Someone remind me at the end, and I’ll make a wiki page in this, in large part to put the arguments into proper order.
Oh and Lancealot, not required by any means, but to make things easier on readers, the link to pro’s R1 is https://www.debateart.com/debates/6075/comments/63600
As a moderator, I find it is often needed (just consider the spam bots) even if it would be better if people were better and thus did not need to be censored.
He's the only one most people have heard of, so there might not be a challenger. If not, try changing the resolution to world leader (to which I'd say he needs to be in the top five).
I wrote it because I’ve seen it happen to too many times. Multiple of the examples were not hypothetical, but rather straight from things I’ve seen in the last year. There’s a Reptilian Heuristic page which has another personal account of that fallacy.
I did a writeup on this debate (heavily AI assisted, so apologies for any errors):
https://debate.miraheze.org/wiki/THB_in_the_Efficacy_of_Gender_Affirming_Care
The following vote has been reported:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/5926-one-should-believe-in-and-practice-the-direct-inverse-of-everything-christians-believe-in-and-practice?open_tab=votes&votes_page=1&vote_number=1
It has supporting information at:
#10 https://www.debateart.com/debates/5926/comments/62827
#18 https://www.debateart.com/debates/5926/comments/62879
In general, votes need not be perfect. Heck in my own vote I mislabeled pro as con at one point (context was still obvious IMO, but still a flaw).
If you want to formally report any vote, click the three dots next to the vote number to open the menu with report being probably the only option. As I voted on this debate, I'd prefer it if whiteflame reviewed any vote (you can also tag him and state that you are reporting whatever vote).
Speaking of which, my vote has been reported, so I need to message him or tag him in a comment (he checks the report log sometimes, but should my vote be removed I'd like to have the time to reread the debate and revote).
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Americandebater24 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 7 to pro.
>Reason for Decision: Full forfeit on Cons part.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote has been removed to enable them to revote at their discretion.
**************************************************
I did a little experiment using this debate:
https://debate.miraheze.org/wiki/Direct_Inversion_of_Christianity_(Tiered)
This was created with ChatGPT, with only minimal input from me (mostly formatting, and the ever annoying need to tell it that quotes must be direct quotes rather than paraphrases).
As someone who read the debate, it's cool to see the differences in where such a tool focuses.
I think I was pretty clear, but a couple pieces were a little implicit, so…
1. I’m one of the most active voters.
2. I consider the definitions in the description to be a type of Scarecrow Argument (but there are other fallacies it could soundly be called), rather than valid definitions from any authority.
3. Because the description is so ingenuine, I will not dogmatically obey it in my vote.
You will still likely win. However, if your argument consists of pointing to the fallacies you put into the description instead of offering sound reasoning, your case will be crippled by it.
I'm going to get a jump start on this debate (while both have the opportunity to incorporate any feedback if they so desire).
Right off the start, that description should really give a scope statement. Like everything Christians believe and practice, is both broad and self contradictory due to the many branches of Christianity and the far wider number of Christians themselves (I don't yet know if either raises the point that Christian does not equal Christianity as a whole or the bible). Also qualifier word "direct" in the title significantly raises BoP (without it there'd be a wider range that would meet the BoP)
R1: Pro
I assume pro meets their basic BoP unless challenged.
Theism VS Atheism:
Pro is actually wrong to call this an Ad Hominem. It is however an obvious Scarecrow Argument, which risks being a Phantom Argument.
https://debate.miraheze.org/wiki/Scarecrow_Argument
Appeal to authority VS genuine compassion:
Bad start, but then "The Bible supports slavery, genocide, burning "witches" at the stake, stoning faggots etc. " is a solid point, as much as a source would have been fantastic to back up that the bible does those things which it doesn't really do (I have an open mind, and can consider this point won if unchallenged or unsuccessfully challenged; but I'll still call out errors).
Hating pleasure VS hedonism:
"Suffering is treated as a virtue while pleasure is treated as evil in Christianity" if unchallenged, this is a great argument; and actually one you could have backed up with biblical sources.
Continuing on feels like reading a Gish Gallop; it reduces the impact of the individual points, as it makes me more inclined to think of them as a single contention rather than a nuanced set of them.
...
R1 con:
Con hits hard and keeps nailing in from "Pro characterizes that religion as a single entity when, in fact, Christianity has some 200 separate denominations just in the U.S."
He even brings up an interesting point that it would be impossible to do the opposite of such a wide set of beliefs.
“do unto others…” while using it to compare Christianity to another religion, raises the point of something which people intuitively should not reject (I'd have liked to see that part of it more in focus). He does come back to this a little later adding "being humble, forgiving, and generous" as values in Christianity one ought to not do the opposite of.
Oh a call for sources, great to see that! Pro may actually deliver, but it creates a great falsifiability moment.
...
R2 pro:
"different denominations share core beliefs and values. " a mild moving of the goalposts, but it fits the themes of the debate enough to have validity.
The return to the Gish Gallop is actually painful... Maybe were it presented here as a numbered list it'd be less bad, but the way it's offered it's be better to just say "extend all arguments from my previous round," and thematically explain why they still hold weight (instead of individually).
I did not initially catch it due to the potty mouth, but "The opposite of Christianity is veganism" is a pretty good point due to the inclusion of "heart disease."
