test
- Why is CON's interpretation of scripture superior to the Catholic Catechism?
- CON made no answer
CON1: IDOLATRY
- PRO does not demonstrate how an habitual act of sin does not disqualify one as being Christian
- PRO makes no such claim. Christ's example is that no sin is disqualifying. Even murderers can be Christians.
- Catholics do not acknowledge idolatry as a sin
- And reversely, Baptists don't acknowledge eating meat on Friday as sin but Catholics still call Baptists Christians.
- So, that's about 1 in 60 US Christians who strictly observe the 4th commandment
- CON claims his personal experience refutes the polls.
CON2,3,4: POPE, CELIBACY, INDULGENCES
- .The Pope...has retained the pagan title "Pontifex Maximus"
- (No true Christian retains pagan titles)
- [priests] must practice celibacy
- (No true Christian practices celibacy)
- Catholics practice the art of indulgences
- (No true Christian practices indulgences)
- We can see that all these petty arguments merely extend CON's purity test. The majority of Christians do not consider these practices disqualifying and the only cause for disqualification offered so far by CON is CON's personal and peculiar membership rules based on his interpretation of the Bible
PRO looks forward to CON's R4
Con
#8
Rebuttal:
CON concedes tautology. Let's remember that a tautology "is an argument that is true by how the arguer defined it."
Let's clarify the tautology to which I've conceded; it's not that Roman Catholicism is Christian because its description includes the word Christian; the tautology I've conceded to is your use of the qualifier "popular." i do not deny that the "popular" understanding of the Catholic Church is that of a Christian institution. But popular understanding does not necessarily inform truth.
CON tried to give us some alternative definitions that didn't explicitly acknowledge Catholicism as Christian but never gave VOTERS a reason to prefer the secondary definition over PRO's primary.
Let's examine your definition once more:
"of, like or relating to Christianity or Christians."
This isn't really descriptive at all. It's the simplest adjectival representation. "What is Christian?" "Relating to Christianity or Christians." It doesn't expound on anything; it merely repeats the term sought to be described. My supplements expound on your definition using your source to describe what a Christian is. I didn't offer an alternative, I merely expanded your definition. It should read as such:
"of, like or relating to [An Abrahamic Religion originating from the community of the followers of Jesus Christ] or [believers in Christianity and/or individuals seeking to live their lives according to principles and values taught by Jesus Christ.]"
The voters should indeed prefer my supplemented definition.
A truism is "an argument that is considered to be true by the vast majority of people; it is an argument that really is not disputable. For example, the argument that “genocide is bad” is a truism; virtually no one is going to argue that genocide is good"
I challenge and contradict PRO's description of "truism" given that it imputes an ad populum fallacy. The truth, as I mentioned above, is not necessarily informed by the number of people who believe it to be so. His description suggests, for example, that "genocide is bad" because no one would argue that genocide is bad; that is not a truism. That's popular opinion. The Wu-hu and Jie externimation was genocide; that's a truism, because it true by virtue of its proposed logic.
In R3, PRO continued to argue that all humans are endowed with the human right to freedom of religion. CON calls the point unfalsifiable because then even people as undesirable as Satanists might call themselves Christians.
No. You're conflating the right to freedom of religion to subjecting religion to transmutation as a consequence of arbitrary identitarianism. Case in point: let's acknowledge an anarchist. According to your reasoning, he or she would be able to retain his or her adherence to anarchy even if he were to believe that the Earth's populace should be effectively controlled by a global state under the auspices of a single autocrat. This contradicts the principles and values of anarchy.
There'd be no significance in creating any distinction between any religion because they wouldn't be informed by their customs, rites, values, and teachings, but by the self-image and identification of any one individual, virtually rendering it a belief with no standard. What then would be the difference between Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Satanism, Paganism, etc? Couldn't I just argue that Catholicism is Hinduism, and be correct, thereby winning this debate? What would be the point of your or my descriptions? There's no standard, right?
Your reasoning also renders this debate as one without resolution. Premising your argument on the popular understanding of Catholicism imputes an ad populum fallacy, and leaving Christianity to be informed by any one person's discretion means that either you or I are both correct, or incorrect.
OBJECTION: CON calls non-sequitur instead of addressing PRO's argument which was quite on point.
I did address it. You first argued that I was creating an exception for Catholicism, while ignoring the fact that this debate's subject creates the exception. As for the second part of your argument which suggests that Christians are "in and out based on acts," that is where you imputed the non sequitur. I never stated that. I stated that there were no time constraints, and that a person could be a Christian today, a non-Christian tomorrow, and a Christian again the day that followed. That isn't necessarily based on "acts" but the adherence to the teachings of Christ. Catholicism engages in practices and rituals that contradict the teachings of Christ. Some of which I've already mentioned.
No. PRO showed in R3 that Christ built Judas a throne in Heaven and welcomed him there even after his betrayal
Misleading. Jesus didn't say this directly to Judas during the last supper. In fact, Jesus says nothing to him.
We can see that all these petty arguments merely extend CON's purity test.
Once again, it's well-defined. It's not a purity test.
Round 5
Pro
#9
TAUTOLOGY:
- CON conceded TAUTOLOGY but
- I didn't offer an alternative, I merely expanded your definition
- The conjunction OR is being used to connect two alternative clauses. OR means alternative. PRO's statement, "I didn't offer an alternative" is false
- CATHOLICS are still definitionally CHRISTIANS even using CON's definition.
- To exclude CATHOLICS from CHRISTIANITY, CON would have to show that CATHOLICS were not seeking Christian lives but so far has only argued that CATHOLICS are wrong theologically and can't make a new argument for insincerity in the final round. The fact that CATHOLICS identify as CHRISTIANS is sufficient proof of seeking to prove TAUTOLOGY, even using CON's unasked for definition
TRUISM:
- CON conceded TRUISM but
- I challenge and contradict PRO's description of truism given that it imputes an ad populum fallacy
- Absurd. ARGUMENTUM ad POPULUM is a useless retort when popular understanding is what makes the statement true.
- IE: Columbians are Latinos because the denotation enjoys popular adoption by both Columbians and Latinos. The denotation is true by definition because of consensus and would stop being true if the majority rejected that nomenclature. The popular understanding is what makes the term true. Arguing that Columbians are not Latinos because that identity is only rooted in popular consensus is obviously false.
- Likewise, the fact that all Catholics call themselves Christians and nearly all Christians also call Catholics Christians is what makes Catholics Christians. The only thing to change that is a change of consensus.
