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.
Disclaimer: Whiteclaw and Costco Margarita mixed with extra tequila are posting (or at least significantly contributing)! Thank you spell check, for making this something not too awful.
---
Ideally (well, ideally ideally we'd have a lot more active voters...) this debate should be decided by someone non-religious (specifically agnostic... let's face it, Atheists often fall into the trap of accidentally being more committed to religion than thane average actual devotees of religion). For context, I am a Catholic/Pastafarian. So in person I've had too many variants of this debate and Christian conspiracy theories related to it. I genuinely don't think this dominated my vote but only an idiot would deny the mere precedence of slight influence.
On Sunday I start a shit job which I've held out against for way too long... So if no other voter has fairly weighed in by Friday (err, maybe not Friday, I have plans which might turn out badly) or Saturday, I'll try to put a couple hours into a deep contention by contention re-reading.
...
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.
Oro:
You miss some basic points, but do an amazing job levaging definitions. You do more than this, but it is a key thing which determines borderline debates.
Seld:
Yo! You're improving on voting faster than I did! Hell, I unfairly called the first person who stalked me a stalker, yet they had nothing on the second or the third. ... Okay, sorry, I should specify drinking to get through a PTSD episode while my city is on fire (a wildfire near it... air politician, my GF/Ex could not understand why I was freaking out... TMI.).
Okay, first person I called a stalker. I literally can't remember his name, even while I respect him. I voted badly on one of his debates, and he followed me around for a bit complaining. Stalker was over stating it. ... What I mean to say it that you're doing pretty good, even if flawed, still more effort than the vast majority pf readers are putting in, and I suspect the debaters appreciate it.
Anyway, so yeah, tied votes are one of the best things. Don't ever let anyone shame you for it.
For clarity, Athias did not report my vote!
FYI (technically this whole post is such, but you get the gist...), due to my status as a moderator, when my votes have been reported I've often advised other moderators to hold them to a higher standard (delete even if borderline or even slightly above it).
I likewise hold myself to a said higher standard, and of course second guess myself.
To me "ping storm" is obviously a hyperbole, but still gets at a bit of the issues (line by line criticism does get over the top). However, Athias isn't a POS debater like some who I will not name. There's been plenty of times where someone challenges my vote when I literally know their argument better than them, but this is not one of those times.
"That was unexpected but fair considering the ping-storm you're receiving over it."
"Ping-storm" isn't an apt characterization; I'm thorough. (And it's not like I reported the vote.) If an argument is going to lose in a debate, then the actual argument merits the loss, not the impression of it. And look at my debate history: it wouldn't be the first time I took a voter to task over his vote. Consistency and consideration for logical form is essential; if I don't maintain this example myself, then there's no point in expecting the same of anyone else.
And please do consider re-voting Ragnar. I seek only that you exercise more consideration for the actual arguments even if your vote's favor does not change. Thanks for participating.
That was unexpected but fair considering the ping-storm you're receiving over it
Removing my vote. I might revote later with one that minimizes any feedback on the impressions the debate leaves readers with...
---
For 5K arguments, those felt more like 15.
Seems the debate hinges upon two key things:
1. If the form of something differs from others of its kind, when does it become something else?
2. Are pre-agreed definitions binding?
For the first con comes close, but pro’s built in defense of pointing out things like the sabbath already leaving true-Christians in doubt if entertaining the fallacy. Con ends up trying to flip this around asserting that Catholics are only as close to being Christian as Hindus are, which was an obvious non-sequitur.
For the second is Catholicism “An Abrahamic religion originating from the community of the followers of Jesus Christ”? Yes. Obviously. While the dictionary should make this cut and dry, out of respect to both debaters I am going to look past it at the real disputes.
---
Pro wisely predicted the No True Scotsman fallacy. While con protested against it, he walked his arguments inside it allowing pro to frame them in those terms. Con for his part does an okay job on said protests, but majorly beating around the bush rather than just saying the form of the fallacy does not guarantee it is being used fallaciously (a Scotsman being someone from Scotland, a guy who spent his whole life in Texas would indeed be not a true scotsman … in his closing con did put it in these clear terms); which should have been swiftly backed up on why said tests absolutely rule someone out from being a true scotsman.
Con did much better on the religious liberty point, pointing out that it's non-falsifiable (that may mean something different to me due to my level of education). Not sure how pro twisted that around to con calling him racist... Anyway, I am finding self-identification was intuitively flawed even while it can't be outright dismissed since religion is defined personally by people (side note: even if scientologists are not really scientists or christians...). As con put it: “transmutation as a consequence of arbitrary identitarianism.”