"This isn't even relevant since I'm not a Muslim" leaves the core do unto others bit unchallenged... Ah, God doesn't obey it in the bible isn't the worst point (but kinda misses the point of if those words inspire good actions from Christians or not)
Oh damn, I did not expect to see any sources from pro. Great job! Cherry picked evidence in all, but I'll count it (without these sources would have surely gone to con, but now I'll leave them in the tied range).
Basically this site works differently than just about all of the others. Two people go head to head in each debate. Others I've seen are more like a list of points made by every random person, without any conclusion.
If it can’t be resolved, it would be good conduct to for you to post a link to his comments post in your next round. The proper link is: https://www.debateart.com/debates/5926/comments/62809
This is of course not required. You may argue however you’d like. Some voters will probably discount it for being posted wrong; but I believe in the spirit of fairness.
>Reported Vote: MAV99 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 7 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Quite obviously this is a rare example of a true vote bomb. Please review the voting standards before casting future votes
To cast a sufficient vote, for each category awarded, a voter must explicitly perform the following tasks:
(1) Provide specific references to each side’s utilization within the said category.
(2) Weigh the impacts against each other, including if any precluded others.
(3) Explain the decision within the greater context of the debate.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#casting-votes
**************************************************
Pro very effectively demonstrated in R1, using Scripture and reasoning to show a distinction in persons. Especially with his main body. Con then brings in other references that seem to point out a univocality in God which Pro in R2 effectively answered with:
"Although the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share one divine nature, they remain truly distinct Persons." Using the word "nature" here pretty much sealed the debate as it is a term of universality meaning it is said of many things and also "person" which is a term of particularity. That is in accordance with basic rules of logic and definitions.
While Con does seem to have a decent grasp of scripture, it seems to me he is confusing "Holy Spirit" with "holy and spiritual". Those two phrases refer to different things. Also his whole:
"So you read about the spirit interceding and your understanding is .....well there has to be two because that's the only way it "makes sense" to me." is rather undermining Con since he is trying to do the same thing. It would be unreasonable to simply read the words at face value and leave it at that without using our God-given reason to delve into it.
Initial thoughts... Need to go get breakfast, but I expect I'll get back to this debate at some point before voting ends.
---
First of all, sources... It's very very difficult to win sources on biblical debates, because I literally wrote into the rules that discussing the topic itself does not equate to winning sources. However, citing the bible is likely to indicate a strong argument... Conversely, , the lack of a biblical foundation may harm arguments for either side.
Conduct: Using the wrong citation could be an innocent mistake, so not automatically deducting for that. That said, it's one that could easily be leveraged to undermine their argument (writing this as I read, so haven't seen how well he utilizes the correct version yet). That said, the grasping at straws of the dispute over the rules makes it harder for me to take arguments seriously.
R1:
Pro is able to give examples of the Holy Spirit being sent as an agent of the other guys, which indeed strongly implies a distinction.
Con argues in a well done example of circular reasoning: "My position doesn't contain the concept or doctrine of a person, persons or personhood or personalities. It's just , Holy Spirit being Father God period." He also argues it doesn't explicitly state that they are not the same person ("We can't find any where in scripture that the Father is one person, Holy Spirit is another.") therefore they must be.
Moderator here... I thought I had already addressed this...
So the rule is:
"Multi-accounting and any action indistinguishable from it is prohibited. Dispensation may be granted on a case-by-case basis, such as for multiple users within a single residence; but they will have certain restrictions applied (e.g., never voting on each other’s debates)."
That said, we give the benefit of doubt so long as there's no signs of exploitative intent. Exploits would be things like if you keep debating each other but one kept intentionally losing to boost the others rating, or if you two voted on each others debaters (which was a huge problem back in the day, and literally caused the need for the no multi-account rule). But so long as nothing bad like those occur, we in the moderation team will trust that you're just good friends.
My mind goes to deep regulation, but with some limited legal avenues. This of course doesn’t feel like either side of the debate, but instead a third option to the dilemma.
I know this wasn't much of a debate, but even the lowest hanging fruit needs to comment on something not completely generic about the debate to imply you read it.
Your vote is removed, but you may revote at any time.
MAV99
01.17.2025 06:27PM
Con arguments is better psychologically speaking.
---RFD---
con argues dreams are due to biology and stimuli, such as being able to be manipulated (presumably, without the researcher manipulating any god or gods).
"experience is not evidence" technically it's just very weak evidence, known as antidotal. Still, good point.
Pro does an immediate gambit at the start with a word dump... I strongly advise separating paragraphs in future.
Pro's states he will argue dreams "are not merely products of the brain but can be divine in nature, carrying spiritual meaning and purpose."
One says they're chemistry, the other says they're a gift or curse from the divine... As a voter, I'm going to treat this issue as on balance; or to say victory goes to the most and most likely.
---
Pro moves on to describe three separate types of dreams. One comes from a god, the other comes another god, and the third comes from man. This immediately begs the question of how to tell any of them apart (as con calls it, bridge the gap in that seeming contradiction); but I will treat either of the first two as spiritual if they can be proven.
Pro says holy books say dreams are divine and/or spiritual.
Con of course gives the obvious counter that other religions exist (it's strong, but not quite as strong as he would like it to be, since pro's writeup included more than one god).
Pro gives a personal accounting... A dream featuring a horse cart, which prevented him from dying of a heart attack or something worse than dying of a heart attack... I am not believing that pro believes this.
Con challenges that this interpretation is pure speculation.
Pro attempts to hand wave away pro's case, by reiterating parts of his own. This is sometimes merited, but we really need a mechanism to differentiate man-made dreams from others if this is to hold water (and just that all true dreams will be remembered doesn't do this so long as others are remembered too).
