Please vote if you have the time! It's a fairly long debate, so I'd like to ensure committed voters can read this early (there are only two weeks in the voting phase, after all...)
I weighted R3 arguments in my vote. What would you like to debate? Perhaps something to do with the reliability of the Bible (Old or New Testament). Send me a message.
I would assume the primary reason they do not participate is because they know the Father and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons or because they are not well-versed in Christianity, regardless of their beliefs. That said, I appreciate your feedback. Thank you.
The objective is to find what the Bible has to say about this topic. I'd like to focus on the Bible's claims so I'm not interested in hearing arguments from elsewhere. If other debaters would like different parameters, they are free to ask me in the comments or create their own debates. I'm not forcing anyone to participate that does not want to. I'll rephrase the debate's rules from "Both parties accept the Bible as true" and specify that the debate is about "The Scriptures support the claim that God the Father and God the Holy Spirit are distinct Persons."
I will use the Bible as the basis and source for my arguments. All they have to do to refute my arguments, if that rule doesn't exist, is to question the authenticity of the Bible. This would switch the focus and topic of the debate from what the Bible has to say about x topic to is it the true Word of God.
Thanks! Being relatively new to debating, this back-and-forth was very helpful. When I messaged you saying, "Through this exchange, I have identified several areas of my debating skills that require further refinement and improvement," I fully meant it. Thanks for entertaining the debate! Current streak: 6 wins, 1 loss.
I really appreciate your vote! I liked how your analysis covered my framework. I've been really fallible while defending the infallibility of the Church. I thought I'd drop down some weak points I was subject to throughout the debate:
* In the last round particularly, I found it difficult to address each of my opponent's arguments. It felt sort of a Gish Gallop which prevented me from forming substantive clarifications. In cases such as these, general responses is the way to go. At one point, I was 8,000 characters over the 20,000 character limit. I had to significantly trim down the bulk of my arguments (which may have been the reason for the "shaky" case for my arguments as the rounds went on).
* In this debate (and all the previosu ones I've engaged in), I only focused on defending my initial arguments from R1. Rather, directly attacking my opponent's position would have consolidated my position.
* It may seem like common sense, but specify your debate titles. It was my intention to focus on the broader principle of infallibility rather than its specific mechanisms from the onset. I phrased the title of the debate to be a sort of "click-bait" which the description would further clarify. Specifically, people would see the debate title, get interested, then read the description and understand its true scope as limited to matters on faith and morals (not universal infallibility). This would have served to inform readers of the Church's official position while getting them to potentially read the debate.
* As Whiteflame pointed out, using the last round to solidify and summarize your position would have been a more strategic play. Generalizing responses would have made it possible to do so, but I focused on the "line-by-line" arguments instead.
* Lastly, making your writing style accessible to everyone who may read. Of course, with any complex theological topic, technical terms are bound to come up, but ensuring a simple language style would appeal to the broader audience.
I seek to incorporate these elements in my next debate, for which I extend my invitation to Savant, once again. This time, why don't we both agree to focus on the specific mechanisms of infallibility, rather than the broader principle? I hope you're up for the challenge.
Thank you for your thoughtful clarification! I appreciate your engagement with these points and the chance to address your concerns. Regarding your critique that the Holy Spirit isn’t the one “leading the Catholic Church” but that it’s “human beings teaching other human beings,” I believe this may misunderstand my argument. My position wasn’t that human teachers are infallible by themselves, but that God, through the Holy Spirit, ensures the infallibility of *specific teachings on faith and morals* despite human fallibility. It’s not the individuals themselves who are error-free, but the guidance of the Holy Spirit that guarantees the correctness of those particular teachings. Wouldn’t this address the idea that the teaching itself is “incapable of having error regardless if the teacher is capable of wrongdoing”?
You mentioned that the debate was about “the Catholic Church as a whole” and that the claim of infallibility required proving that “everything related to it” is free from error. However, the debate rules explicitly limited the scope of infallibility to “definitive teachings on faith and morals,” which is also consistent with Catholic doctrine. My argument focused on showing how these teachings are infallible, even when delivered by fallible humans, because of the promised guidance of the Holy Spirit. The rules excluded personal failings or non-doctrinal actions from the definition of infallibility. Could you clarify why you felt the scope of the debate should include all aspects of the Church, even when the rules and doctrine explicitly narrowed it to faith and morals?