Pro had a slam dunk on the THEOLOGY point, since con argued that people are and are not Christians at various times based on what they’re currently doing, which undercuts his own argument that Catholics are not Christian because they sometimes sin. That there are customs not specifically endorsed by Jesus, doesn’t defeat the problem pro pointed out about the shortage of true christians if entertaining this standard leads to absurdity of true-Christians not existing (not honoring the sabbath on the correct day, eating meat on friday, etc.). If following the bible incorrectly would further not remove the strive to follow Jesus.
Conduct:
Pro took a decent hit to this at one point on the whole racism accusation, were there any more notable ones he would lose this point.
Similarly at the end con started quoting the debate with quotes that were not present earlier in the debate. (the unclearly that these were con's words instead of pro's, are also an S&G issue, but again, too little of the debate was corrupted by it to actually cost the point IMO)
THBT: The FLOOR is FLOOR
One more thing (noticed this only after I re-read your RFD):
"Seems the debate hinges upon two key things:
1. If the form of something differs from others of its kind, when does it become something else?"
Why would you presume this? There's nothing in the argument that suggests that a comparison between denominations is necessary. (In the short description, oromagi points out that I've claimed most Christian denominations aren't "truly" Christian.) If my premise is the principles of Jesus Christ, and oromagi's is self-identification and Roman Catholicism's definition, what relevance do "others of its kind"--Roman Catholicism that is--bear? (I also made mention of this in the debate with oromagi.)
Thanks again for participating.
"Would you have preferred a simple two line vote that you lost the debate from the start on definitions?"
Preference is of no consequence. I scrutinize all votes that either misrepresent or unfairly characterize the arguments. If you're in need of further convincing, you can read below where I scrutinize seldiora's vote even though it was initially made in my argument's favor. And even using the definitions alone, I wouldn't have lost automatically. It's a matter of consistency with the premise, not tautology. And if you looked past the premise, then you might as well have looked past the argument.
"You chose to present things as quotations by putting them inside double quotation marks. Double checking that you did this, only took about 15 seconds to find an easy example from the end of the debate: My opponent misconstrued my argument as taking a "single act of sin""
Yes, I do this for emphasis, much like my use of the embolden function. I did not state that oromagi stated the contents of the quote. I'm familiar with the quote function on this site, and if I intended to quote oromagi directly, I would've done so like I've done throughout the entire debate. (I even quoted "Pontifex Maximus," a term never mentioned by oromagi.) The misconstruction derived from when he referenced single acts of sin by Saul and Peter as a response to my tests of principle. Hence, "single act of sin." And I stressed this point to juxtapose it with the customary and ritual sins of Catholics, the statement after which I emboldened for effect.
I know my arguments better than anyone. And even though, this point you allege was of no consequence in your decision, I will always criticize misrepresentations of my argument. In other words, I did not "put words in oromagi's mouth." (You see, you didn't state this, but I'm representing your statement as such based on other statements you said.)
> "Where did I do this? In my closing arguments I didn't really quote anyone."
You chose to present things as quotations by putting them inside double quotation marks. Double checking that you did this, only took about 15 seconds to find an easy example from the end of the debate: My opponent misconstrued my argument as taking a "single act of sin"
You can double check for yourself if pro wrote "single act of sin" inside the debate or not. This is again something I pointed out to caution against in future, without actually assigning a point penalty.
"Pro had a slam dunk on the THEOLOGY point, since con argued that people are and are not Christians at various times based on what they’re currently doing, which undercuts his own argument that Catholics are not Christian because they sometimes sin."
I made no such argument. Even when pro insinuated that I was assessing single acts of sin at different moments in time, I made sure to explicitly mention adherence to the principle. And it's not that Catholics "sometimes" sin. They "customarily" sin--customarily being synonymous with "usually." And I made sure to mention that in my argument. So how was my argument undercut? If to practice Catholicism is to customarily sin, then how does that undercut the argument that Christianity has no time constraints?
"That there are customs not specifically endorsed by Jesus"
No, I stated they were rejected by Jesus, and substantiated that rejection with Bible quotes as well as definitions.
"doesn’t defeat the problem pro pointed out about the shortage of true christians if entertaining this standard leads to absurdity of true-Christians not existing (not honoring the sabbath on the correct day, eating meat on friday, etc.). If following the bible incorrectly would further not remove the strive to follow Jesus."
