Athias

Reason for Decision:

This was a rather interesting debate between PRO, oromagi, and CON, Fruit_Inspector.

Now on to the reasons for my decision.

Spelling and Grammar: They were both pretty fine with regard to this aspect of the debate.

Conduct: I award no distinction in conduct under protest.

Better sources: I also awarded the better sources point to the contender. As meticulous as PRO is in providing sources, the sources are meaningless if they do not INFORM the truth of one's position. Many of the sources PRO provided fail to account for the integrity of their own information. That is, they don't provide any methodology as to how they gauged the accuracy or inaccuracy of their subject's information, much less its reliability, "trustworthiness and dependability," the objective of this debate. Some were opinion pieces (e.g. Washington Post article.) Not to mention, particularly with the POLITIFACT links, their links to the information they cited led nowhere. It led to a page which stated, "Here's a fact: You ended up in the wrong place!" PRO did not do his due diligence in verifying his own sources. The contender on the other hand, while providing fewer sources, cited information directly relevant to his argument. And upon examining his sources, there were no dead links among them. This is clearly a case of quality over quantity, so I awarded the point to the Contender, alone.

Better Arguments: Now, it is my firm belief that CON won this in the first round. And CON won this debate by citing the apparent paradox. Wikipedia itself suggests that it isn't a reliable source of information, which CON pointed out and sourced. So logically, we can only scrutinize the affirmation or negation of Wikipedia's statement. If Wikipedia is stating the truth, then Wikipedia isn't a reliable source of information at all. (CON Wins.) If Wikipedia is stating a falsehood, then Wikipedia is on some level inaccurate (weakens PRO's argument.) PRO addresses this paradox with a non sequitur, "we are comparing the relative reliability of two entities." CON does well to address this in round two when he states, "My argument is ultimately not about where Wikipedia is compared to Fox News on a scale of source reliability. My argument is ultimately that Wikipedia cannot even be categorized as a reliable source for information. It cannot even be placed on the scale of reliability because it doesn’t belong there at all." PRO continues with the non sequitur statements in Round 3 (that Wikipedia isn't a source of information at all, WHICH CON DOES NOT ARGUE,) and CON again does well to address them.

Furthermore, PRO does not do a sufficient job at all in outlining the reason BIAS =/= reliable, OBJECTIVE = reliable, ACCURACY = reliable. He defines neither objective nor bias, which for his argument bred confusion since he used the term "objective" in two different contexts (e.g. "FOX starts with a political OBJECTIVE and organizes facts to forward that goal," and "...hundreds of competing individual interest is not more likely to deliver OBJECTIVE information than state or corporate controlled sources.") PRO continued to misrepresent CON's arguments, as well as his own sources: PRO claimed that there were HUNDREDS of articles written about the inaccuracies of FOX NEWS in Round Two, but cites an NYT article about President Trump's statements about FOX NEWS, the accuracy of which were being scrutinized, not FOX NEWS itself.

To be continued...

"The whole point of debate is to try to corner your opponent. I will restate: "Docking conduct points for Oromagi cornering their opponent through debate framework is like telling a construction worker they can not use a hammer."

No. The whole point of debate is to substantiate the affirmation or negation of a proposition. "Cornering" is for pugilism.

You guys are making up your own rules. You removed my vote because it didn't "follow" voting guidelines, and now you're subjecting my vote to a standard that's not present in the guideline. Read the guideline again: "Demonstrate how this poor conduct was either excessive, unfair, OR (once again OR) in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate. That means I don't have to demonstrate that it was either "excessive" or in breech of mutually agreed upon rules. I can choose anyone of those reasons, so long as I can substantiate it. And in this case, I chose to acknowledge how "unfair" it was to predetermine the "burden of proof" since it manipulates the construction of either party's argument.

You don't have to "agree" with me, but I DID EXPLAIN my reasons. And I've seen conduct points awarded in a similar fashion.

"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."

When you stated this, was it a lie? Please explain how my award of conduct was "indisputably" in violation of CoC rules.

"As a neutral bystander that also happens to be a voting mod, if Ragnar hadn't deleted your vote, I probably would've. We were discussing whether it was worth it to remove it, (your vote has been flagged for the past 3 days) but as for your vote being a violation of voting guidelines, that much is undisputable.

Docking conduct points for Oromagi cornering their opponent through debate framework is like telling a construction worker they can not use a hammer."