I also understand your concern about the law of non-contradiction. Catholic doctrine explicitly distinguishes between doctrinal infallibility (on faith and morals) and the fallibility of individual members in their personal actions or decisions outside of formal doctrinal definitions. These are separate categories rather than opposing claims. What did you think of my analogy "Just as a navigator ensures a ship stays on course despite individual crew errors, the Holy Spirit guarantees the Church's doctrinal integrity, fulfilling Christ's promise that it will be led into all truth."
You mentioned that my argument seemed like “a game of semantics.” I understand why this might come across that way, but my intent was to argue within the scope agreed upon in the rules: that infallibility is limited to doctrinal teachings on faith and morals. This distinction isn’t semantics; it’s the foundation of the Catholic claim itself, and I aimed to show why this claim holds. If the debate’s title seemed broader, I relied on the rules to clarify its intended scope. Would you agree that relying on the stated definitions in the rules was a fair approach? Thank you again for your thoughtful engagement. Your feedback has given me valuable insights, and I hope this helps clarify where I was coming from. I appreciate the time and effort you’ve put into this! I'll stop the questions there as I'm just looking to understand your perspective — not to argue or have a debate. If my questions sparked any realizations or anything similar I'd appreciate a revote. That being said, thank you!
Thank you for taking the time to clarify your position! I appreciate the thought you’ve put into your feedback and the opportunity to engage with your reasoning further. You mentioned that my argument “only claimed” the Church’s divine protection and didn’t establish it as a fact. I understand your emphasis on logical reasoning, and I certainly tried to meet that standard. For example, I relied on biblical texts like John 16:13 (“the Spirit of Truth will guide you into all truth”) and Matthew 28:20 (“I am with you always, to the end of the age”). Given the debate rules stating that the Bible is divinely inspired and authoritative, I assumed these passages would establish divine protection as a fact within the debate context. Was there a different kind of evidence or reasoning you felt I needed to provide to meet this standard? I’d appreciate any clarification on this point.
I understand your point about the potential contradiction in saying teachings are infallible but teachers are fallible. You said, "you cannot claim a teaching is infallible, but then argue that the person teaching you is the reason for errors that could be attributed to the education you receive." I appreciate this observation, but I believe it misrepresents my argument. My position was that the Holy Spirit, as an infallible being, ensures the correctness of specific teachings on faith and morals, even when delivered by fallible individuals. For example, in R1, I focused on establishing the Holy Spirit’s role in guiding these decisions. Would you say that the final decisions reached by these fallible individuals would still be fallible if God explicitly promised to guide those decisions "into all the truth" (John 16:13)?
You said, “If something is infallible, then it and everything related to it must be free of error. No exceptions.” Do you believe this would still apply if an infallible being oversaw this "something" only in specific cases and not universally across "everything related to it"? For example, Catholic doctrine explicitly limits infallibility to definitive teachings on faith and morals, not to every act or statement of Church members. I framed my arguments within this scope because it aligns with the debate rules and the doctrine itself. Was there a reason you felt the scope needed to include “everything related to it,” even beyond the agreed parameters? Thank you again for your thoughtful engagement and for taking the time to evaluate this debate so thoroughly. Thank you again for taking the time to clarify your position and for your thoughtful feedback. I hope my response didn’t come across as too forceful — I’m just deeply invested in this debate and wanted to ensure my arguments were fully understood. I imagine you’d do the same in my position, and I truly respect the effort you’ve put into evaluating this discussion.
Thank you for your feedback. I have a couple of questions and points of clarification: You mentioned that I “never established” the principle of divine protection as a fact. However, the debate rules state that the Bible is divinely inspired and authoritative, meaning its contents are taken as true. I cited promises made by Jesus (from the Bible) regarding the Church’s protection from error. Given the rules, could you clarify what additional evidence you would have needed to consider these promises as established facts?