There was no problem. This happens too often. A logical absurdity is not the same as that which you personally find incredulous. An absurdity in logic is an inevitable contradiction rendered from extending premises to their logical conclusions (e.g. the reductio ad absurdum I assessed when pointing out that oromagi argued that "Christian" was informed by both identity and definition.) Where do you my arguments contradict? They don't at all.
"If following the bible incorrectly would further not remove the strive to follow Jesus."
How did CON substantiate this at all? You assessed the identitarian argument flawed, and you "looked past" the definitions.
"Pro took a decent hit to this at one point on the whole racism accusation, were there any more notable ones he would lose this point."
Once again, oromagi didn't accuse me of racism.
"Similarly at the end con started quoting the debate with quotes that were not present earlier in the debate. (the unclearly that these were con's words instead of pro's, are also an S&G issue, but again, too little of the debate was corrupted by it to actually cost the point IMO)"
Where did I do this? In my closing arguments I didn't really quote anyone. The only time I used quotes was to highlight the analogies and the fallacies. But I never stated that oromagi stated the content of the quotes, namely the analogies. I used the very same words oromagi used to describe his position. And then I started paraphrasing since it was a closing argument.
Thank you for participating, Ragnar.
Would you have preferred a simple two line vote that you lost the debate from the start on definitions?
"Pro wisely predicted the No True Scotsman fallacy. While con protested against it, he walked his arguments inside it allowing pro to frame them in those terms. Con for his part does an okay job on said protests, but majorly beating around the bush rather than just saying the form of the fallacy does not guarantee it is being used fallaciously (a Scotsman being someone from Scotland, a guy who spent his whole life in Texas would indeed be not a true scotsman … in his closing con did put it in these clear terms); which should have been swiftly backed up on why said tests absolutely rule someone out from being a true scotsman."
Yes, Pro did wisely anticipate my premise because he set out from the beginning to eliminate tests of principle. Tests of principle by virtue don't constitute a "No True Scotsman." Only if I had sought out to "redefine" ad hoc (like Nemiroff did in your example,) would it count as a "No True Scotsman." And what is meant by
"[backing] up on why said tests absolutely rule someone out from being a true scotsman"? I did it with thorough reasoning and numerous analogies. Even if I were to demonstrate just one principle violated, that would've sufficed since a religion much like philosophy is a system of principles. My not committing adultery makes me no more Christian than, for example, eating Kosher meats make Jewish. It's a set of principles which in their entirety constitute the religion.
"For the first con comes close, but pro’s built in defense of pointing out things like the sabbath already leaving true-Christians in doubt if entertaining the fallacy."
If you examined that source, you would've noticed that the survey was taken using a sample of Protestants, not Catholics. But I'll come back to this later.
"Con ends up trying to flip this around asserting that Catholics are only as close to being Christian as Hindus are, which was an obvious non-sequitur."
Far from the truth Ragnar. That was in response to CON's identitarian argument--a point by the way, you mentioned was flawed. There was no non sequitur. My response merely proposed a reductio ad absurdum. If anyone can "identify" as an adherent to any religion that they desire, then the religion is no longer defined by its principles (or set of beliefs) but by individual identity--in which case, a Catholic is no more "Christian" than a Hindu.
"For the second is Catholicism “An Abrahamic religion originating from the community of the followers of Jesus Christ”? Yes. Obviously. While the dictionary should make this cut and dry, out of respect to both debaters I am going to look past it at the real disputes."
Why would you have looked "past" them? Both Oromagi and I premised our arguments on these definitions. The premises are an essential part of an argument.
"Not sure how pro twisted that around to con calling him racist..."
CON did not allege that I called him racist.
"Anyway, I am finding self-identification was intuitively flawed even while it can't be outright dismissed since religion is defined personally by people (side note: even if scientologists are not really scientists or christians..."
If that were a conclusion you drew from observing our debate, then you should've re-examined your allegation of "flawed" as pertained to oromagi's argument (If it can't be dismissed, then it's not flawed.) If you're rendering this assessment based on your own, for lack of a better term, "feelings" about religion, then I must ask what place--if any--you believe that has in placing a vote in a debate where you're neither PRO or CON?
To be continued.
Problems aside, your votes are improving. Keep up the progress
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: seldiora // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:1; 1 points to CON.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments
>Reason for Mod Action:
This vote fell under the definition of a "tied vote."