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY:
- You're conflating the right to freedom of religion to subjecting religion to transmutation as a consequence of arbitrary identitarianism
- All religion is sometimes transformed by individual contributions.
- There'd be no significance in creating any distinction between any religion because they wouldnt be informed by their customs, rites, values, and teachings, but by the self-image and identification of any one individual, virtually rendering it a belief with no standard
- This is already true of all religions
- The prosperity gospel of Joel Osteen shares almost no rites, customs, values or teachings in common with the House Amish of Nebraska yet both systems of faith correctly call themselves Christian.
- Usury was a profoundly unChristian practice for centuries until one day it wasn't.
- Slavery was a perfectly Christian practice until one day it wasn't.
- Pacifists and hawks both insist that their view is most consistent with Jesus' teaching.
- Likewise, CON wants us to believe that there are some essential aspects of Christianity which CON has discerned and CATHOLICS have not.
- CON's variation is just another individual take on Christian identity and apparently not even particularly mainstream
- CON never explained whether he agrees that Freedom of Religion is a fundamental human right.
THEOLOGY:
- Catholicism engages in practices and rituals that contradict the teachings of Christ
- What would Jesus do?
- Did Jesus emphasize the importance of specific practices and rituals? No he did not.
- Was Jesus given to rejecting imperfect disciples (like Judas, Paul, and Peter) or did he forgive the contradictions and seek brotherhood in love?
- Christ's First Commandment compels CON to set aside the purity test for membership and welcome Catholics in Christian union, all alike in fallibility and worth.
- "Judge not, that ye be not judged."
- "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."
- "whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them"
- CON's argument contradicts Christ's teaching
- Christ suffered Paul's persecution, Peter's lies, and Judas' betrayal yet welcomed these men to his kingdom in Heaven
- CON would deny half of all Christianity membership just because they interpret the big book wrong.
- CON dropped Peter, Paul, and Judas
CON1: IDOLATRY
- Christ's example is that no sin is disqualifying
- CON dropped
- Baptists don't acknowledge eating meat on Friday as sin but Catholics still call Baptists Christians
- CON dropped
- So, that's about 1 in 60 US Christians who strictly observe the 4th commandment
- CON only argues anecdote
CON2,3,4: POPE, CELIBACY, INDULGENCES
- .Once again, it's well-defined. It's not a purity test
- What is well defined? Your religious principles? The only hints we've had of your belief system is via unapproved Catholicisms. How is such judgement and outcasting consistent with our popular understanding of Christianity?
- CON complains that CATHOLICS pray wrong and use the wrong titles and good works or refrain from sex for all the wrong reasons but CON never answered PRO repeated question:
- Why is CON's interpretation of scripture superior to the Catholic Catechism?
- Thx to Athias for a great debate!
- Thx to all VOTERS for their kind consideration
- Pls. VOTE PRO
Con
#10
To comply with the stipulation set forth by my opponent at the onset of this debate, I will not present any new arguments in Round Five; I'll merely present closing arguments.
Closing Arguments:
Throughout this debate, my opponent and I have submitted arguments in favor or against--respectively--the merits of the Roman Catholic Church as a Christian institution. My opponent has offered that the Roman Catholic Church's "Christianity" is informed by commonplace and popular understanding. He continued and stated that no test of principle can adequately or with justice apply to any individual's self-identification. I have argued that in spite of the inclusion of the term "Christian" in his description, as well as its popular understanding, the Roman Catholic Church is not a Christian institution because it customarily and ritually contradicts the teachings of Jesus Christ--as delineated by the main Christian text, the Bible.
Now my opponent would have you believe that religions, namely Christianity, reflect and are informed by individual identity, like some sort of "Trans"-Religion-ism. That is, a person is primarily identified as Christian--or any other adherent of a religion--by virtue of his or her self-image. This proposition unwittingly undermines my opponent's first argument. If we were to sustain the latter argument, then the former argument wouldn't apply. Being a Christian would be defined by one's self-identification, not any lexical descriptions proposed by both myself and my opponent. It would be, for example, like arguing, "A man is defined as an adult human being with a male reproductive organ," while also arguing, "An individual has the right to self-identification and no doctrinal test or test of principle (or description) can with justice apply to one's sexual-identity." So my opponent has proposed a set of inconsistent and contradictory arguments because by defining the Roman Catholic Church as Christian he has cited a principle--a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning--to which he simultaneously argues that one's identity as a Christian cannot be subjected.
I have argued consistently that the Roman Catholic Church does not qualify as Christian because it practices rituals which contradict the teachings of Jesus Christ. These rituals and customs would include praying to Mary--especially since I've defined prayer as a supplication or intercession with one's deity or God, and thus expressly forbidden in the Bible (the main Christian text)--idolatry (bowing to and kissing the feet of the statue of Peter, the graven images of Mary, and other saints in the Vatican,) retention of Pagan titles (Pontifex Maximus,) celibacy, purgatory and indulgences. I've provided the specific text from the Bible which condemns these practices. [And given that my opponent has cited text from the Bible himself, I take it he has no issue with the validity of the Bible.] My opponent erroneously refers to this as a "No True Scotsman Fallacy" or "purity test" despite his own source's laying out that which constitutes a well-defined "Scotsman" (non-fallacious.) It is indeed fallacious to argue that No True Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge because putting sugar on one's porridge does not fall within the description of being a Scotsman. However it would be apt to argue that No True Scotsman would hail from outside of Scotland. It would be apt to argue that No True Vegetarian eats meat; it would be apt to argue that No True Anarachist supports the state. It is apt to argue that No True Christian would not seek to live his life according to the principles taught by Jesus Christ (as delineated by my expansion of my opponent's definition) because it's true by virtue of its proposed logic and description. My opponent misconstrued my argument as taking a "single act of sin" as disqualification. It is not a single act of sin; they practice these sins customarily. They do not acknowledge these rituals as sins; therefore, they have not sought to live their lives--Roman Catholics that is--by the principles taught by Jesus Christ (and God by proxy.) Is one an adherent to the principles of a religion if one's behavior, actions, spiritual perspective, fundamentally undermine them? Or does being Christian precede its description as my opponent would argue?
So to the voters I ask that you consider the following:
Who has been consistent with defining his premises and extending them to their logical conclusions?
Who has been thorough and meticulous in elucidating one's definitions, without the particular use of ad populums, incredulity, or identitarian rubrics which aren't falsifiable?
Whose arguments don't conflict?
Who did better in laying out their argument?