You stated that for me to win, I would need to show the Church was never wrong at any point in history. However, in Round 1, I explicitly defined infallibility as applying strictly to definitive teachings on faith and morals, not to every action or statement by Church members. The debate rules also supported this limited scope. Could you explain why you felt I needed to demonstrate that no one in the Church ever erred historically, rather than just its official doctrinal definitions — when this was never my position in the debate? I appreciate any clarification you can provide. I understand that infallibility can be a complex concept, and I’d like to ensure that I’m presenting and defending it clearly and in line with the debate’s agreed definitions. I also want to make sure that my position was fully understood, as I feel it may not have been clear enough in some areas."
Thank you for your kind feedback! We've both put a lot of work into this so I'm glad there you enjoying the results of our efforts. No pressure to vote, but I’d love to hear your thoughts if you have a moment.
Throughout the debate, I was curious what another perspective would think on the arguments presented. Thank you for your time, I know this was certainly a long debate. Thank you for being a committed voter.
Yes, for instance, if I respond to one of your arguments, you can refute it with a new argument. However, you cannot create a new argument that is unrelated to the previous discussions.
You are allowed to address and respond to any arguments or objections raised earlier in the debate. However, you are not permitted to introduce new arguments that haven’t already been discussed or that don’t directly relate to the objections raised.
Debating the truth of the Bible itself would shift the focus entirely and undermine this specific discussion. By assuming the Bible is true, the debate remains focused on whether the Church’s interpretation and claim to infallibility are valid, based on that shared premise.
I think it'll be a good debate. I would love for my arguments to be so compelling that my opponent is left with no choice but to nitpick semantics — and maybe even invent a new grammar rule just to keep up.
Thank you for taking the time to read through this lengthy debate and procure a thoughtfully vote. I appreciate the effort you've put into it. Thank you!
I hope you feel better soon. Please don't feel obligated to vote if you're not well, your health is more important. If you do recover in time, I'd be glad to hear your thoughts on the debate and would appreciate your vote.
Thank you for participating in this debate. It is a long, albeit important one. Your contribution is widely recognized and I am forever grateful for your participation.
I posted the debate, please disregard the sections which states "NOTES: CHANGE FROM DEVESTATION AND UNBELIEF TO FAITH." It was a note that I forgot to remove.
It was a very strong argument that was left unrefuted. However, in evaluating the debate as a whole, Pro's arguments resonated more profoundly with me. Though Thomas Jefferson’s quote was indeed a compelling and thought-provoking argument.
I tried to be impartial throughout the debate, but a reason Thomas Jefferson's quote impacted me on a shallower level is because the moment a slave conceives, the issue shifts from one of economic exploitation to one of moral and ethical responsibility. It becomes a question of safeguarding and protecting the inherent dignity of the unborn, rather than a matter of reducing individuals to their economic value.
Oh, I see. When I saw Barney's exceptional record (52 won debates), I was expecting a well-reasoned argument, not a heated exchange that included insults and swearing. It caught me off guard and reduced my confidence on the debate. I understood his approach to be more emotional than logical which lead to his arguments not resonating as deeply with me as Pro's did.
Nonetheless, his arguments where still highly intelligent but they did not have the same effect that they would have had if Barney kept a cooler composure throughout.
Thanks for your feedback! I certainly agree that long responses are exactly that—long. I do plan to be more concise in my future debates!
Thanks for voting!
Thanks! There's only 9 hours left...
Please vote if you have the time! It's a fairly long debate, so I'd like to ensure committed voters can read this early (there are only two weeks in the voting phase, after all...)
Well done to both sides. It was a very interesting debate to read!
Thank you for voting!
Thanks for voting!
Please vote if you have the time! It's not as long as some of the other debates I've participated in, but no worries if you can't make it in time.
And no, I haven't "conceded" as my opponent claims in the last round.
I won't have time to vote on this debate. Could you guys vote?
I will vote on this one if I have time.
I weighted R3 arguments in my vote. What would you like to debate? Perhaps something to do with the reliability of the Bible (Old or New Testament). Send me a message.
Are you willing to debate me?