Rebuttal 4 (the hypotheses are not mutually exclusive) was almost good; it just fell back on the appeal to false authority of holy books. In this note, the mud example was quite effective in affirming that said authority is false; and this was further bolstered with the sources for dreams predating Islam (as unsoun
As con summarizes: "Pro's argument fails to show how the supposed gap between the psychological understanding of dreams and their potential spiritual significance is bridged."
The problem here is that this
A minor disagreement I am left with for con is his re-review of the single dream in question, and statements that it wouldn’t count even if it did accurately and measurably predict the future. That would be the type of proof a scientist would look for to connect dreams to the super
—-
Concerning allegations of misconduct… I am not spotting anything con is doing to force how pro argues, merely requests to add real warrants to his case in whatever form they take.
I have not reviewed the comment section, but at a breif glance it looks needlessly dramatic (if anyone bugs me I’ll review it, but to keep my head clear and on the main arguments, I’m not prioritizing it).
—-
Sources lean to con, but not by enough. This is in part because I believe in scaling the difficulty (if I gave pro arguments, the better sources from con would easily carry it to his favor; but he’s already getting arguments, so it’s a steeper hill to get a further two points).
—-
Legibility (S&G) is pretty clearly in the tied range. I can give a little advice to pro, but to lose the point someone would have to distract me from the debate with atrocities against the alphabet.
—-
PS: Marvin is clearly a vampire, but I am not finding the evidence convincing that he is also rich (logically valid, but indeed an unsound stereotype).
FYI, your vote needed a bit more detail; even while I see how such a blunder can shift everything. Even just a short analysis of how that was then leveraged would improve things significantly (the debate is already over, so it doesn't matter too much, just thoughts for future votes).
Here is the start to a writeup. Stopped early in R3.
---RFD draft---
I appreciate the clean opening, which really let me know where pro was coming from.
DT:
Pro argues Trump has already accomplished the limit of what he wishes.
Con counters that Trump's history of which douches to appoint to the supreme court have impacted abortion policy, and he's a puppet-master who is likely to continue such efforts.
Pro doubles down that Trump has given his word that he will push the issue no further.
Con points out that Trump achieved bans well in excess of what he claimed he wanted.
Pro says Trump passed it to others to do for him... Which misses the fact that he set the goal and got it done; which is perhaps even worse since it's in the hands of crazies no longer in his control.
KH :
Pro argues that her get rid of filibusters would harm women's rights.
Con exploits to filibuster argument for much the above.
Pro argues that democrats too can bypass filibusters,
Con gives an example of when McConnell massively abused the system (implicit in this is the humor of him later mocking how stupid someone would have to be to go along with that type of crap).
Practicality:
Pro makes a comeback with the point "it would be unwise to prioritize abortion over other issues like the economy, foreign affairs, border security, etc" which I see likely ways it will be dismantled, but it also shows quick refinement to arguments.
Con takes the opportunity to make the point (really about Trump, but could be applied to others) "Voters understand that the wrong president can exacerbate these trends or appoint justices who entrench them further. Claiming legislative inertia is a defense of inaction reflects a failure to grasp the stakes and urgency of the issue." This is particularly well played, as it is not dismissing pro's reasoning, but showcasing why abortion is a major issue for so many, which doesn't even need to be upheld for single issue voting (I'd say within top five for the spirit of the thing).
Pro argues it's better to think about what a candidate will actually get done... But that's a poor opening for a round given what was just shown of Trump's accompolishments in excess of his words (reminds me of the phone ringing in the whitehouse at night ad, it was a better point for the other side).
OUCH:
"Your argument reads like someone trying to downplay the fire in their neighbor’s house because their own lawn needs mowing." Nice job rephrasing the BLM vs ALM meme. A bit far, but not nearly enough to cost conduct.
I had ChatGPT do a review of this debate, how far off is it?
---
The debate titled "The Catholic Church is infallible" on DebateArt.com features CatholicApologetics advocating for the Church's infallibility (Pro) and Savant challenging this position (Con).
Pro's Arguments:
Biblical Foundation: Pro asserts that Jesus granted the Apostles and their successors the authority to teach without error on matters of faith and morals, citing passages such as Matthew 28:19-20 and John 16:13.
Apostolic Succession: Emphasizing an unbroken line from the Apostles to current Church leaders, Pro argues this continuity ensures the preservation of true doctrine.
Historical Consistency: Pro references early Church Fathers, like St. Clement of Rome and St. Irenaeus of Lyons, who supported the concept of apostolic succession and authoritative teaching.
Con's Arguments:
Scriptural Contradictions: Con challenges the interpretation of key biblical texts, suggesting they do not support the notion of an infallible teaching authority.
Historical Discrepancies: Con points to instances where Church teachings have evolved or contradicted earlier positions, questioning the claim of unerring doctrine.
Theological Concerns: Con raises issues about the implications of infallibility, such as the potential suppression of individual conscience and the dynamic nature of understanding divine revelation.
Key Points of Contention:
Interpretation of Scripture: Both debaters present differing readings of biblical texts, debating whether they endorse an infallible Church authority.
Historical Continuity vs. Change: The discussion delves into whether doctrinal developments over centuries undermine the claim of infallibility or represent a deeper understanding of faith.
Authority and Individual Conscience: The debate touches on the balance between institutional authority and personal interpretation in matters of faith.