I would like to thank oromagi for this rousing debate. I would also like to thank all prospective voters who'll participate. Vote well.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Arguments: Pro
The very first contention sealed this debate, but if looking deeper this was a true landslide in which pro won every major contention. For con to gain ground, he would need to support that not worshipping idols is worshipping idols, and other such abominations against the nature of shared language.
Sources: Pro
This is a pretty clear sweep. Pro refused to even support his key claim about St. Peter's Square with evidence. Both sides had the bible (once that’s in the hands of catholics, the resolution is self evidently false anyway). A key one was on catechism, which refuted con’s claim about idolatry.
---
Continued at:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2152/comment-links/29955
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Tied for RFD in comments. In the end, I feel at conflict whether to accept con's different ideas and he brings up a lot of different ideas that bring doubt to pro's arguments. Tough call.
I didn't mean to dig up drama. I wasn't on the website two years ago lol
Yeah, I don't want to get into it. While it's nice, I suppose, that the subject has gotten traction over these last few weeks, I'm not one to dwell on what could've been. As you said, it's been two years.
It’s been two years…
You argued uphill against a truism, which is commendable, but you may as well have been trying to argue wolves are not canines.
I suppose. But I've long since finished crying over spilled milk.
Considering "relating to" was never defined, it could have been won that way.
I agree, but because oromagi's stipulated definition contained "related to," this allowed for some lexical manipulation my counterargument could not escape. Even if my counterargument was that Catholicism was in fact Satanic or Luciferian, it would still be "related" to Christianity. And while I still maintain that Ragnar's vote was bananas, that is not the fault and/or concern of oromagi, who essentially did his job, which was to "win" the debate.
Tautological: in logic (= a formal scientific method of examining ideas), relating to a statement that is always true. (Cambridge dictionary)
For this to work, Oro's argument must be PROVEN and not merely stated. A tautological statement is a conclusion, not a premise.
Moreover, his statement "the largest Christian church" faces multiple tautological issues such as:
1. A catholic church that denounces Christianity.
2. An atheist church that calls itself Catholic.
3. An Islamic church that calls itself Catholic.
Moreover, to prove Catholic = Christian, Oro would be required to define Christian and show how the Catholic Church fits that definition.
A tautological expression is not exempt from proof. You're thinking of a self evident statement, which is entirely different.
Going to have to go with Oro for this one. The definition he provided of Roman Catholic Church was literally "the largest Christian church" so it was a tautological loss for CON from the beginning.
I can't believe Oro won this one. By his definitions islam is Christian. His definitions don't mean anything. They don't provide any qualifiers. They were meaningless.
Catholics engage in many rituals which would not be considered Christian, some of which I delineated during that debate. Jesus would be the farthest thing from a Catholic were he alive today.
CHRISTIAN = THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS CHRIST
JESUS CHRIST WAS A JEW, NOT A CATHOLIC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKmmopn7QVY&t=30s
PHENOMENAL
Congrats. You are now up to 91 victories.
"Mods can step in to prevent decisions that are so blatantly unfair no rational person can approve of it, but otherwise our interpretive ability is severely handicapped."
Ragnar's vote is not blatantly unfair (just grossly misinformed.) With that said, I offer no contention with leaving votes at the voter's discretion. The only thing that should dictate the dissemination of votes is decorum, ethics, and service to logic. And just to clarify for everyone: I WAS NOT THE ONE WHO REPORTED RAGNAR'S VOTE. While I do think that his RFD is bananas, as a personal code of conduct, I address grievances myself.
Besides, I'm an anarchist. I would NEVER seek redress from you fascist moderating pigs...
...
...
Just in case that last line fell short, that was a joke.
"70 comments!"
We're doing this Old School--DDO style.
"You can count the number they use, the consistency, and as mentioned under tautology: Any lone factor would not be enough to tip it, but combined they add up to an overwhelming margin."
Tautology is irrelevant as it pertains to sources. You listed that under "contentions."
"the impact of con gravely harming his own case when trying to employ them."
You haven't substantiated how this has gravely harmed my case. You have misrepresented my position, though.
"That visits to some place are interpreted as idol worship by con, is only an assertion about his own opinion unless evidence is used."
Who's "moving the goalposts" now? What evidence were you looking for? (Not that you as voter can demand evidence.) And by the way, before I mentioned that millions of Catholics visited St. Peter's Square and bow to Peter's graven image, I quoted specific Bible text that condemned the act. You claimed that PRO refuted my claim of idol worship with mention of Catholic Catechism, but Catechism is an interpretation. In other words, it's an "opinion," albeit by the pope. PRO even makes mention of this when he demands that I submit the reason my interpretation is superior to that of Catholic Catechism. If Catechism was capable of refutation, outside of the context of denial or contradiction, then PRO's demand would be rendered null and futile.
"Under "CON1: IDOLATRY" his "COUNTER2" to me was very effective, and seemed significantly more than barely contesting the theme of that contention."
"Seem" once again is not an argument. But yes, I would "presume" that PRO's delineation of idolatry would have in effect addressed at least partly my reference to St. Peter's Square and idolatry. Whether this is more "effective" reduces to whether one sustains the integrity of the Bible or the integrity of Catholic interpretation. I quoted specific text which EXPLICITLY contradict the notion of Catholic Catechism even before PRO made mention of Catechism (e.g. there are no other "go betweens" other than Jesus himself.) Text from the bible "can't refute," but Catechism clearly could.
"Colombians are Latinos by definition,
Do you know what irony is? You're now arguing that people are what they are by virtue of definition..."
What is ironic about it? Didn't you frequently mention how PRO's stipulated definition was either "mutually agreed upon" or "pre-agreed"? Didn't I premise my own argument on the concept that Christians must strive to live their lives on the principles and values taught by Jesus Christ, which is informed by definition? Wasn't I the one who critcized your attempt to gloss over the definitions in your first vote? Where's the irony? Are you under the impression that I'm arguing against PRO's position because it's premised on definition? Once again, you have misrepresented my position.
Ragnar, I don't take issue with whom you've voted for. I take issue with your perversion of my argument. Like I told seldiora, if doom is imminent then I'd rather go down with my ship, because... it's my ship, dude.
> Colombians are Latinos by definition,
Do you know what irony is? You're now arguing that people are what they are by virtue of definition...
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ragnar // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 5:0; 5 points to PRO.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments/Debate Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
When the vote extension within the comments is accounted for, the vote is more than sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
I am unsure why this vote was reported, the only reason I can think of is disagreement in interpretation.