I'm unable to delete my vote. So far, my vote stands. Feel free to report it. If it get's deleted, I'll revote.
I stopped reading in Round 3. I will read through the third round and revote.
You can, though I do not think it will be needed. Language analysis is encouraged. It's just a rule to ensure consistency.
I would assume the primary reason they do not participate is because they know the Father and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons or because they are not well-versed in Christianity, regardless of their beliefs. That said, I appreciate your feedback. Thank you.
The objective is to find what the Bible has to say about this topic. I'd like to focus on the Bible's claims so I'm not interested in hearing arguments from elsewhere. If other debaters would like different parameters, they are free to ask me in the comments or create their own debates. I'm not forcing anyone to participate that does not want to. I'll rephrase the debate's rules from "Both parties accept the Bible as true" and specify that the debate is about "The Scriptures support the claim that God the Father and God the Holy Spirit are distinct Persons."
I will use the Bible as the basis and source for my arguments. All they have to do to refute my arguments, if that rule doesn't exist, is to question the authenticity of the Bible. This would switch the focus and topic of the debate from what the Bible has to say about x topic to is it the true Word of God.
I haven't actually read any HoF debates, so I was curious about the standard they've set.
Do you think this debate is worthy to be in the DART HoF?
Thanks! Being relatively new to debating, this back-and-forth was very helpful. When I messaged you saying, "Through this exchange, I have identified several areas of my debating skills that require further refinement and improvement," I fully meant it. Thanks for entertaining the debate! Current streak: 6 wins, 1 loss.
I really appreciate your vote! I liked how your analysis covered my framework. I've been really fallible while defending the infallibility of the Church. I thought I'd drop down some weak points I was subject to throughout the debate:
* In the last round particularly, I found it difficult to address each of my opponent's arguments. It felt sort of a Gish Gallop which prevented me from forming substantive clarifications. In cases such as these, general responses is the way to go. At one point, I was 8,000 characters over the 20,000 character limit. I had to significantly trim down the bulk of my arguments (which may have been the reason for the "shaky" case for my arguments as the rounds went on).
* In this debate (and all the previosu ones I've engaged in), I only focused on defending my initial arguments from R1. Rather, directly attacking my opponent's position would have consolidated my position.
* It may seem like common sense, but specify your debate titles. It was my intention to focus on the broader principle of infallibility rather than its specific mechanisms from the onset. I phrased the title of the debate to be a sort of "click-bait" which the description would further clarify. Specifically, people would see the debate title, get interested, then read the description and understand its true scope as limited to matters on faith and morals (not universal infallibility). This would have served to inform readers of the Church's official position while getting them to potentially read the debate.
* As Whiteflame pointed out, using the last round to solidify and summarize your position would have been a more strategic play. Generalizing responses would have made it possible to do so, but I focused on the "line-by-line" arguments instead.
* Lastly, making your writing style accessible to everyone who may read. Of course, with any complex theological topic, technical terms are bound to come up, but ensuring a simple language style would appeal to the broader audience.
I seek to incorporate these elements in my next debate, for which I extend my invitation to Savant, once again. This time, why don't we both agree to focus on the specific mechanisms of infallibility, rather than the broader principle? I hope you're up for the challenge.
Excited to see it!
Thanks! I'm eager to receive your input.
Thank you for your thoughtful clarification! I appreciate your engagement with these points and the chance to address your concerns. Regarding your critique that the Holy Spirit isn’t the one “leading the Catholic Church” but that it’s “human beings teaching other human beings,” I believe this may misunderstand my argument. My position wasn’t that human teachers are infallible by themselves, but that God, through the Holy Spirit, ensures the infallibility of *specific teachings on faith and morals* despite human fallibility. It’s not the individuals themselves who are error-free, but the guidance of the Holy Spirit that guarantees the correctness of those particular teachings. Wouldn’t this address the idea that the teaching itself is “incapable of having error regardless if the teacher is capable of wrongdoing”?