There are three types of tied votes:
(1) Ones which allot zero points. They have no meaningful impact on the debate outcome, and are thus only moderated if warranted for other reasons.
(2) Ones which cancel themselves out. While the category assignments may serve as feedback to the debaters, there is no still meaningful impact for moderation consider. These are in essence the same as the previous type.
(3) Votes which leave arguments tied, but assign other categories. While these need not meet the sufficiency standards for an argument vote, they must still evaluate arguments enough to justify no clear winner. There is however an exception for >=50% forfeitures allowing conduct only with no further explanation.
Further reading: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1718/moderation-and-tied-votes
As a vote falling under category 3, the voter just barely justified leaving the argument tied enough to where I'd call the vote borderline if they had properly justified a conduct violation.
That said, the voter did not do a very good job justifying the designation of conduct points.
To award conduct points, the voter must:
(1) identify specific instances of misconduct,
(2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and
(3) compare each debater's conduct.
The voter neglected points 2 & 3.
TL;DR: If the voter wants to resubmit their vote, they should elaborate on points 2 & 3 of the conduct vote requirements.
VOTE PART 1:
Once again Oromagi tries a trickery semantic debate with many different interpretations, to be honest I don't know who won, because Oromagi tried to assert it a truism and prove there were exceptions to Con's cases, especially nitty gritty Catholic vs Christian picking. Con made some good points but honestly I'm not 100% convinced even with the mention of gender vs sex at the end that confuses believer vs true follower. It's a 50/50 to me. Conduct to con because this feels like Oromagi wanted some kind of easy win based on dictionary definition...
VOTE PART 2:
full RFD:
Pro: Christianity is Christianity. People get to say their beliefs.
Con: Christians must truly serve Jesus and idolize him.
Pro: Even Bible some Christians rejected Jesus before being accepted, nobody adheres to Sunday law
Con: ""Christian," isn't informed by a temporal aspect. "
Pro: Betrayal was known beforehand and still prepared for, so sins don't stop them being Christian
Con: Catholics differ from Christian, the more strict definition is superior for "Christian", (I'm not personally convinced by the Sunday law exception with her experience)
Pro: religious liberty (where did it go? lol), says con dropped all cases
Con: " popular understanding does not necessarily inform truth." (why didn't you say this before?), the difference between sub-religions is important,
Pro: UnChristian people can call themselves Christian, Jesus's specific preaching too vague, other args dropped
Con: brings up "trans religion" similar to gender vs sex, prayer has precise meaning, and pro is too inconsistent
Overall I feel like this was a back and forth that was really painful to go through, it's very clear Oromagi was arguing over semantics. I'm not convinced either side won, but I'm pretty sure con got the conduct point since oromagi claimed he thought it was a truism
Thx 4 voting, Seldiora!
I've read most of this. In a few days if no one has cast an argument vote, please remind me and I will.
Seeing so much talk of No True Scotsman, I had to look back to one of my debates which was basically on that point...
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1560-physicians-are-scientists
bsh (https://www.debate.org/debates/The-Treaty-of-Versailles-Was-Unjust/1/) knows what happens
No one knows what happens when you beat Oromagi.
of course, I understand your argument was not as extreme as "must", but it might as well have been since Oromagi was sticking to his guns all the way to the end. He stubbornly stayed with his definition while batting away yours, but you kept up with counter examples and put a lot of doubt in whether Oromagi was justified to merely say that belief is all it takes. That's why I feel like conduct is leaning towards you.
"Con: Christians must truly serve Jesus and idolize him."
Not explicitly what I stated. I stated Christians must seek to live their lives according to the principles taught by Jesus Christ. That isn't necessarily restricted to just idolization and servitude.
"Catholics differ from Christian, the more strict definition is superior for "Christian", (I'm not personally convinced by the Sunday law exception with her experience)"
It isn't a "strict" definition; it's an expanded definition using oromagi's references (i.e. wiktionary.) And I'm not a "she." And your being "personally convinced" should play no role in a vote. I cited a fact: I grew up going to church and have observed Sabbath on a Saturday. And I know thousands who did the same.
' " popular understanding does not necessarily inform truth." (why didn't you say this before?)"
I didn't have to, before. While oromagi did make mention of "popular understanding" he didn't explicitly argue that its popularity informed truth until the third round and fourth round. (Note that since Round 2, I was contradicting the notion that we were arguing over the popular understanding of Roman Catholicism.)