I am tired of repeating this, but it looks like I'll need to once again: users are allowed to assign points in any way they see fit as long as they adhere to DART voting guidelines.
To quote our Moderation Extended Policies and Interpretations:
"It is not moderation's job to judge the rightness or wrongness of the verdict reached. That means that interpretive differences (including what meanings can be deduced or inferred from the text) are not with the scope of reviewable content in a vote. There is one exception to this: the voter actually lying about or blatantly misstating (intentionally or not) what transpired in the debate such that no reasonable person, reading carefully, could reach the conclusion they reached."
Mods can step in to prevent decisions that are so blatantly unfair no rational person can approve of it, but otherwise our interpretive ability is severely handicapped.
70 comments!
thx for voting, Ragnar
> I'm not 100% convinced on the source point,
You can count the number they use, the consistency, and as mentioned under tautology: the impact of con gravely harming his own case when trying to employ them. Any lone factor would not be enough to tip it, but combined they add up to an overwhelming margin.
> especially since it seems common/obvious that Catholics visit St. Peter,
That visits to some place are interpreted as idol worship by con, is only an assertion about his own opinion unless evidence is used. While I do not expect every little claim to be sourced, important ones should be, especially as it allows people to double check that claimed facts are indeed facts.
> and pro barely contested that.
Under "CON1: IDOLATRY" his "COUNTER2" to me was very effective, and seemed significantly more than barely contesting the theme of that contention.
"I'm not 100% convinced on the source point, especially since it seems common/obvious that Catholics visit St. Peter, and pro barely contested that."
Pro doesn't even contest it at all presumably because like praying to Mary, it's something understood--at least by the both of us--that Catholics do this. So it was "odd" when Ragnar claimed in his RFD that I "refused" to provide a source of evidence, especially when it was never demanded of me. And the language of "pretty clear sweep" insinuates that I provided little to no sources. The "source point" independent of this debate of course is a slippery one. If we're going to point out where and when sources are required, one might as well source every term he or she uses. This is the reason I primarily rely on reasoning.
Oh and "seem" is not an argument.
I'm not 100% convinced on the source point, especially since it seems common/obvious that Catholics visit St. Peter, and pro barely contested that.
"In heart, I think you could've worded your challenge in a more direct and powerful way, especially, perhaps mentioning, Roman Catholic is Christian via dictionary definition is a poor way to prove something is something,"
But that isn't necessarily true. Religion like spirituality is immaterial. It's not something that can be proven through empiricism unless to count or confirm the amount of people who say that they're Catholic in an argument that seeks to resolve, "How many Catholics are there?" The definitions are important. My contention was that it was too simple to substantiate Roman Catholicism's Christianity. Not that a definition in and of itself wouldn't suffice. And in PRO's failure to make rigid the definition he stipulated, I was able to expand on it in a manner that would contradict the argument using the definition on which he premised said argument. Contrary to recent RFD's, that wasn't "special pleading." But that's beside the point. Definitions indicate context, and context is essential.
"especially since from olden times it wasn't guaranteed that Catholic fulfilled Christian traditions (Sabbath, commandments, believing in Christ, etc.). "
But the origins of Catholicism wasn't something either of us touched on or substantiated. Admittedly with the 5k character limit, I couldn't go in to the history of Catholicism and its Luciferian/Pagan origins (that is the reason you see me cite its definition, but not extend it in an argument.)
"If you were more thorough in defeating pro's religious argument philosophy, you could've turned it around, since that means even if Catholics are Christian, they must identify as such, but pro gives no such proof that Catholics do indeed identify as Christian."
But to do this, I would have to concede that his point has legimitacy, and it doesn't. If I were to demand that he prove it, he'd need only cite the number of Roman Catholics and their understanding of their own faith.
But PRO's main points were the only one he sought to substantiate, that is: (1) Roman Catholicism relates to Christianity or Christians, (2) Roman Catholicism is popularly understood to be among the Christian tradition, and (3) a Catholic has a right to identify as a Christian given an individual's prerogative to self-identification. The third point without mistake contradicts the first two. It eliminates the need for a standard which the other two set. He would've had to drop one of them to maintain the consistency of his argument, but he doesn't and extends them through all five rounds.
I take no issue sinking with my ship. But if I'm going to sink with my ship, then in must be MY ship. Not a ship built on the impressions of someone else.
In heart, I think you could've worded your challenge in a more direct and powerful way, especially, perhaps mentioning, Roman Catholic is Christian via dictionary definition is a poor way to prove something is something, especially since from olden times it wasn't guaranteed that Catholic fulfilled Christian traditions (Sabbath, commandments, believing in Christ, etc.). If you were more thorough in defeating pro's religious argument philosophy, you could've turned it around, since that means even if Catholics are Christian, they must identify as such, but pro gives no such proof that Catholics do indeed identify as Christian.
"He defended it as a the non-fallacious form, which you chose to drop."
There is no non-fallacious form of the ad populum. Colombians are Latinos by definition, not by consensus. Even the etymology of the term will tell you that "Colombia" was named for Christoforo Colombo (Christopher Columbus) and its a region that meets the description of Latin America. And I didn't drop it. After Round Four, no new arguments were to be made.
"Your level of nitpicking seems insane."
My insanity is consistent. I've made sure to highlight that since my days at DDO.
"Um, ok... Not tied to what they do, except when they fail to engage in idol worship which somehow makes them not Christian... Your special pleading is going all over the place."
Now you're invoking straw men. That specific comment was in a reference to a "time constraint." It's not in reference to my argument in its entirety. And there's no "special pleading." (I haven't asked for any exceptions "against the rules" to be made.)
"When trying to get votes, getting voters to to agree with your logic is very relevant."
No, it isn't. The soundness of the logic is the soundness of the logic whether one agrees with it or not. For example, I'm not trying to have you agree with my position; I'm attempting to have you not misrepresent my argument as something else (and you've persisted to do this.)
"If it's not relevant to you, you would not be trying to manipulate the voting."
This is rather unfortunate. Not only does it insult me, but it insults you as well. (I didn't know you were prone to being manipulated.) You were the one who decided to remove his initial vote. I neither asked nor told you to do that. Don't project your decisions as blame.
"As for the logic in question, I still don't see how a day of the week test for if Catholicism originates from the followers of Jesus Christ makes any kind of sense."
Outside of a few lines in the OP, PRO rarely speaks of Catholicisms origin, let alone emphasize it in any follow up argument. You're making arguments you believe PRO should have made, not ones that he did.
"Somehow I predicted this"
So did I.
"I'm starting to rethink voting."