Then why didn't you? The rules state that vote of conduct must demonstrate the following:

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 only thing I fell short of was explicitly comparing each of their conduct. Suffices to say, that I thought it unnecessary since oromagi in my view was the only person who exhibited this particular misconduct.

Reason for Decision (continued):

Lastly, the Contender, albeit concise, does an adept job at clarifying the onuses they each bear by the end of third Round. PRO was attempting to move the goal post by focusing on accuracy without connecting it back to either his proposition or even his own definition (i.e. "reliable.") The Contender doubles down in round 3 and let's everyone know that over which they are debating: "Which is more reliable?" And according to the definition submitted by PRO, reliable would be described as "better suit[ed] or fit to be relied on; more worthy of dependence, reliance or trust; more dependable, more trustworthy." A definition, which should be noted was taken from "Wiktionary" which shares a parent company with Wikipedia. I say that because it is reasonable to presume that Wikipedia's definition of "reliable" would also have been taken from "Wiktionary." PRO did not do a sufficient job in meeting the description of his own definition, which suggests that the sources of information would be more "trustworthy," "dependable," etc. The contender remains focused on his burden and satisfies his onus by demonstrating that Wikipedia suggests of itself that it isn't a reliable source of information at all.

Thus, the winner of this debate in my view is without doubt, Fruit_Inspector.

Reason for Decision:

This was a rather interesting debate between PRO, oromagi, and CON, Fruit_Inspector.

Now on to the reasons for my decision.

Spelling and Grammar: They were both pretty fine with regard to this aspect of the debate.

Conduct: I awarded the conduct point to the Contender because it is not PRO's prerogative to DEFINE the burden of proof. The burden of proof is determined by the proposition itself. As the one who proposed the proposition, and thereby affirm its truth, it's PRO's onus to demonstrate that Wikipedia is "a more reliable source for information than FOX NEWS." Contrary to PRO's outline, CON is not only required to demonstrate that FOX NEWS is a "more reliable source of information than Wikipedia." It's the contender's onus to either negate PRO's affirmation, or demonstrate that PRO's affirmation isn't supported by sufficient evidence. The Contender can negate the argument in three ways: (1) demonstrate that Wikipedia is as reliable as FOX NEWS, and vice versa, (2) FOX NEWS is more reliable, and (3) Wikipedia isn't reliable at all. The contender chose the third option. PRO's attempt to pigeonhole the Contender's capacity in the debate, especially with a prerogative he does not have, is a demonstration of poor conduct. It creates an UNFAIR debating environment, cuffing the approaches CON can indulge to satisfy his onus as described above. This is not like presetting definitions, which establish a uniform standard of communication. This is in essence dictating how the other party is to construct his argument. My award of conduct to the contender is not a demonstration of impolite behavior on either participant given that they were both polite toward each other. It's a reflection of debate decorum.

Better sources: I also awarded the better sources point to the contender. As meticulous as PRO is in providing sources, the sources are meaningless if they do not INFORM the truth of one's position. Many of the sources PRO provided fail to account for the integrity of their own information. That is, they don't provide any methodology as to how they gauged the accuracy or inaccuracy of their subject's information, much less its reliability, "trustworthiness and dependability," the objective of this debate. Some were opinion pieces (e.g. Washington Post article.) Not to mention, particularly with the POLITIFACT links, their links to the information they cited led nowhere. It led to a page which stated, "Here's a fact: You ended up in the wrong place!" PRO did not do his due diligence in verifying his own sources. The contender on the other hand, while providing fewer sources, cited information directly relevant to his argument. And upon examining his sources, there were no dead links among them. This is clearly a case of quality over quantity, so I awarded the point to the Contender, alone.

Better Arguments: Now, it is my firm belief that CON won this in the first round. And CON won this debate by citing the apparent paradox. Wikipedia itself suggests that it isn't a reliable source of information, which CON pointed out and sourced. So logically, we can only scrutinize the affirmation or negation of Wikipedia's statement. If Wikipedia is stating the truth, then Wikipedia isn't a reliable source of information at all. (CON Wins.) If Wikipedia is stating a falsehood, then Wikipedia is on some level inaccurate (weakens PRO's argument.) PRO addresses this paradox with a non sequitur, "we are comparing the relative reliability of two entities." CON does well to address this in round two when he states, "My argument is ultimately not about where Wikipedia is compared to Fox News on a scale of source reliability. My argument is ultimately that Wikipedia cannot even be categorized as a reliable source for information. It cannot even be placed on the scale of reliability because it doesn’t belong there at all." PRO continues with the non sequitur statements in Round 3 (that Wikipedia isn't a source of information at all, WHICH CON DOES NOT ARGUE,) and CON again does well to address them.