Conclusion:
This debate offers a comprehensive examination of the Catholic Church's claim to infallibility, with both participants presenting well-researched arguments. Readers interested in theology, Church history, and biblical interpretation will find the discussion insightful.
>Reported Vote: Americandebater24 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
While arguments could do with a little more detail, they are at worst borderline (which would not result in vote deletion).
Sources on the other hand fall into the trap of one side having more, which while indicative of good things, falls short of the standard.
Sources are optional and if awarded require a strong quality lead. Sources go to the side that better supported their case with relevant outside evidence and/or analysis thereof. If both sides have done their research due diligence, these points are usually tied.
A side with unreliable sources may be penalized, but the voter must specify why the sources were unreliable enough to diminish their own case (such as if the other side called attention to the flaws, thereby engaging with sources in a more effective manner with impacts to arguments; thereby flipping the source and harming the opposing argument).
**************************************************
Americandebater24
12.10.2024 06:21PM
This was an interesting debate. but my vote goes to Con for several reasons. The first reason is that I believe Con did an excellent job of pointing out that the catholic church has a great number of contradictory teachings. Con also correctly asserts that it is the pro's job to establish infallibility beyond a reasonable doubt. Pro tries to make a good argument by citing that Jesus made promises and that the catholic church is under a "principle of divine protection of err." Unfortunately, Pro never establishes this to be a fact. Plus, as Con rightly pointed out, authority is not the same thing as infallibility.
For Pro to have won this debate, they would have had to have shown that the Catholic Church has never been wrong even one time in its history. Not only does Pro fail to do that, but that would also go against Catholic teachings that dictate all humans are fallible by nature. I further appreciate that Pro tried to make a rational argument by differentiating Personal error from error in doctrines, but that is nothing more than a typical tactic for a losing argument. You cannot get out of examples of error by the church by saying it was the person's flaws and not the teachings. If the doctrine is flawless, it will be error-free no matter who is teaching it.
I am also awarding Con the more reliable sources votes because while both sides primarily use bible sources, Con has at least provided some non-biblical sources to their arguments which offers a more reliable and diverse perspective.
I might be the last true hopeless romantic, and even I'll wholly agree that it matters. The degree that it matters is debatable, but not that it matters at all.
Phantom of the Opera for example is a tragedy because in French culture she had no choice, the cat murderer was traditionally handsome so she had to go with him.
I do use the 7 point voting paradigm. Conduct is worth 1 point, and can override other allotments, but is not guaranteed to do so.
Legibility:
When conversing online, break stuff into separate lines. Wall of text is horrible, even when not lengthy.
Double line breaks are rarely a bad option (this would have done well with a single).
Arguments:
"profiting off of slavery" this point from pro was actually well executed in R1, even while the subtlety of it would go over the heads of most.
"entrepreneurial encouragement plans" was interesting. It borders on a kritik, but is good to toss in there that there would be more effective ways to uplift people. Con's counter "infrastructure typically helps only the lowest rungs, meaning that the middle chunk is left completely un-aided" this is self defating, since it's the lowest which are in need of help.
"on July 29, 2008, the U.S. House of Representatives passed HR. 194, a resolution apologizing for slavery and the subsequent discriminatory laws against African Americans"
Not quite sure how that fixes anything, and it's weirdly recent if all the problems went away 150 years ago.
Pro's overall theme is that reparations would be giving in to the very racism it's supposed to be counteracting
Con gets off to a bad start with accusing pro of being emotional. Way too much time gets wasted on this. And pathos appeals are still appeals.
But we swiftly gets into how it could be done in a done racist manner by taxing everyone (that needs to be built out more)... This: "We have to build the base of the pyramid before we place the capstone, so to speak." with a couple sources added would have done it perfectly.
"You refuse to recognize that African Americans are still disadvantaged by the ripples of slavery" a link on generational wealth would have carried the day.
"I also think that unicorns should be created and Teddy Roosevelt should be brought back to life for another term." My favorite line of the debate. Teddy Roosevelt in particular (my favorite shirt brant is RSVLTS).
...
Both argued over who were the real slave owners... Either the very wealthy and evil elite, or the founding fathers and other very wealthy elites (plus every farm owner... which again, I keep saying give links because certain claims are pretty doubtful; slaves were expensive for starters). Con does well here near the end with the reminder of slavery laying the groundwork for this country: "as a third of the southern white population owned them and all of America got cheap goods from them"
Someone remind me at the end, and I’ll make a wiki page in this, in large part to put the arguments into proper order.
Oh and Lancealot, not required by any means, but to make things easier on readers, the link to pro’s R1 is https://www.debateart.com/debates/6075/comments/63600
Fair point. It reminds me of common definitions of what rights should be (effectively limited just by when their abuse infringes upon others).
Aside from bots, there are other things that require intervention. A married couple with a nude profile picture for example (yes, this happened).
In case it hasn’t been said, they’re there to limit the number of unqualified white men given jobs over better qualified diverse people.
There are also incentives, such as veterans get discriminated against so the government gives incentives to hire them.
A rare recovery in this topic!
As a moderator, I find it is often needed (just consider the spam bots) even if it would be better if people were better and thus did not need to be censored.
This will be an easy victory for someone
Tough topic. Good to see both sides doing a good job.
He's the only one most people have heard of, so there might not be a challenger. If not, try changing the resolution to world leader (to which I'd say he needs to be in the top five).
https://debate.miraheze.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
I wrote it because I’ve seen it happen to too many times. Multiple of the examples were not hypothetical, but rather straight from things I’ve seen in the last year. There’s a Reptilian Heuristic page which has another personal account of that fallacy.