Don't let my "fervor" intimidate you. Eager as I may be, I don't attack anyone personally. If you intend to participate, please do.
> First, I never incorporate the term "seem" into my argument unless I'm identifying it.
Your level of nitpicking seems insane.
> That is, one can be Christian today, a non-Christian tomorrow, and Christian again on Wednesday. This has nothing to do with that which one specifically "does."
Um, ok... Not tied to what they do, except when they fail to engage in idol worship which somehow makes them not Christian... Your special pleading is going all over the place.
> Your personal agreement isn't relevant.
When trying to get votes, getting voters to to agree with your logic is very relevant. If it's not relevant to you, you would not be trying to manipulate the voting. As for the logic in question, I still don't see how a day of the week test for if Catholicism originates from the followers of Jesus Christ makes any kind of sense.
> "Facepalm..."? Do you believe that this mention indicates proper decorum in an RFD?
Obviously when a facepalm is so readily earned, yes.
> But yes, in line with my reasoning, worshiping other gods, or idolatry, would exclude one from following the teachings of Jesus Christ.
*facepalm* You're basically saying someone cannot be a follower of Jesus Christ and be Christian. *facepalm*
> Pro did not make the claim about St. Peter's Square. CON did.
Thank you for catching a minor typo.
> And Pro did not challenge my mention of St. Peter's square any more than he challenged my mention of "Hail Mary"
This is technically true that he did not do it anymore than the other, given that he refuted the idol worship claim with Catholicism expressly forbidding idol worship even while allowing veneration.
> And there's nothing in PRO's definition that excludes my expansion
Your rampant special pleading continues... This time that we should reject pro's definition of "the largest Christian church," in favor of yours of "the largest Christian church" is noted. How could this possibly change the outcome? ... And yes, sorry for misrepresenting your argument before by calling it valid, given that if your premise here is true, then opposite conclusion being true is an impossibility.
> So why is CON the "Kritik"?
Please tell me you're joking? ... Ok, in case you were not: not every conversation is a kritik for being instigated. You chose to run a Kritik against the pre-agreed definitions, and then engaged in special pleading against your own definitions. Hence why you are considered to have run the kritik.
> Except that it's an ad populum fallacy.
He defended it as a the non-fallacious form, which you chose to drop. The whole "Columbians are Latinos" bit showed that on opinion being popular can make it true when it comes to identity issues such as this debate deals. Columbia existing by right of it being a popular opinion among the people that live there, is an intuitive baby-step from there. Interestingly this also yields some grounds on the anarchist point, which you could have capitalized.
I'm starting to rethink voting
Somehow I predicted this
"The no true scotsman gets extended to some additional bits, like the existence of the pope. However, there is a lack of follow through to support these, such as confirming the pope is not a member of Christianity"
There's no extension because no "No True Scotsman" fallacy was imputed (and this is especially inconsistent given that you lauded my point about anarachism as a good counterpoint.) And "pontifex maximus" is a pagan title (and the source shows this.)
"likewise that Christians in general are not."
Once again, this is a not a burden of the argument. The argument isn't whether Christians in general are Christians. It's whether Roman Catholicism is Christian.
"Due to repeated implicit requests from con for me to revote, here we go…"
I did not repeatedly request, let alone implicitly. I explicitly requested that you revote, and that you consider the actual arguments. Unfortunately your misrepresentation as delineated by your RFD was no less inconspicuous than your last RFD. But consider this my last "ping-storm," as I know when I'm beating a dead horse. (I also intend to avoid accusations of "unfair" play.)
Nevertheless, thanks for participating, Ragnar.
"Con directly concedes this contention, even while calling it “an ad populum fallacy.” And pro defends that definitions are true by merit of their popularity, which con then drops."
I conceded that the understanding was "popular." I did not concede that it was true. (I mentioned this several times.) And how did I drop the point? I addressed it in Round Four, and in Round Five, I couldn't present any new arguments as stipulated by PRO.
"Pro calls religion a personal identity,"
Yes, and that contradicts his citation of Roman Catholicism's definition. If it were a "personal identity," then definitions wouldn't matter.
"Con does make one good counterpoint that an anarchist doesn’t seem like an anarchist if they support big government."
First, I never incorporate the term "seem" into my argument unless I'm identifying it. "Seem" is not an argument. Second, how would my point about anarchism be a good counterpoint, when my point about Roman Catholicism either fails or imputes a "No True Scotsman" fallacy, when both arguments follow the same line of reasoning?
"Pro uses the foundation of previous points, to assert that to be a member of any faith is a spiritual self identification, which cannot be overridden by the No True Scotsman fallacy. "
That's your personal opinion and your non sequitur. My argument does not impute a "No True Scotsman." You're subscribing to the same contradiction by endorsing the point about personal identity and Roman Catholicism's and Christianity's definition.
" Pro counters that the original Christians indeed rejected Jesus but are still considered Christians, and the mutually agreed definition likens to them. "
And I pointed out that their Christianity was "restored" because they repented.
"Con tries to defend this by insisting people are or are not Christian day to day based on what they are doing at the moment… "
Once again, I never made this argument. I never suggest that one's "being" Christian on a day-to-day basis was informed by that which one does at the moment. The point made on my part illustrated the lack of "time constraint." That is, one can be Christian today, a non-Christian tomorrow, and Christian again on Wednesday. This has nothing to do with that which one specifically "does."
"Pro counters that the test becomes meaningless in general terms when so open ended, and as a voter I agree, I shouldn’t check which day of the week is to decide if something is true or false."
Your personal agreement isn't relevant. Ironic as it may be, this debate isn't a popularity contest. It's a measure of who substantiates their position best.
"Con declares that anyone who puts anyone or anything before God from Exodus, cannot be a follower of Jesus Christ (*facepalm*)..."
"Facepalm..."? Do you believe that this mention indicates proper decorum in an RFD? And no I did not "declare" that anyone who puts anyone or anything before God from Exodus cannot be a follower of Jesus Christ. The line indicates a refrain from worshipping other Gods. But yes, in line with my reasoning, worshiping other gods, or idolatry, would exclude one from following the teachings of Jesus Christ.
"Pro asserts that infractions to the level of violating commandments do not result in excommunication."
And this isn't relevant. My contention wasn't that a group of Catholics or Christians would ostracize deviants.
"From here he goes into a bit of whataboutism or an appeal against absurdity, which Con weirdly counters this with seeming to agree that no one qualifies as Christian except him when he was younger..."