Furthermore, PRO does not do a sufficient job at all in outlining the reason BIAS =/= reliable, OBJECTIVE = reliable, ACCURACY = reliable. He defines neither objective nor bias, which for his argument bred confusion since he used the term "objective" in two different contexts (e.g. "FOX starts with a political OBJECTIVE and organizes facts to forward that goal," and "...hundreds of competing individual interest is not more likely to deliver OBJECTIVE information than state or corporate controlled sources.") PRO continued to misrepresent CON's arguments, as well as his own sources: PRO claimed that there were HUNDREDS of articles written about the inaccuracies of FOX NEWS in Round Two, but cites an NYT article about President Trump's statements about FOX NEWS, the accuracy of which were being scrutinized, not FOX NEWS itself.

To be continued...

So seldiora is not "100% convinced" that I was justified in awarding a point of conduct, and my vote is removed. I've had enough of your antics: I'm reporting you.

But we cannot give any debater the benefit of an "assumption." PRO is typically adept at presetting his definitions. Had he established a journalistic standard of reliability, or even just an academic one, then PRO would've had a fighting chance. Of course, pro would've had to demonstrate quantification because he's arguing that it's "more" reliable, not just reliable.

And notice in Round Three, CON was able to expand the concept of reliability by contradicting PRO's attempt to focus on "bias" and "accuracy" by claiming there was more to reliability. We cannot assume that reliability = (less) bias + (more) accuracy. Even if we did, the methodology which was used to examine both would still have to be present and substantiated.

But what is the standard of trust? Had PRO established some standard of "reliability" it would've served his onus better than delegating this presumed standard to outside parties like mediabiasfactcheck, forbes, New York Times, etc., the reliability of which haven't been estsablished themselves. Reliability is far too nebulous a concept to even attempt to measure. This was PRO's debate to lose from the beginning.

Except the subject isn't which source is 100% accurate. The degree of accuracy is not being disputed. The relation of reliability is.

The paradox doesn't turn against Con at all. If we are to take Wikipedia's statement as it is presented, then Wikipedia is reliably "unreliable." But if it is not, as you postulated, telling the truth about itself, then it weakens its credibility, which undermines its reliability. Either way, the paradox weakens PRO's instigation. It's very akin to the "liar's paradox." It was also a clever approach by CON to discredit Wikipedia as a reliable source at all. By doing so, he took Wikipedia out of any standard of "measuring" reliability. Even if PRO were successful in undermining the reliability of FOX NEWS, FOX NEWS would still be "more reliable." At best PRO could only demonstrate that FOX was equally unreliable--i.e. not reliable at all.

CON won this debate in the first round unbeknownst to PRO.

I remember several months ago that you had a topic on nearly an identical subject. I think, and I may be paraphrasing, you intended to break us all of our addiction to Wikipedia. I remember taking a slightly nuanced position against the subject--not necessarily disagreeing, but giving Wikipedia some credit for its overall structure. So I understand your reference to your public bias. And while I may not have mirrored your reasons, I do understand your approach. As for myself, I tried to focus more on the structure of the debate and its logical form (e.g. who satisfied their onus? Whose argument and sources remained relevant to affirmation/negation of the proposition? etc.) And our clearly distinct approaches provides all the more reason that the "bandwagon" characterization is completely unwarranted.

Suspect comments, especially from moderators, will always spark my attention.

"*facepalm* Largely due to Seld's change of heart, to which you should probably read #50."

Yes, but as MisterChris already delineated, it is perfectly within seldiora's discretion to "change his heart." And if you have a gripe with seldiora's vote, then address seldiora.

"I have not yet read the votes"

I figured as much.

"But again, someone inside said group stated: "It kinda does seem bandwagon" so by your logic he declared it to be a full bandwagon... Which when something known as context is applied, is clearly not what he accused himself of doing."

Introduce yourself to the definition of "seem."