Reminds me of this fallacy:
https://debate.miraheze.org/wiki/Retro_Hoc_Propter_Ex_Futuro
That said, it’s a fun hypothetical
I created a writeup on this debate:
https://debate.miraheze.org/wiki/Personhood_Begins_at_Conception
I did a writeup on this debate (heavily AI assisted, so apologies for any errors):
https://debate.miraheze.org/wiki/THB_in_the_Efficacy_of_Gender_Affirming_Care
A statement like that should probably be qualified in the description. Like ranked within the bottom five.
*nor
Nice opening argument. IMO you’ve reached the point that until counter biblical evidence is provided, you can just point to your existing case.
The following vote has been reported:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/5926-one-should-believe-in-and-practice-the-direct-inverse-of-everything-christians-believe-in-and-practice?open_tab=votes&votes_page=1&vote_number=1
It has supporting information at:
#10 https://www.debateart.com/debates/5926/comments/62827
#18 https://www.debateart.com/debates/5926/comments/62879
In general, votes need not be perfect. Heck in my own vote I mislabeled pro as con at one point (context was still obvious IMO, but still a flaw).
If you want to formally report any vote, click the three dots next to the vote number to open the menu with report being probably the only option. As I voted on this debate, I'd prefer it if whiteflame reviewed any vote (you can also tag him and state that you are reporting whatever vote).
Speaking of which, my vote has been reported, so I need to message him or tag him in a comment (he checks the report log sometimes, but should my vote be removed I'd like to have the time to reread the debate and revote).
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Americandebater24 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 7 to pro.
>Reason for Decision: Full forfeit on Cons part.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote has been removed to enable them to revote at their discretion.
**************************************************
FYI, con had technical difficulties and posted his rounds in the comment section.
I did a little experiment using this debate:
https://debate.miraheze.org/wiki/Direct_Inversion_of_Christianity_(Tiered)
This was created with ChatGPT, with only minimal input from me (mostly formatting, and the ever annoying need to tell it that quotes must be direct quotes rather than paraphrases).
As someone who read the debate, it's cool to see the differences in where such a tool focuses.
I think I was pretty clear, but a couple pieces were a little implicit, so…
1. I’m one of the most active voters.
2. I consider the definitions in the description to be a type of Scarecrow Argument (but there are other fallacies it could soundly be called), rather than valid definitions from any authority.
3. Because the description is so ingenuine, I will not dogmatically obey it in my vote.
You will still likely win. However, if your argument consists of pointing to the fallacies you put into the description instead of offering sound reasoning, your case will be crippled by it.
Another bump a day or two ago would have been nice. Just saw this now, and there's not nearly enough time to properly review and vote on it.
As a voter, I will not be obeying the Scarecrow Arguments (aka strawman) in the description.
I'm going to get a jump start on this debate (while both have the opportunity to incorporate any feedback if they so desire).
Right off the start, that description should really give a scope statement. Like everything Christians believe and practice, is both broad and self contradictory due to the many branches of Christianity and the far wider number of Christians themselves (I don't yet know if either raises the point that Christian does not equal Christianity as a whole or the bible). Also qualifier word "direct" in the title significantly raises BoP (without it there'd be a wider range that would meet the BoP)
R1: Pro
I assume pro meets their basic BoP unless challenged.
Theism VS Atheism:
Pro is actually wrong to call this an Ad Hominem. It is however an obvious Scarecrow Argument, which risks being a Phantom Argument.
https://debate.miraheze.org/wiki/Scarecrow_Argument
Appeal to authority VS genuine compassion:
Bad start, but then "The Bible supports slavery, genocide, burning "witches" at the stake, stoning faggots etc. " is a solid point, as much as a source would have been fantastic to back up that the bible does those things which it doesn't really do (I have an open mind, and can consider this point won if unchallenged or unsuccessfully challenged; but I'll still call out errors).
Hating pleasure VS hedonism:
"Suffering is treated as a virtue while pleasure is treated as evil in Christianity" if unchallenged, this is a great argument; and actually one you could have backed up with biblical sources.
Continuing on feels like reading a Gish Gallop; it reduces the impact of the individual points, as it makes me more inclined to think of them as a single contention rather than a nuanced set of them.
...
R1 con:
Con hits hard and keeps nailing in from "Pro characterizes that religion as a single entity when, in fact, Christianity has some 200 separate denominations just in the U.S."
He even brings up an interesting point that it would be impossible to do the opposite of such a wide set of beliefs.
“do unto others…” while using it to compare Christianity to another religion, raises the point of something which people intuitively should not reject (I'd have liked to see that part of it more in focus). He does come back to this a little later adding "being humble, forgiving, and generous" as values in Christianity one ought to not do the opposite of.
Oh a call for sources, great to see that! Pro may actually deliver, but it creates a great falsifiability moment.
...
R2 pro:
"different denominations share core beliefs and values. " a mild moving of the goalposts, but it fits the themes of the debate enough to have validity.
The return to the Gish Gallop is actually painful... Maybe were it presented here as a numbered list it'd be less bad, but the way it's offered it's be better to just say "extend all arguments from my previous round," and thematically explain why they still hold weight (instead of individually).
I did not initially catch it due to the potty mouth, but "The opposite of Christianity is veganism" is a pretty good point due to the inclusion of "heart disease."