Where did I do this? I cited my own experience growing up Christian to create an exception to PRO's argument that almost no Christians observe the Sabbath on Saturday. Where did I ever state that I was the only one who qualified as "Christian"? And it should be noted that PRO's source was taken from a sample of Protestants.
"Pro makes a better defense by explaining that Catholicism explicitly forbids worship of idols in the place of God (which con later declares means “Catholics do not acknowledge idolatry as a sin” which makes no sense against the Catechism source which demonstrates the exact opposite), with the practice mistaken for a workshop in fact being veneration of a go between or visiting tombstones."
Catechism does not explicitly forbid the worship of idols in place of God. It explains it away. And I retorted by mentioning the bit PRO elided. Not to mention, I specifically quoted statements from the Bible which condemns their acts in spite of their explanation (e.g. 1st Timothy chapter two, verse five where it states that Jesus is the only mediator between mankind and God.) So no, there are no other "go betweens," according to the Bible. I thought this alone would have sufficed in eliminating the Catechist argument since the reference was made in my very first argument.
....
"Sources: Pro
This is a pretty clear sweep. Pro refused to even support his key claim about St. Peter's Square with evidence. Both sides had the bible (once that’s in the hands of catholics, the resolution is self evidently false anyway). A key one was on catechism, which refuted con’s claim about idolatry."
Pro did not make the claim about St. Peter's Square. CON did. And Pro did not challenge my mention of St. Peter's square any more than he challenged my mention of "Hail Mary" presumably because it was understood that Catholics do this. So how did I "refuse" to provide evidence?
"Con runs a semantic Kritik to move the goalpost, wherein he calls for rejection of the definition of the Roman Catholic Church, for a competing dictionary one on Roman Catholicism further defined as “Catholic Church,” with a linked definition of that as “the largest Christian church” which con later points out explicitly “delineated by both our cited definitions.” This immediately leaves the debate in a catch-22, wherein if a voter rejects the moving of the goalpost the resolution is pre-affirmed by tautology, whereas if they accept the moving of the goalpost the resolution is likewise re-affirmed by tautology."
In order for the goal posts to be moved in logic, two arguments would have already need to have been made after which more stipulations are demanded post facto. How could I have "moved the goalpost" when I expanded the definition in my very first argument? And there's nothing in PRO's definition that excludes my expansion, so it's not a "competing" definition--especially given that I use the very same source as PRO.
And once more--like I told Seldiora: all arguments are semantic. The fact that you believe PRO won this by definition is based on semantics. So why is CON the "Kritik"?
"Pro argues the truth of the resolution is non-disputable by right of overwhelming popularity (I may have been using truism wrong, as I treated it as tautology). He makes a good point for common knowledge, calling back to the definitions that Catholicism is “the world's oldest and largest continuously functioning international institution” predating any other form of Christianity, and he really digs down into showing it indeed exists and has for a very long time."
Except that it's an ad populum fallacy. PRO cites distorted reasoning like a name is a name because it's accepted by consensus. A truism is a proposition true by virtue of its proposed logic making it very similar to a tautology.
.....
---RFD 1 of 2---
Due to repeated implicit requests from con for me to revote, here we go…
My previous vote may be found at:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2152/comment-links/29624
Burden of Proof:
Considering the agreed definitions and resolution, with shared BoP...
Pro must prove that “The ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH is” “of, like or relating to Christianity or Christians” with Christianity defined as “An Abrahamic religion originating from the community of the followers of Jesus Christ”
Con must prove that “The ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH is” NOT “of, like or relating to Christianity or Christians” with Christianity defined as “An Abrahamic religion originating from the community of the followers of Jesus Christ”
While the pre-agreed definition used for Roman Catholic Church is noted, if I right away plugged it in above the debate would be over before a single point is considered; which would defeat the spirit of debate.
---
Arguments: Pro
The very first contention sealed this debate, but if looking deeper this was a true landslide in which pro won every major contention. For con to gain ground, he would need to support that not worshipping idols is worshipping idols, and other such abominations against the nature of shared language.
Sources: Pro
This is a pretty clear sweep. Pro refused to even support his key claim about St. Peter's Square with evidence. Both sides had the bible (once that’s in the hands of catholics, the resolution is self evidently false anyway). A key one was on catechism, which refuted con’s claim about idolatry.
---RFD 2 of 2---
Contentions...
TAUTOLOGY:
Pro argues that “the largest Christian church...the world's oldest and largest continuously functioning international institution” is Christian by definition, and calls back to the definition with how “it has played a prominent role in the history and development of Western civilization.”
Con runs a semantic Kritik to move the goalpost, wherein he calls for rejection of the definition of the Roman Catholic Church, for a competing dictionary one on Roman Catholicism further defined as “Catholic Church,” with a linked definition of that as “the largest Christian church” which con later points out explicitly “delineated by both our cited definitions.” This immediately leaves the debate in a catch-22, wherein if a voter rejects the moving of the goalpost the resolution is pre-affirmed by tautology, whereas if they accept the moving of the goalpost the resolution is likewise re-affirmed by tautology.
We could of course ignore that words have assigned meanings, and speak gibberish. Without actual merit indicated for doing that, we must suffer the tyranny of shared language.
TRUISM:
Pro argues the truth of the resolution is non-disputable by right of overwhelming popularity (I may have been using truism wrong, as I treated it as tautology). He makes a good point for common knowledge, calling back to the definitions that Catholicism is “the world's oldest and largest continuously functioning international institution” predating any other form of Christianity, and he really digs down into showing it indeed exists and has for a very long time.
Con directly concedes this contention, even while calling it “an ad populum fallacy.” And pro defends that definitions are true by merit of their popularity, which con then drops.
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY:
Pro calls religion a personal identity, which the UN declares people have the right to self define. Con compares it in pointlessness to devil worshipers could call themselves Christian, to which pro reminds us that would fit the mutually agreed definition of Christian via “relating to Christianity” (a touch too broad there, but it intuitively shows the sound connections). Pro further leverages Elton John by choice being the singer Elton John.
Con does make one good counterpoint that an anarchist doesn’t seem like an anarchist if they support big government.
(after some weird complaints before, I am not touching the IDENTITARIAN and white nationalism bits)
THEOLOGY:
Pro uses the foundation of previous points, to assert that to be a member of any faith is a spiritual self identification, which cannot be overridden by the No True Scotsman fallacy. Con for his part declares that someone is not a True Christian if they reject Jesus Christ. Pro counters that the original Christians indeed rejected Jesus but are still considered Christians, and the mutually agreed definition likens to them. and further that Christianity is a varied faith which even includes Atheists. Con tries to defend this by insisting people are or are not Christian day to day based on what they are doing at the moment… Pro counters that the test becomes meaningless in general terms when so open ended, and as a voter I agree, I shouldn’t check which day of the week is to decide if something is true or false.