"Further, as your vote is the lead, it would be impossible for you to have jumped on said bandwagon if one has occured, so quit being so dramatic."

I'm not being "dramatic." I'm calling you out on your "antics." You're tacitly attempting to insult the voting for yet to be known reasons, especially to your own admission, after not having read the RFDs. And I already know that it would be impossible for me to jump the bandwagon since my vote is the lead vote. Hence, I asked you earlier if you were questioning the integrity of fauxlaw's and seldiora's vote, not mine.

It's just a "weird" statement to throw out there without any solicitation or provocation.

""If someone tries to define a cow as an automobile or airplane for a debate, my knowledge of English goes against that, but under pure Tabula Rosa, I would have to accept that insane definition."

bruh"

Do you guys mean "Tabula Rasa"? I started looking up pink tablets. And there's no issue presetting any definitions. But the burden of proof itself cannot be defined by any participant. It's a terrible trend which this site allows. Onus probandi is always subject to the demands of the proposition, not any one debater, even the "proposer."

"There's a momentum which I am cautious about."

Why are "you" cautious about it?

"Not an accusation, I would just declare it to be a bandwagon were that the case."

It is an accusation. A tacit one. There really is no reason to bring it up. If either fauxlaw or seldiora mirrored my reasons, then that'd be understandable. But they don't.

"Ultimately, my main intent upon seeing this, to bump, but also make some small note of the voting score (one really rare for oro)."

Then what is the "bandwagon"? Our voting against the favor of oromagi? The debate is not about that. Believe it or not, any one person here can "win," and I use that term loosely, a debate. Just as anyone can "lose" one. Fauxlaw was correct in stating that this was not orogami's best subject to tackle. Oromagi's strength is in laying out his premises and sourcing them accordingly. How does one source for "reliability"? Fruit_Inspector stuck to his proverbial guns and kept his arguments relevant to the resolution of the debate's proposition. And it's for that reason, this "momentum" has shifted away from oromagi--not that it should be placed with him since all new debates are essentially blank slates.

Read the arguments Ragnar, and the read the RFD's before levying unwarranted characterizations.

Yeah, but presumably, he did not witness your "change of heart." On what basis is he a presuming a "bandwagon" effect? Fauxlaw's RFD is starkly different from mine, and yours while including our names (for some reason?) is different from mine and fauxlaw's. So what is the bandwagon?

No, this is just a tacit attempt to insult the voting while simultaneously claiming oblivion in order distance himself from said attempt.

I know. And I'll make sure to highlight that distinction.

Good argument. I'll address the argument some time later tonight, or some time later tomorrow.

Why would you insinuate some "bandwagon" effect? Are you questioning the integrity of fauxlaw's and seldiora's vote? Have you read through our votes? Have you even read the arguments? That's just a "weird" statement to make.

If either of you believe that I was unfair in my RFD, please notify me. I'll be happy to discuss it with you further.

I would never engage in "revenge" voting. Oromagi, in our Catholic Church debate did nothing wrong. [My only contention was with Ragnar's vote.] I know you jest, but I'd like to limit any unwarranted consideration of that notion. And suffices to say, my RFD should quell any doubt that I examined both of their arguments carefully, and in my fashion, provided a long response.

And Fruit_Inspector shouldn't "miraculously" win this debate. He did win this debate, regardless of the voting. In actuality, your vote makes little sense. You presumed the same non sequitur that oromagi did, and you judged it more like a wrestling match than an actual debate. Any voter who maintains the consistency and rules of logic will see the same thing I saw: Fruit_Inspector won, oromagi lost.

Reason for Decision (continued):

Lastly, the Contender, albeit concise, does an adept job at clarifying the onuses they each bear by the end of third Round. PRO was attempting to move the goal post by focusing on accuracy without connecting it back to either his proposition or even his own definition (i.e. "reliable.") The Contender doubles down in round 3 and let's everyone know that over which they are debating: "Which is more reliable?" And according to the definition submitted by PRO, reliable would be described as "better suit[ed] or fit to be relied on; more worthy of dependence, reliance or trust; more dependable, more trustworthy." A definition, which should be noted was taken from "Wiktionary" which shares a parent company with Wikipedia. I say that because it is reasonable to presume that Wikipedia's definition of "reliable" would also have been taken from "Wiktionary." PRO did not do a sufficient job in meeting the description of his own definition, which suggests that the sources of information would be more "trustworthy," "dependable," etc. The contender remains focused on his burden and satisfies his onus by demonstrating that Wikipedia suggests of itself that it isn't a reliable source of information at all.

