Total votes: 30
Awesome debate. Pro, having the BoP, needed to defend both primacy and succession. Both sides agree that Jesus gave Peter a prominent position in the early church and that he had a special relationship with Peter (benefitting Pro), but also that succession is not explicitly laid out anywhere in the Bible (benefitting Con).
I think there are two key questions to be answered here. First, do the scriptures support the primacy of Peter? A lot of arguments here have to deal with how we ought to interpret Jesus establishing Peter as "the Rock" and appointing him as a shepherd. Again, it's clearly established that Jesus gave Peter a special position, but the question is whether that special position equates to *primacy* specifically, and Con does a good job shedding doubt on this by referring to other quotes about shepherding attributed to others and a quote from Origen about the "keys of the kingdom". Ultimately, this sort of scriptural back-and-forth is the sort to make my head spin, and I don't feel that either side conclusively proves their point. I consider this point a TIE.
Second question: do the scriptures and early church writings support succession from *Peter* specifically? Again, both sides agree that it's not enumerated specifically in the Bible, which benefits Con. A lot of early church writings are referenced here -- writings of Tertullian, Clement, Origen, etc., but I think the most important here is Creed 6 of the first council of Nicaea, which Con states shows the bishop of Alexandria as coexistent, equal power with the bishop of Rome (the Pope). Pro responds that "Canon 6 establishes Rome's authority as the standard for measuring Alexandria's regional jurisdiction" and that's basically the end of that discussion, but I think Con's argument remains plausibly correct even in view of Pro's brief response, and for as much as Pro states that the early church writings "clearly" establish the primacy of Rome, I think Con establishes enough reasonable doubt that this isn't fully proven, which is important because the Papacy being divinely established and having prime authority is exactly what Pro needed to prove. I consider CON to win this point.
Overall, Con wins.
Seems like it could have been a decent debate, but then Pro did a full forfeit. Disappointing.
This debate was largely centered around the idea of emergence - the idea that a whole can have properties not possessed by any of its parts. This is relevant, as Con argues that we as humans do not possess the ability to make choices because none of our components have free will. Pro points out that Con is using the fallacy of composition/division, and states that a whole can be greater than its parts. I think Pro makes a good point here, but Con points out that in all of Pro's examples of wholes having properties not possessed by the parts, the parts still clearly contribute to what the whole actually does. Essentially, Con argues that emergence is theoretically possible, but Pro has to show how free will actually emerges through deterministic processes.
This brings me to Pro's fundamental argument: that we as humans have a "rational appetite" that allows us to make choices, and because we are capable of reaching an end through multiple means, and capable of reaching multiple ends through our choices, we have free will. Con, however, points out the circular nature of assuming that a rational mind has free will due to being able to reason on their choices, and also points out that our subjective experience of reasoning could all be an illusion, with our brains being like very advanced computers.
I think Pro was unnecessarily pedantic about Con's use of "illusion" and "choice" , as I found his usage of it pretty clear in context - how do we know that we actually are making our own reasoned choices rather than just having an experience that subjectively feels like it, especially when the processes that go on in our bodies are all apparently deterministic? Pro tries to draw a line between artificial and natural wholes, but I have a rule: sources are not arguments. Pro has to explain for himself what the actual difference is, and he fails to clearly do so - I am left wondering how one determines whether a whole is natural or artificial, and what the impacts are. Given that Pro is unable to explain how we can know that our rational processes are real and not predetermined, he fails to meet his burden of proof. Con wins.
Full forfeiture
Full forfeiture
Con was the only one to provide any form of argument, so they win by default.
Concession
First of all, I just want to say that this was an EXCELLENT debate, on both sides. Truly, this is the sort of debate that this site was made for. In the end, however, I have to give the win to Con. Their concluding arguments in Round 3 in particular are what convinced me.
Pro does a decent job outlining the basis of their argument, pointing to scriptures about the apostles being given authority and promised the assistance of the Holy Spirit for teaching scriptural truth. I think Pro's arguments are sufficient to show that the Holy Spirit was involved in directing the apostles and early church leaders. However, I don't believe that Pro sufficiently proves that the modern Catholic church is actually infallible. As Con states in their R3, "Pro agrees that the Catholic Church claims to be infallible when the pope speaks ex cathedra, during ecumenical councils (universal councils with representatives from Churches everywhere), or if all Catholic bishops around the world agree on a teaching. Claiming to be infallible on matters of faith and morals made through these channels is itself a Catholic doctrine on faith and morals, since it directly tells Catholics which statements to believe. That puts Catholic claims about these channels within the scope of this debate." Ultimately, I find myself agreeing with Con, and that's a big problem for Pro's case, as I find it to be insufficient to prove the infallibility of papal decrees or statements made by ecumenical councils.