IDOLATRY:
Con declares that anyone who puts anyone or anything before God from Exodus, cannot be a follower of Jesus Christ (*facepalm*)...
Pro asserts that infractions to the level of violating commandments do not result in excommunication. From here he goes into a bit of whataboutism or an appeal against absurdity, which Con weirdly counters this with seeming to agree that no one qualifies as Christian except him when he was younger...
Pro makes a better defense by explaining that Catholicism explicitly forbids worship of idols in the place of God (which con later declares means “Catholics do not acknowledge idolatry as a sin” which makes no sense against the Catechism source which demonstrates the exact opposite), with the practice mistaken for a workshop in fact being veneration of a go between or visiting tombstones.
The no true scotsman gets extended to some additional bits, like the existence of the pope. However, there is a lack of follow through to support these, such as confirming the pope is not a member of Christianity, or likewise that Christians in general are not.
"If that was not your argument, then your argument was simply off topic to the debate you agreed to participate."
No, it wasn't. You merely presented a single clause of oromagi's definition and are using it to argue irrelevance. But even if it were the case that the definition were to merely comprise of just that first clause, the definition would still be "too simple." I could've challenged the meaning of "originate" since oromagi didn't explicitly argue this to be synonymous with "begin." (Originate is also synonymous with "create.") But nevertheless, there's a second clause (and you know this) when expanding the definition of "Christian" that discretely states "or Christians" (noun form.) I expanded this definition using the same site oromagi used to include for "a believer in Christianity OR an individual who seeks to live his or her life according to the principles and values taught by Jesus Christ."
I was able to employ my own definitions while simultaneously avoiding any re-definitions. A grammatical technicality if you will. Since he defined only the adjectival form of Christian, and the noun form of Christianity, it left the noun form of Christian wide open. Hence, I made sure to define it before I started.
"That's not my argument"
If that was not your argument, then your argument was simply off topic to the debate you agreed to participate.
"Your assertions that Catholicism does not originate from the community of the followers of Jesus Christ, because there is variance in rituals, is a rather obvious non-sequitur."
That's not my argument; how is that then my non sequitur?
"Hence, putting it into terms for how close you've come to making a valid and sound argument that eagles are not birds (we can even define birds by shared genealogy, if you want this to be a closer comparison)."
As long as it's consistent with a substantiated premise, there should be no question of its soundness.
"It's about like saying: 'Cats are not mammals, And note, my argument doesn't contain "IF." I'm not stating that "if cats don't bark they are therefore not mammals," I'm starting cats do not bark therefore they are not mammals, hence cats are not mammals.'"
If one has substantiated the premises of defining mammals and demonstrating how Cats don't meet that description, then that would be a sound argument. Likening my argument to the above example would be like insinuating my argument states "Catholics aren't Christians because they don't bark." Once again, you've persisted in likening my argument to a No True Scotsman. I employed a definition and extended my argument's reasoning to its logical conclusion. I'm not arbitrarily picking characteristics, practices, rituals, or customs and using them as fodder for an argument excluding Catholics. I made specific references with its relevant substantiation.
Your assertions that Catholicism does not originate from the community of the followers of Jesus Christ, because there is variance in rituals, is a rather obvious non-sequitur. Hence, putting it into terms for how close you've come to making a valid and sound argument that eagles are not birds (we can even define birds by shared genealogy, if you want this to be a closer comparison).
It's about like saying: 'Cats are not mammals, And note, my argument doesn't contain "IF." I'm not stating that "if cats don't bark they are therefore not mammals," I'm starting cats do not bark therefore they are not mammals, hence cats are not mammals.'
"To me semantics does not make something sound."
Actually it does, especially when the subject focuses on the immaterial.
"Let's look at your eagle example, if you argue an eagle isn't a bird because the wingspan is too big or the diet too varied, you can have all the valid arguments you want, and the conclusion still fails to be sound."
This is flawed. You're extending a No True Scotsman fallacy because you are redefining ad hoc in this example. I did no such thing. I'm not making up definitions or redefining anything. I cited my definitions at the very beginning, and I even used the same source as oromagi. And note, my argument doesn't contain "IF." I'm not stating that "if Roman Catholics' rituals and customs undermined the teachings of Jesus Christ, Roman Catholics therefore would not Christian." I'm stating that Roman Catholic customs and rituals do undermine the teachings of Jesus Christ (exampled by the mentions during the debate with specific references to the Bible;) hence Roman Catholics aren't Christians. A religion is a system of beliefs which in their entirety inform the Religion's distinction. Therefore, I needed only to provided just one example.
Now you might be thinking to yourself, one is not "enough" to disqualify one's being Christian. If that were the case, most if not all Christian denominations would be disqualified. And you personally find this absurd. But is this "logically" absurd? According to the definitions, there's nothing which states a specific amount of adherents or denominations. So the number of adherents or denominations isn't a burden of the argument. If one entertains that "one isn't enough," then it creates a slippery slope premised on personal arbitration. How many principles does one have to follow? 10? Five? One? Can one still be a Christian by not coveting his neighbor's wife, but sacrificing prepubescent children to Moloch, yelling "Hail Satan?" I know this is hyperbolic, but the examples I mentioned in the debate were specific, and cited particularly to demonstrate not the absence of principle, but the contradiction of it (e.g. "Hail Mary.")
"You can run around claiming that it's sound that eagles are not birds all you want, and that would just not make it so (even if you do win some debates on it)."
You persist to either explicitly or implicitly liken my argument to a No True Scotsman. Look it up. Even when using oromagi's source, it explicitly states the description of a well-defined "Scotsman," which isn't fallacious (e.g. No True Vegetarian would eat meat.) And I made mention of this numerous times during the debate as well.
"To be clear, Athias challenged me to a debate and suggested Catholics are not Christians based on old debate I had with GeneralGrant. I honestly did not expect Athias to accept the first draft unconditionally since I made the terms as tilted in my favor as possible - so long as VOTERS agree that the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH relates to Christianity or Christians (and this is undeniable) then by the terms of this debate PRO wins. I expected some counter-offer from Athias that might give me some sense of his reasoning but instead he just accepted."