Thus, the winner of this debate in my view is without doubt, Fruit_Inspector.

Reason for Decision:

This was a rather interesting debate between PRO, oromagi, and CON, Fruit_Inspector.

Now on to the reasons for my decision.

Spelling and Grammar: They were both pretty fine with regard to this aspect of the debate.

Conduct: I awarded the conduct point to the Contender because it is not PRO's prerogative to DEFINE the burden of proof. The burden of proof is determined by the proposition itself. As the one who proposed the proposition, and thereby affirm its truth, it's PRO's onus to demonstrate that Wikipedia is "a more reliable source for information than FOX NEWS." Contrary to PRO's outline, CON is not only required to demonstrate that FOX NEWS is a "more reliable source of information than Wikipedia." It's the contender's onus to either negate PRO's affirmation, or demonstrate that PRO's affirmation isn't supported by sufficient evidence. The Contender can negate the argument in three ways: (1) demonstrate that Wikipedia is as reliable as FOX NEWS, and vice versa, (2) FOX NEWS is more reliable, and (3) Wikipedia isn't reliable at all. The contender chose the third option. PRO's attempt to pigeonhole the Contender's capacity in the debate, especially with a prerogative he does not have, is a demonstration of poor conduct.

Better sources: I also awarded the better sources point to the contender. As meticulous as PRO is in providing sources, the sources are meaningless if they do not INFORM the truth of one's position. Many of the sources PRO provided fail to account for the integrity of their own information. That is, they don't provide any methodology as to how they gauged the accuracy or inaccuracy of their subject's information, much less its reliability, "trustworthiness and dependability," the objective of this debate. Some were opinion pieces (e.g. Washington Post article.) Not to mention, particularly with the POLITIFACT links, their links to the information they cited led nowhere. It led to a page which stated, "Here's a fact: You ended up in the wrong place!" PRO did not do his due diligence in verifying his own sources. The contender on the other hand, while providing fewer sources, cited information directly relevant to his argument. And upon examining his sources, there were no dead links among them. This is clearly a case of quality over quantity, so I awarded the point to the Contender, alone.

Better Arguments: Now, it is my firm belief that CON won this in the first round. And CON won this debate by citing the apparent paradox. Wikipedia itself suggests that it isn't a reliable source of information, which CON pointed out and sourced. So logically, we can only scrutinize the affirmation or negation of Wikipedia's statement. If Wikipedia is stating the truth, then Wikipedia isn't a reliable source of information at all. (CON Wins.) If Wikipedia is stating a falsehood, then Wikipedia is on some level inaccurate (weakens PRO's argument.) PRO addresses this paradox with a non sequitur, "we are comparing the relative reliability of two entities." CON does well to address this in round two when he states, "My argument is ultimately not about where Wikipedia is compared to Fox News on a scale of source reliability. My argument is ultimately that Wikipedia cannot even be categorized as a reliable source for information. It cannot even be placed on the scale of reliability because it doesn’t belong there at all." PRO continues with the non sequitur statements in Round 3 (that Wikipedia isn't a source of information at all, WHICH CON DOES NOT ARGUE,) and CON again does well to address them.

Furthermore, PRO does not do a sufficient job at all in outlining the reason BIAS =/= reliable, OBJECTIVE = reliable, ACCURACY = reliable. He defines neither objective nor bias, which for his argument bred confusion since he used the term "objective" in two different contexts (e.g. "FOX starts with a political OBJECTIVE and organizes facts to forward that goal," and "...hundreds of competing individual interest is not more likely to deliver OBJECTIVE information than state or corporate controlled sources.") PRO continued to misrepresent CON's arguments, as well as his own sources: PRO claimed that there were HUNDREDS of articles written about the inaccuracies of FOX NEWS in Round Two, but cites an NYT article about President Trump's statements about FOX NEWS, the accuracy of which were being scrutinized, not FOX NEWS itself.

To be continued...

I'm sorry I didn't see this in time. But I'll be watching over your debate to see which arguments are made.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

.....

"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.

"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.

"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.

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.

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.

"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.

"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.

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.)

"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.

"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.

"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.

Round Three Sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifex_Maximus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chastity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prayer