You mentioned that the debate was about “the Catholic Church as a whole” and that the claim of infallibility required proving that “everything related to it” is free from error. However, the debate rules explicitly limited the scope of infallibility to “definitive teachings on faith and morals,” which is also consistent with Catholic doctrine. My argument focused on showing how these teachings are infallible, even when delivered by fallible humans, because of the promised guidance of the Holy Spirit. The rules excluded personal failings or non-doctrinal actions from the definition of infallibility. Could you clarify why you felt the scope of the debate should include all aspects of the Church, even when the rules and doctrine explicitly narrowed it to faith and morals?
I also understand your concern about the law of non-contradiction. Catholic doctrine explicitly distinguishes between doctrinal infallibility (on faith and morals) and the fallibility of individual members in their personal actions or decisions outside of formal doctrinal definitions. These are separate categories rather than opposing claims. What did you think of my analogy "Just as a navigator ensures a ship stays on course despite individual crew errors, the Holy Spirit guarantees the Church's doctrinal integrity, fulfilling Christ's promise that it will be led into all truth."
You mentioned that my argument seemed like “a game of semantics.” I understand why this might come across that way, but my intent was to argue within the scope agreed upon in the rules: that infallibility is limited to doctrinal teachings on faith and morals. This distinction isn’t semantics; it’s the foundation of the Catholic claim itself, and I aimed to show why this claim holds. If the debate’s title seemed broader, I relied on the rules to clarify its intended scope. Would you agree that relying on the stated definitions in the rules was a fair approach? Thank you again for your thoughtful engagement. Your feedback has given me valuable insights, and I hope this helps clarify where I was coming from. I appreciate the time and effort you’ve put into this! I'll stop the questions there as I'm just looking to understand your perspective — not to argue or have a debate. If my questions sparked any realizations or anything similar I'd appreciate a revote. That being said, thank you!
Thank you for taking the time to clarify your position! I appreciate the thought you’ve put into your feedback and the opportunity to engage with your reasoning further. You mentioned that my argument “only claimed” the Church’s divine protection and didn’t establish it as a fact. I understand your emphasis on logical reasoning, and I certainly tried to meet that standard. For example, I relied on biblical texts like John 16:13 (“the Spirit of Truth will guide you into all truth”) and Matthew 28:20 (“I am with you always, to the end of the age”). Given the debate rules stating that the Bible is divinely inspired and authoritative, I assumed these passages would establish divine protection as a fact within the debate context. Was there a different kind of evidence or reasoning you felt I needed to provide to meet this standard? I’d appreciate any clarification on this point.
I understand your point about the potential contradiction in saying teachings are infallible but teachers are fallible. You said, "you cannot claim a teaching is infallible, but then argue that the person teaching you is the reason for errors that could be attributed to the education you receive." I appreciate this observation, but I believe it misrepresents my argument. My position was that the Holy Spirit, as an infallible being, ensures the correctness of specific teachings on faith and morals, even when delivered by fallible individuals. For example, in R1, I focused on establishing the Holy Spirit’s role in guiding these decisions. Would you say that the final decisions reached by these fallible individuals would still be fallible if God explicitly promised to guide those decisions "into all the truth" (John 16:13)?
You said, “If something is infallible, then it and everything related to it must be free of error. No exceptions.” Do you believe this would still apply if an infallible being oversaw this "something" only in specific cases and not universally across "everything related to it"? For example, Catholic doctrine explicitly limits infallibility to definitive teachings on faith and morals, not to every act or statement of Church members. I framed my arguments within this scope because it aligns with the debate rules and the doctrine itself. Was there a reason you felt the scope needed to include “everything related to it,” even beyond the agreed parameters? Thank you again for your thoughtful engagement and for taking the time to evaluate this debate so thoroughly. Thank you again for taking the time to clarify your position and for your thoughtful feedback. I hope my response didn’t come across as too forceful — I’m just deeply invested in this debate and wanted to ensure my arguments were fully understood. I imagine you’d do the same in my position, and I truly respect the effort you’ve put into evaluating this discussion.
Thank you for your feedback. I have a couple of questions and points of clarification: You mentioned that I “never established” the principle of divine protection as a fact. However, the debate rules state that the Bible is divinely inspired and authoritative, meaning its contents are taken as true. I cited promises made by Jesus (from the Bible) regarding the Church’s protection from error. Given the rules, could you clarify what additional evidence you would have needed to consider these promises as established facts?