In particular, Pro makes a point about the necessity of apostolic succession. However, Con provides some thought-provoking and, in my opinion, convincing counters. First, Con notes that Ignatius, despite being a direct successor to the apostles, did not have the authority to issue commandments like they did. For another, Con notes that both the Orthodox Church and even some Lutheran churches also maintain a chain of apostolic succession. While Pro claims only the Catholic Church has a central teaching authority, Con points out that this is not true, and in any case, I don't believe Pro adequately establishes why one would be necessary, and why in particular the presence of one would make the Catholic Church infallible and the one with sole claim to infallibility. Even if I were to accept Pro's arguments that there must BE an infallible church because of the necessity of apostolic succession, Pro does very little to prove that *only* the Catholic Church can be the one, and I think Con does a good job of pointing out how Pro's arguments are insufficient to demonstrate this. Thus, Con wins.
A good debate, but I think Pro ultimately wins this one, and here's why.
Pro's main arguments revolve around the empty tomb and the martyrdom of the disciples. Pro argues that if Jesus's tomb really hadn't been empty like the apostles claimed, it almost certainly would have been proven, yet this never happened. Further, Pro argues that the willingness of the disciples to face even death for their faith is evidence that they truly did meet the resurrected Jesus. All in all, I find these to be fairly strong points, the first one more so than the second.
Con's responses seem to place an unduly strict burden of proof on Pro. Con complains that Pro's arguments are insufficient to prove the resurrection happened, but the resolution only states that it was probable, so that's all Pro needed to prove. Con says that the resurrection would have been medically impossible, which Pro accepts, but argues that it happened by supernatural causes. Con doesn't seem to dispute that a supernatural event could at least theoretically happen, so Pro really just has to show evidence that a fully natural explanation for the events around Jesus's death is less likely than the given supernatural one.
Ultimately, Con doesn't give me any reason to doubt Pro's claim that if the body of Jesus had remained in his tomb, it would have been proven by the enemies of the Christians, nor do they really argue that the disciples didn't experience what they believed to be a resurrected Jesus, and those are fundamental, core parts of Pro's arguments. Without these fundamentals being undermined, I feel as though Pro's case is not substantially weakened by Con's case, and it's enough for Pro to meet their burden of proof. Pro wins.
Pro provided arguments, Con forfeited all rounds.
The debate lacked any substance.
Full forfeiture
Full forfeiture
I was going to write a more in-depth RfD for this debate, but actually, I think I can keep it relatively simple yet complete.
The way I see it, there were two main issues at stake here. First, the idea of abortion not existing as a longstanding tradition in the US. Con, for whatever reason, brings up the Dobbs decision, which said that the Constitution provided no guaranteed right to abortion, but tries to argue that by the decision's own reasoning, it should be a Constitutional right. While I see what argument Con was going for, I don't think bringing up the decision helped them out in the end, as they referred to an actual decision on the matter of Constitutional law which directly contradicts their own case. Pro also points out the contradiction in saying that abortion was typically allowed before the quickening, but also that many enslaved women were forced to remain pregnant. I feel like this point goes to Pro.
The other major point for me was slavery. Con argues that pregnancy does count as a form of labor, and if a pregnant woman has no legal way to stop being pregnant, that is forced labor, which is slavery and outlawed by the 13th amendment. Pro's response to this argument feels fractured and I don't fully understand it. He tries to make a separation between institutional slavery and sex slavery, claiming that the 13th amendment specifically outlawed the former, but Con points out that the 13A outlawed all forms of slavery. Con also points to how, historically, female slaves were forced to remain pregnant and give birth specifically because it was financially advantageous to the slaveholder, meaning it was for the benefit of another person. In the end, I feel like Pro could have won on this point, but their arguments were just not it.
Since both sides agree that the Constitution does not specifically say that abortion is not a civil right, all Con needed was to demonstrate unconstitutionality through one good line of reasoning, and I think they managed to do that in this debate. Con wins.
Pretty much just a forgone conclusion. Pro provides a simple but reasonable argument as to how utilitarianism implies that we should be vegans. Con's only argument is that we'd have to release all domestic animals into the wild where they'd die, but Pro points out that this isn't actually true, which Con provides no response to, dropping their one and only point in this debate.
Full forfeit/concession
Concession
Full forfeiture
This is just a Foregone Conclusion, and I could easily leave it at that, but I am going to give a little bit of feedback to Pro.
First of all, you just waived the first round completely unnecessarily and let your opponent have a free extra round. Why?