Your tact was acutely perceptive (Sun Tzu would be proud.) You chose the simplest premise while simultaneously putting a muzzle on me with the character count. Let's also not forget your preemptive strike with your mention of the No True Scotsman fallacy (which in actuality was a poisoning of the well.) So then the question became: was there any path to victory for my argument? As long as my grasp on logic and reason was firm, I had no reason to avoid engagement regardless of how disadvantaged my position was. If there were any flaws, inconsistencies, or contradictions in your argument, I'd be sure to find them (and I did.) And while you did choose the simplest definition on which to base your argument, it was too simple, leaving it open to scrutiny and expansion. I accepted because I welcomed the challenge.
"It seem to me that all Athias' best arguments (and now there have been a lot of them) come after my R5 and any chance to respond. I deliberately set 5000 characters so that the need for response overtaxed Athias' usual eloquence and it seems to me unfair that he gets to dump so much into the mix in the voting period."
That isn't necessarily accurate. In your description, you stipulated that no new arguments shall be made in round five. Despite that, you introduced new arguments. I could've simply responded to your round five argument, but I chose not to out of personal integrity (also, any response at that point would've been redundant.) Instead, I complied with your stipulation. But having integrity didn't mean that I didn't know how to take advantage of an opportunity. My having the last word was an inescapable consequence of the format. And while I did beef up my closing argument, there's no argument there that I didn't make before.
And please don't confuse this exchange with Ragnar and me in the comment section as last minute "politicking." I've already made my intentions clear: I will scrutinize any misrepresentations of the arguments. (And you'll notice that I've done this on your behalf as well when Seldiora rendered a vote of poor(er) conduct and Ragnar claimed that you accused me of racism.) And by all means, if there's any "foul play" please identify where (specific statements) this is being done. I made sure not hash out anything new, even in this comments section, so as to not further my argument.
To me semantics does not make something sound. Let's look at your eagle example, if you argue an eagle isn't a bird because the wingspan is too big or the diet too varied, you can have all the valid arguments you want, and the conclusion still fails to be sound. You can run around claiming that it's sound that eagles are not birds all you want, and that would just not make it so (even if you do win some debates on it).
To be clear, Athias challenged me to a debate and suggested Catholics are not Christians based on old debate I had with GeneralGrant. I honestly did not expect Athias to accept the first draft unconditionally since I made the terms as tilted in my favor as possible - so long as VOTERS agree that the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH relates to Christianity or Christians (and this is undeniable) then by the terms of this debate PRO wins. I expected some counter-offer from Athias that might give me some sense of his reasoning but instead he just accepted.
It seem to me that all Athias' best arguments (and now there have been a lot of them) come after my R5 and any chance to respond. I deliberately set 5000 characters so that the need for response overtaxed Athias' usual eloquence and it seems to me unfair that he gets to dump so much into the mix in the voting period.
That to which you refer is not "soundness." A sound argument is one where the premises are true and the extensions of them as a consequence are true. A valid argument doesn't necessitate the truth of the premises; it necessitates only that the premises--true or not--be extended to a reasonable conclusion. Case in point:
If I were a healthy eagle with functional wings,
I'd be able to fly.
This is a valid argument. The premise is not true because I'm not an eagle with functional wings, but the inductive reasoning renders this argument valid.
A man is an adult human being with a male reproductive organ,
I am an adult human being with a male reproductive organ,
Therefore, I am a man.
This is both valid and sound. The premises are true. And the conclusion is true.
Now let's look at my argument:
"Christian" is informed by striving to live one's life according to the principles taught by Jesus Christ,
Roman Catholics (Roman Catholicism) do not strive to live their lives according to the principles taught by Jesus Christ (informed during the debate,)
Therefore, Roman Catholics aren't Christians.
Now one can attempt to contradict my minor premise, but the extension of the contention would result in a logical absurdity (i.e. identifying whimsically or arbitrarily choosing tenets to follow virtually renders any distinction of the Religion absent.) That substantiates the truth of my minor premise. The argument is both valid and sound.
Yes, your argument is valid. That doesn't make it sound. That you don't know the difference, likely contributed to why you requested this debate in the first place.
In short, validity means if the premises are true than the conclusion follows. Whereas soundness relates to the ultimate truth of it. ... As an example, someone who likes dogs and agrees they are mammals, might argue that since they dislike cats they must therefore not be mammals. They could validly line up how cats fail to bark and other such evidence, and even win debates with the logic, but that would never be able to make their case actually sound.
I do have a passion for logic; and, it's not that my argument is "unsound"--because it really isn't. It's bridging the mental gap between that which one has believed and accepted to be true one's whole life--one does not necessarily have to practice Catholicism to maintain the belief that Catholicism is Christian--and that which is logically consistent. It's like telling a child that televised wrestling is "fake" or that the story of Santa Klaus is a "myth." I know my arguments go against the current, but unless there's something erroneous about my premise--i.e. Christian being inform by striving to live one's life according to the principles taught by Jesus Christ--and its extension to its logical conclusion--i.e. living one's life undermining the principles taught by Jesus Christ makes one non-Christian--then despite one's disagreeing with the notion of my argument, the argument itself is sound.
You seem very passionate about this. While your argument is unsound, I'll give you that it is internally valid.
"Ath:
You have done a good job outlining slight variations which differentiate Catholicism from mainstream Christendom. That leaves the debate asking is Catholicism still inspired by Jesus? Hopefully someone else answers how the debate answered this."
My argument has never intended to create a distinction between Catholicism and mainstream Christianity. I wasn't arguing that Catholicism was more or less Christian than other known (or believed to be) Christian denominations. My argument is that Roman Catholicism isn't Christian because its customs and rituals contradict the principles taught by Jesus Christ, the set of which I argue defines Christianity. [I can argue the same for many of the other denominations but the subject is Roman Catholicism.] Now extending this premise to its logical conclusion may render a result you find personally absurd--i.e. most, if not all, Christian denominations aren't truly Christian--but that's not the same as its being "logically" absurd.
A religion, like a philosophy, is a set of beliefs and principles. If one were to identify oneself as an adherent of a religion by arbitrarily choosing which principles to follow and ignore, then how would that be any different from the premise of self-identification? Hence, my argument is always consistent. I'm not arguing that Catholics aren't Christians, but Protestants are; that Baptists are Christian, but Catholics aren't. My argument is "DON'T FOLLOW PRINCIPLES OF RELIGION = DON'T REPRESENT RELIGION." And my analogies involving vegetarians and meat, and anarchists and the State, help to extend that reasoning.
I plan on judging this debate before the time expires.
NOTICE: Only 4 days remain for voting, with the debate currently tied.