You stated that for me to win, I would need to show the Church was never wrong at any point in history. However, in Round 1, I explicitly defined infallibility as applying strictly to definitive teachings on faith and morals, not to every action or statement by Church members. The debate rules also supported this limited scope. Could you explain why you felt I needed to demonstrate that no one in the Church ever erred historically, rather than just its official doctrinal definitions — when this was never my position in the debate? I appreciate any clarification you can provide. I understand that infallibility can be a complex concept, and I’d like to ensure that I’m presenting and defending it clearly and in line with the debate’s agreed definitions. I also want to make sure that my position was fully understood, as I feel it may not have been clear enough in some areas."
Thank you for your kind feedback! We've both put a lot of work into this so I'm glad there you enjoying the results of our efforts. No pressure to vote, but I’d love to hear your thoughts if you have a moment.
Throughout the debate, I was curious what another perspective would think on the arguments presented. Thank you for your time, I know this was certainly a long debate. Thank you for being a committed voter.
Yes, for instance, if I respond to one of your arguments, you can refute it with a new argument. However, you cannot create a new argument that is unrelated to the previous discussions.
You are allowed to address and respond to any arguments or objections raised earlier in the debate. However, you are not permitted to introduce new arguments that haven’t already been discussed or that don’t directly relate to the objections raised.
Thanks for accepting the debate. I know you'll be a formidable opponent!
Maybe I should narrow down the focus of this debate to Papal Infallibility instead. What do you think?
Debating the truth of the Bible itself would shift the focus entirely and undermine this specific discussion. By assuming the Bible is true, the debate remains focused on whether the Church’s interpretation and claim to infallibility are valid, based on that shared premise.
I think it'll be a good debate. I would love for my arguments to be so compelling that my opponent is left with no choice but to nitpick semantics — and maybe even invent a new grammar rule just to keep up.
Thank you for taking the time to read through this lengthy debate and procure a thoughtfully vote. I appreciate the effort you've put into it. Thank you!
Thanks for the debate! Hopefully it met or even exceeded the expectations you were coming here with.
I hope you feel better soon. Please don't feel obligated to vote if you're not well, your health is more important. If you do recover in time, I'd be glad to hear your thoughts on the debate and would appreciate your vote.
Thank you for your votes.
Thank you for participating in this debate. It is a long, albeit important one. Your contribution is widely recognized and I am forever grateful for your participation.
Alright, but don't post the video as a part of your debate. Keep the actual debate words-only.
I posted the debate, please disregard the sections which states "NOTES: CHANGE FROM DEVESTATION AND UNBELIEF TO FAITH." It was a note that I forgot to remove.
Check your PM.
I look forward to this debate. I'm not sure how Mall will defend his position, but I certainly look forward to Strawbbycake's counterarguments.
I'm quite busy today and tomorrow. Except a post in a few days.
It was a very strong argument that was left unrefuted. However, in evaluating the debate as a whole, Pro's arguments resonated more profoundly with me. Though Thomas Jefferson’s quote was indeed a compelling and thought-provoking argument.
I tried to be impartial throughout the debate, but a reason Thomas Jefferson's quote impacted me on a shallower level is because the moment a slave conceives, the issue shifts from one of economic exploitation to one of moral and ethical responsibility. It becomes a question of safeguarding and protecting the inherent dignity of the unborn, rather than a matter of reducing individuals to their economic value.
Is there nobody that believes Jesus was not crucified?
Oh, I see. When I saw Barney's exceptional record (52 won debates), I was expecting a well-reasoned argument, not a heated exchange that included insults and swearing. It caught me off guard and reduced my confidence on the debate. I understood his approach to be more emotional than logical which lead to his arguments not resonating as deeply with me as Pro's did.
Nonetheless, his arguments where still highly intelligent but they did not have the same effect that they would have had if Barney kept a cooler composure throughout.
You don't think swearing is an example of vulgarity?
I'll read it over and vote.