Second of all, you didn't actually do anything to prove your case. As the one arguing the affirmative position regarding the resolution, you have the Burden of Proof, meaning that you have to try and prove that RCV should be enacted. However, the only thing you did to try and prove this was to simply state that we would get better candidates elected rather than just the lesser of two evils. That sounds good, but you didn't actually do anything to PROVE that this is true. You can't just state your conclusions and leave the work you did to get there as an exercise for the reader. This is a competitive debate. You actually have to substantiate your case! But you didn't even bother to do that here.
On the other hand, Con clearly did put some actual effort in and described some actual downsides to RCV, such as lower turnout and delayed election results. Con wins this one in a landslide.
I will treat "We" as "The citizens of the United States of America" since the debaters seem to do so.
This argument is about the merits of stronger gun control. I view arguments that aren't about the merits to be outside the scope. Pro opens strongly by talking about the high number of people killed by gun violence every year in the US, and mentions that gun control legislation in other countries, specifically New Zealand, has been very effective. Con's main counter argument is that gun deaths make up only a very small percentage of American deaths and pale in comparison to other leading causes of mortality such as heart disease. Pro responds by pointing out that even if approximately 18.9 thousand lives is a small percentage of the American population, it's still a very large number of people, and over three times the amount lost to D-Day and Hurricane Katrina combined. While this argument is largely an appeal to pathos, it does have some weight and clear impacts. I would want to prevent an amount of deaths comparable to one of those events and wouldn't consider it trivial or meaningless.
Pro also points out that heart disease is not comparable to gun violence because we as a society can't completely cure heart disease, but we can do a lot to curb gun deaths. This makes sense to me, as it seems ludicrous to suggest that humans could somehow cure all diseases, but guns are completely man-made and it's reasonable to conclude that we could do a lot to control gun violence. Con tries to argue that just because gun control legislation has worked in other countries, doesn't mean that it will work in the US. However, this argument fails on two fronts. For one, Con doesn't really deny that it has worked in other places like New Zealand. For another, no clear argument is given as to why it likely would not work in the US. A mere possibility of failure is not enough to demonstrate a lack of merit in even trying to institute stronger gun control in the US in my eyes, and this debate is really about merits in the end.
All in all, Pro demonstrated clear impacts and persuasive reasoning, while Con's arguments were very defensive, while also falling short of being very convincing. Pro wins this one.
I think it was pretty clear from the outset that this was intended to be a humorous debate and not meant to be taken seriously. Despite this, Con, perhaps trying to game the system, took it dead seriously. If someone goes into a serious debate and tries to turn it purely into a comedy/troll one without making any serious arguments, I don't think that should be rewarded. I think the converse is also true - trying to turn a comedic debate into a completely logical/rational one should not be rewarded either. In my eyes, the win can only go to Pro.
Also, Pro actually claiming to be a hyper-intelligent space lizard was my favorite part of this debate. I think this could have been a good comedy debate if Con hadn't decided to be all "Umm, ACKSHUALLY..."
Yeah, it's technically a full forfeit, but there wasn't even a topic to this one. I can't even tell you what this debate was supposed to be about, so I don't really think I can declare someone the winner of a debate about literally nothing whatsoever. I'm just going to call this one a tie.
Full forfeit/concession
Full forfeit/concession
Full forfeit/concession
A deep topic hampered by a minuscule character limit. Pro asserts that a fetus is not yet a human, which Con agrees at first agrees with, though they argue that preventing it from being human is still as immoral as killing a human. However, Pro responds that the well-being of the mother should take precedent, and I buy this argument more. Con tries to backtrack and claim that life actually does begin at conception, but as this statement is not clearly sourced and contradicts their earlier arguments, I can't let it pass.
Pro's strongest point is their argument that criminalizing abortion does little to nothing to prevent it from happening, but legalizing it can prevent unnecessary deaths and decrease suffering, a common argument in favor of legalizing abortion. Con argues that regardless, it's immoral so it should be banned, but I don't really buy this. I can buy that something may be immoral, but if criminalizing it leads to worse outcomes than not, it should be allowed to remain legal. Con tries to refute the idea that criminalizing abortion is ineffective, but their arguments mainly come from inferences about how criminalization is meant to work, whereas Pro actually used reliable sources to argue that it is ineffective. Reliable sources outweigh inferences, so Pro wins on that pont. Con tries to argue in the last round that funding for abortion services detracts from funding for other services like adoption and maternal healthcare, but this is unsourced, and even if it is true, I feel like the impacts from Pro's argument about reduced mortality and overall suffering are greater.
In the end, I feel like Pro's arguments won out and had the greater impacts.
Full forfeiture