"This isn't even relevant since I'm not a Muslim" leaves the core do unto others bit unchallenged... Ah, God doesn't obey it in the bible isn't the worst point (but kinda misses the point of if those words inspire good actions from Christians or not)
Oh damn, I did not expect to see any sources from pro. Great job! Cherry picked evidence in all, but I'll count it (without these sources would have surely gone to con, but now I'll leave them in the tied range).
Basically this site works differently than just about all of the others. Two people go head to head in each debate. Others I've seen are more like a list of points made by every random person, without any conclusion.
If it can’t be resolved, it would be good conduct to for you to post a link to his comments post in your next round. The proper link is: https://www.debateart.com/debates/5926/comments/62809
This is of course not required. You may argue however you’d like. Some voters will probably discount it for being posted wrong; but I believe in the spirit of fairness.
>Reported Vote: MAV99 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 7 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Quite obviously this is a rare example of a true vote bomb. Please review the voting standards before casting future votes
To cast a sufficient vote, for each category awarded, a voter must explicitly perform the following tasks:
(1) Provide specific references to each side’s utilization within the said category.
(2) Weigh the impacts against each other, including if any precluded others.
(3) Explain the decision within the greater context of the debate.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#casting-votes
**************************************************
This was pretty clearly a win for Pro.
Pro very effectively demonstrated in R1, using Scripture and reasoning to show a distinction in persons. Especially with his main body. Con then brings in other references that seem to point out a univocality in God which Pro in R2 effectively answered with:
"Although the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share one divine nature, they remain truly distinct Persons." Using the word "nature" here pretty much sealed the debate as it is a term of universality meaning it is said of many things and also "person" which is a term of particularity. That is in accordance with basic rules of logic and definitions.
While Con does seem to have a decent grasp of scripture, it seems to me he is confusing "Holy Spirit" with "holy and spiritual". Those two phrases refer to different things. Also his whole:
"So you read about the spirit interceding and your understanding is .....well there has to be two because that's the only way it "makes sense" to me." is rather undermining Con since he is trying to do the same thing. It would be unreasonable to simply read the words at face value and leave it at that without using our God-given reason to delve into it.
Initial thoughts... Need to go get breakfast, but I expect I'll get back to this debate at some point before voting ends.
---
First of all, sources... It's very very difficult to win sources on biblical debates, because I literally wrote into the rules that discussing the topic itself does not equate to winning sources. However, citing the bible is likely to indicate a strong argument... Conversely, , the lack of a biblical foundation may harm arguments for either side.
Conduct: Using the wrong citation could be an innocent mistake, so not automatically deducting for that. That said, it's one that could easily be leveraged to undermine their argument (writing this as I read, so haven't seen how well he utilizes the correct version yet). That said, the grasping at straws of the dispute over the rules makes it harder for me to take arguments seriously.
R1:
Pro is able to give examples of the Holy Spirit being sent as an agent of the other guys, which indeed strongly implies a distinction.
Con argues in a well done example of circular reasoning: "My position doesn't contain the concept or doctrine of a person, persons or personhood or personalities. It's just , Holy Spirit being Father God period." He also argues it doesn't explicitly state that they are not the same person ("We can't find any where in scripture that the Father is one person, Holy Spirit is another.") therefore they must be.
Moderator here... I thought I had already addressed this...
So the rule is:
"Multi-accounting and any action indistinguishable from it is prohibited. Dispensation may be granted on a case-by-case basis, such as for multiple users within a single residence; but they will have certain restrictions applied (e.g., never voting on each other’s debates)."
That said, we give the benefit of doubt so long as there's no signs of exploitative intent. Exploits would be things like if you keep debating each other but one kept intentionally losing to boost the others rating, or if you two voted on each others debaters (which was a huge problem back in the day, and literally caused the need for the no multi-account rule). But so long as nothing bad like those occur, we in the moderation team will trust that you're just good friends.
That second line… oh well, I’ll give this a full read later.
Really depends how murder is defined. That said, miscarriage is considered murder in some places, and God takes responsibility for all of those.
Always a fun topic.
My mind goes to deep regulation, but with some limited legal avenues. This of course doesn’t feel like either side of the debate, but instead a third option to the dilemma.
I know this wasn't much of a debate, but even the lowest hanging fruit needs to comment on something not completely generic about the debate to imply you read it.
Your vote is removed, but you may revote at any time.
MAV99
01.17.2025 06:27PM
Con arguments is better psychologically speaking.
3 points to con
https://www.debateart.com/debates?type=&status=&order_type=comments_number
One of your others is #3, this one is #8, and trailing well back another is #18.
This debate has made it into the top ten most commented of all time, and is fast approaching the top five.
On the up side, it finally got a junk debate of mine off the first page of that leaderboard.
---RFD---
con argues dreams are due to biology and stimuli, such as being able to be manipulated (presumably, without the researcher manipulating any god or gods).
"experience is not evidence" technically it's just very weak evidence, known as antidotal. Still, good point.
Pro does an immediate gambit at the start with a word dump... I strongly advise separating paragraphs in future.
Pro's states he will argue dreams "are not merely products of the brain but can be divine in nature, carrying spiritual meaning and purpose."
One says they're chemistry, the other says they're a gift or curse from the divine... As a voter, I'm going to treat this issue as on balance; or to say victory goes to the most and most likely.
---
Pro moves on to describe three separate types of dreams. One comes from a god, the other comes another god, and the third comes from man. This immediately begs the question of how to tell any of them apart (as con calls it, bridge the gap in that seeming contradiction); but I will treat either of the first two as spiritual if they can be proven.