"Overall I feel like this was a back and forth that was really painful to go through, it's very clear Oromagi was arguing over semantics."
All arguments are semantic. Thus, we stipulate definitions before hand. The matter is whether or not we're consistent with these defined premises.
"I'm not convinced either side won, but I'm pretty sure con got the conduct point since oromagi claimed he thought it was a truism."
I'm not sure about that which constitutes the standard for conduct, but I'll go out on a limb and state that oromagi's conduct was no worse than mine.
"I feel like Christianity should be able to interpreted many ways, since religion is a blurred line."
In the interest of a rational and logically consistent exchange, one ought to judge based on that which one observes not that which one "feels." Both oromagi and I presented descriptions of Christianity, and the only question for a voter is whether each debater's argument logically and consistently extends the premises to their respective conclusions.
"You shouldn't be able to completely defile god while believing in god. That makes no sense."
I agree. That's the reason I made no such argument. I argued whether the description "Christian" applies to a religion or one whose practices undermine the teachings of Christ. I never scrutinized Catholics' belief in God; Judaists also believe in God, so belief in God couldn't be the defining factor for the description, "Christian."
Thank you for participating, seldiora.
to me, it feels like a cross-examination before or during the debate could have greatly helped, both pro and con brought up and dropped arguably equal amount of points with con barely managing to bring up the reasonable doubt in oromagi's seeming truism definition. I feel like Christianity should be able to interpreted many ways, since religion is a blurred line. You shouldn't be able to completely defile god while believing in god. That makes no sense. But for con to win, she had to PUSH for this definition with greater force. For Pro to win, he would had to shut off con in every which way, but the last round put in enough doubt for a tie overall.
full RFD:
Pro: Christianity is Christianity. People get to say their beliefs.
Con: Christians must truly serve Jesus and idolize him.
Pro: Even Bible some Christians rejected Jesus before being accepted, nobody adheres to Sunday law
Con: ""Christian," isn't informed by a temporal aspect. "
Pro: Betrayal was known beforehand and still prepared for, so sins don't stop them being Christian
Con: Catholics differ from Christian, the more strict definition is superior for "Christian", (I'm not personally convinced by the Sunday law exception with her experience)
Pro: religious liberty (where did it go? lol), says con dropped all cases
Con: " popular understanding does not necessarily inform truth." (why didn't you say this before?), the difference between sub-religions is important,
Pro: UnChristian people can call themselves Christian, Jesus's specific preaching too vague, other args dropped
Con: brings up "trans religion" similar to gender vs sex, prayer has precise meaning, and pro is too inconsistent
Overall I feel like this was a back and forth that was really painful to go through, it's very clear Oromagi was arguing over semantics. I'm not convinced either side won, but I'm pretty sure con got the conduct point since oromagi claimed he thought it was a truism
Looks like a legendary debate
Thanks, Athias. Good debate.
R5 SOURCES:
http://www.wcdebate.com/1parli/29truism.htm
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/or
http://www.wcdebate.com/1parli/29truism.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Osteen
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Amish
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury#Christianity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery#Middle_Ages
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7&version=KJV
Round Three Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifex_Maximus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chastity
R4 SOURCES:
http://www.wcdebate.com/1parli/29truism.htm
http://www.wcdebate.com/1parli/29truism.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elton_John
R3 SOURCES:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Catholic_Church
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identitarian_movement
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2022&version=KJV
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019&version=KJV
https://lifewayresearch.com/2018/12/04/most-churchgoers-see-sunday-as-sabbath/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_attendance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
R2 SOURCES:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+8%3A1-3&version=KJV
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2018:13-27&version=KJV
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesuism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
http://ccc.usccb.org/flipbooks/catechism/514/index.html
R1 SOURCES:
http://www.wcdebate.com/1parli/29truism.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Christian
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church
https://www.britannica.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion
https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prayer
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Roman_Catholicism
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Latin_Church
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Christian#Noun
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Luciferianism
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Lucifer
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Bible
Interesting approach. I'll prepare my argument.
No problem. Excellent job in outlining your stipulations. It'll make my job more difficult (as it should be.) But you did leave me some wiggle room. So whenever you're ready, we'll get started.
ok now THIS is epic
Thx, for acceptance. I look forward to an excellent debate.
SOURCES used in DESCRIPTION:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Christian#Adjective
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Christianity#Proper_noun
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_%28philosophy%29
Ooooo this should be spiccy
I thought that was truism