Pro says holy books say dreams are divine and/or spiritual.
Con of course gives the obvious counter that other religions exist (it's strong, but not quite as strong as he would like it to be, since pro's writeup included more than one god).
Pro gives a personal accounting... A dream featuring a horse cart, which prevented him from dying of a heart attack or something worse than dying of a heart attack... I am not believing that pro believes this.
Con challenges that this interpretation is pure speculation.
Pro attempts to hand wave away pro's case, by reiterating parts of his own. This is sometimes merited, but we really need a mechanism to differentiate man-made dreams from others if this is to hold water (and just that all true dreams will be remembered doesn't do this so long as others are remembered too).
Rebuttal 4 (the hypotheses are not mutually exclusive) was almost good; it just fell back on the appeal to false authority of holy books. In this note, the mud example was quite effective in affirming that said authority is false; and this was further bolstered with the sources for dreams predating Islam (as unsoun
As con summarizes: "Pro's argument fails to show how the supposed gap between the psychological understanding of dreams and their potential spiritual significance is bridged."
The problem here is that this
A minor disagreement I am left with for con is his re-review of the single dream in question, and statements that it wouldn’t count even if it did accurately and measurably predict the future. That would be the type of proof a scientist would look for to connect dreams to the super
—-
Concerning allegations of misconduct… I am not spotting anything con is doing to force how pro argues, merely requests to add real warrants to his case in whatever form they take.
I have not reviewed the comment section, but at a breif glance it looks needlessly dramatic (if anyone bugs me I’ll review it, but to keep my head clear and on the main arguments, I’m not prioritizing it).
—-
Sources lean to con, but not by enough. This is in part because I believe in scaling the difficulty (if I gave pro arguments, the better sources from con would easily carry it to his favor; but he’s already getting arguments, so it’s a steeper hill to get a further two points).
—-
Legibility (S&G) is pretty clearly in the tied range. I can give a little advice to pro, but to lose the point someone would have to distract me from the debate with atrocities against the alphabet.
—-
PS: Marvin is clearly a vampire, but I am not finding the evidence convincing that he is also rich (logically valid, but indeed an unsound stereotype).
I’ve read the first round, and have started notes for a vote. I expect the have some time tomorrow read the rest.
FYI, your vote needed a bit more detail; even while I see how such a blunder can shift everything. Even just a short analysis of how that was then leveraged would improve things significantly (the debate is already over, so it doesn't matter too much, just thoughts for future votes).
My computer is dying, and it's late anyways...
Here is the start to a writeup. Stopped early in R3.
---RFD draft---
I appreciate the clean opening, which really let me know where pro was coming from.
DT:
Pro argues Trump has already accomplished the limit of what he wishes.
Con counters that Trump's history of which douches to appoint to the supreme court have impacted abortion policy, and he's a puppet-master who is likely to continue such efforts.
Pro doubles down that Trump has given his word that he will push the issue no further.
Con points out that Trump achieved bans well in excess of what he claimed he wanted.
Pro says Trump passed it to others to do for him... Which misses the fact that he set the goal and got it done; which is perhaps even worse since it's in the hands of crazies no longer in his control.
KH :
Pro argues that her get rid of filibusters would harm women's rights.
Con exploits to filibuster argument for much the above.
Pro argues that democrats too can bypass filibusters,
Con gives an example of when McConnell massively abused the system (implicit in this is the humor of him later mocking how stupid someone would have to be to go along with that type of crap).
Practicality:
Pro makes a comeback with the point "it would be unwise to prioritize abortion over other issues like the economy, foreign affairs, border security, etc" which I see likely ways it will be dismantled, but it also shows quick refinement to arguments.
Con takes the opportunity to make the point (really about Trump, but could be applied to others) "Voters understand that the wrong president can exacerbate these trends or appoint justices who entrench them further. Claiming legislative inertia is a defense of inaction reflects a failure to grasp the stakes and urgency of the issue." This is particularly well played, as it is not dismissing pro's reasoning, but showcasing why abortion is a major issue for so many, which doesn't even need to be upheld for single issue voting (I'd say within top five for the spirit of the thing).
Pro argues it's better to think about what a candidate will actually get done... But that's a poor opening for a round given what was just shown of Trump's accompolishments in excess of his words (reminds me of the phone ringing in the whitehouse at night ad, it was a better point for the other side).
OUCH:
"Your argument reads like someone trying to downplay the fire in their neighbor’s house because their own lawn needs mowing." Nice job rephrasing the BLM vs ALM meme. A bit far, but not nearly enough to cost conduct.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLJ2zWHA3ew
I had ChatGPT do a review of this debate, how far off is it?
---
The debate titled "The Catholic Church is infallible" on DebateArt.com features CatholicApologetics advocating for the Church's infallibility (Pro) and Savant challenging this position (Con).
Pro's Arguments:
Biblical Foundation: Pro asserts that Jesus granted the Apostles and their successors the authority to teach without error on matters of faith and morals, citing passages such as Matthew 28:19-20 and John 16:13.
Apostolic Succession: Emphasizing an unbroken line from the Apostles to current Church leaders, Pro argues this continuity ensures the preservation of true doctrine.
Historical Consistency: Pro references early Church Fathers, like St. Clement of Rome and St. Irenaeus of Lyons, who supported the concept of apostolic succession and authoritative teaching.
Con's Arguments:
Scriptural Contradictions: Con challenges the interpretation of key biblical texts, suggesting they do not support the notion of an infallible teaching authority.
Historical Discrepancies: Con points to instances where Church teachings have evolved or contradicted earlier positions, questioning the claim of unerring doctrine.
Theological Concerns: Con raises issues about the implications of infallibility, such as the potential suppression of individual conscience and the dynamic nature of understanding divine revelation.
Key Points of Contention:
Interpretation of Scripture: Both debaters present differing readings of biblical texts, debating whether they endorse an infallible Church authority.
Historical Continuity vs. Change: The discussion delves into whether doctrinal developments over centuries undermine the claim of infallibility or represent a deeper understanding of faith.
Authority and Individual Conscience: The debate touches on the balance between institutional authority and personal interpretation in matters of faith.
Conclusion:
This debate offers a comprehensive examination of the Catholic Church's claim to infallibility, with both participants presenting well-researched arguments. Readers interested in theology, Church history, and biblical interpretation will find the discussion insightful.
Almost the goal of communism... As we know from the genocide in Ukraine, not quite the goal of communism for them to be "living" a horrible life.
>Reported Vote: Americandebater24 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
While arguments could do with a little more detail, they are at worst borderline (which would not result in vote deletion).
Sources on the other hand fall into the trap of one side having more, which while indicative of good things, falls short of the standard.
Sources are optional and if awarded require a strong quality lead. Sources go to the side that better supported their case with relevant outside evidence and/or analysis thereof. If both sides have done their research due diligence, these points are usually tied.
A side with unreliable sources may be penalized, but the voter must specify why the sources were unreliable enough to diminish their own case (such as if the other side called attention to the flaws, thereby engaging with sources in a more effective manner with impacts to arguments; thereby flipping the source and harming the opposing argument).
**************************************************
Americandebater24
12.10.2024 06:21PM
This was an interesting debate. but my vote goes to Con for several reasons. The first reason is that I believe Con did an excellent job of pointing out that the catholic church has a great number of contradictory teachings. Con also correctly asserts that it is the pro's job to establish infallibility beyond a reasonable doubt. Pro tries to make a good argument by citing that Jesus made promises and that the catholic church is under a "principle of divine protection of err." Unfortunately, Pro never establishes this to be a fact. Plus, as Con rightly pointed out, authority is not the same thing as infallibility.
For Pro to have won this debate, they would have had to have shown that the Catholic Church has never been wrong even one time in its history. Not only does Pro fail to do that, but that would also go against Catholic teachings that dictate all humans are fallible by nature. I further appreciate that Pro tried to make a rational argument by differentiating Personal error from error in doctrines, but that is nothing more than a typical tactic for a losing argument. You cannot get out of examples of error by the church by saying it was the person's flaws and not the teachings. If the doctrine is flawless, it will be error-free no matter who is teaching it.
I am also awarding Con the more reliable sources votes because while both sides primarily use bible sources, Con has at least provided some non-biblical sources to their arguments which offers a more reliable and diverse perspective.
I might be the last true hopeless romantic, and even I'll wholly agree that it matters. The degree that it matters is debatable, but not that it matters at all.
Phantom of the Opera for example is a tragedy because in French culture she had no choice, the cat murderer was traditionally handsome so she had to go with him.
Initial start to a RFD write-up
I do use the 7 point voting paradigm. Conduct is worth 1 point, and can override other allotments, but is not guaranteed to do so.
Legibility:
When conversing online, break stuff into separate lines. Wall of text is horrible, even when not lengthy.
Double line breaks are rarely a bad option (this would have done well with a single).
Arguments:
"profiting off of slavery" this point from pro was actually well executed in R1, even while the subtlety of it would go over the heads of most.
"entrepreneurial encouragement plans" was interesting. It borders on a kritik, but is good to toss in there that there would be more effective ways to uplift people. Con's counter "infrastructure typically helps only the lowest rungs, meaning that the middle chunk is left completely un-aided" this is self defating, since it's the lowest which are in need of help.
"on July 29, 2008, the U.S. House of Representatives passed HR. 194, a resolution apologizing for slavery and the subsequent discriminatory laws against African Americans"
Not quite sure how that fixes anything, and it's weirdly recent if all the problems went away 150 years ago.
Pro's overall theme is that reparations would be giving in to the very racism it's supposed to be counteracting
Con gets off to a bad start with accusing pro of being emotional. Way too much time gets wasted on this. And pathos appeals are still appeals.
But we swiftly gets into how it could be done in a done racist manner by taxing everyone (that needs to be built out more)... This: "We have to build the base of the pyramid before we place the capstone, so to speak." with a couple sources added would have done it perfectly.
"You refuse to recognize that African Americans are still disadvantaged by the ripples of slavery" a link on generational wealth would have carried the day.
"I also think that unicorns should be created and Teddy Roosevelt should be brought back to life for another term." My favorite line of the debate. Teddy Roosevelt in particular (my favorite shirt brant is RSVLTS).
...
Both argued over who were the real slave owners... Either the very wealthy and evil elite, or the founding fathers and other very wealthy elites (plus every farm owner... which again, I keep saying give links because certain claims are pretty doubtful; slaves were expensive for starters). Con does well here near the end with the reminder of slavery laying the groundwork for this country: "as a third of the southern white population owned them and all of America got cheap goods from them"
Could be a good debate. Might fall into a battle over semantics, but we'll see.
Well he might make it illegal to not...