Instigator / Pro
14
1922
rating
117
debates
97.44%
won
Topic
#2152

THBT: The ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH is CHRISTIAN

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
3
Better sources
4
2
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...

oromagi
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
5,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
9
1598
rating
20
debates
65.0%
won
Description

THBT: The ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH is CHRISTIAN

DEFINITIONS:

The ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH is "the largest Christian church, with approximately 1.3 billion baptised Catholics worldwide as of 2018. As the world's oldest and largest continuously functioning international institution, it has played a prominent role in the history and development of Western civilization. The church is headed by the Bishop of Rome, known as the pope. Its central administration is the Holy See.

CHRISTIAN [adjective] is "of, like or relating to Christianity or Christians"

CHRISTIANITY [proper noun] is "An Abrahamic religion originating from the community of the followers of Jesus Christ"

BURDEN of PROOF
Burden of Proof is shared.

PRO is defending the established definition of Roman Catholicism as a Christian religion.
CON must prove established tradition wrong, that Roman Catholicism is not a Christian religion.

PRO is requesting sincere and friendly engagement on this subject.
No trolls or kritiks, please.

- RULES --
1. Forfeit=auto loss
2. Sources may be merely linked in debate as long as citations are listed in comments
3. No new arguments in R5
4. For all relevant terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the rational context of this resolution and debate

I didn't mean to dig up drama. I wasn't on the website two years ago lol

-->
@Barney

Yeah, I don't want to get into it. While it's nice, I suppose, that the subject has gotten traction over these last few weeks, I'm not one to dwell on what could've been. As you said, it's been two years.

-->
@Athias

It’s been two years…

You argued uphill against a truism, which is commendable, but you may as well have been trying to argue wolves are not canines.

-->
@Public-Choice

I suppose. But I've long since finished crying over spilled milk.

-->
@Athias

Considering "relating to" was never defined, it could have been won that way.

-->
@Public-Choice

I agree, but because oromagi's stipulated definition contained "related to," this allowed for some lexical manipulation my counterargument could not escape. Even if my counterargument was that Catholicism was in fact Satanic or Luciferian, it would still be "related" to Christianity. And while I still maintain that Ragnar's vote was bananas, that is not the fault and/or concern of oromagi, who essentially did his job, which was to "win" the debate.

Tautological: in logic (= a formal scientific method of examining ideas), relating to a statement that is always true. (Cambridge dictionary)

For this to work, Oro's argument must be PROVEN and not merely stated. A tautological statement is a conclusion, not a premise.

Moreover, his statement "the largest Christian church" faces multiple tautological issues such as:
1. A catholic church that denounces Christianity.
2. An atheist church that calls itself Catholic.
3. An Islamic church that calls itself Catholic.

Moreover, to prove Catholic = Christian, Oro would be required to define Christian and show how the Catholic Church fits that definition.

A tautological expression is not exempt from proof. You're thinking of a self evident statement, which is entirely different.

-->
@Public-Choice

Going to have to go with Oro for this one. The definition he provided of Roman Catholic Church was literally "the largest Christian church" so it was a tautological loss for CON from the beginning.

-->
@oromagi
@Athias

I can't believe Oro won this one. By his definitions islam is Christian. His definitions don't mean anything. They don't provide any qualifiers. They were meaningless.

-->
@3RU7AL

Catholics engage in many rituals which would not be considered Christian, some of which I delineated during that debate. Jesus would be the farthest thing from a Catholic were he alive today.

-->
@Athias

CHRISTIAN = THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS CHRIST

JESUS CHRIST WAS A JEW, NOT A CATHOLIC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKmmopn7QVY&t=30s

PHENOMENAL

-->
@oromagi

Congrats. You are now up to 91 victories.

-->
@MisterChris

"Mods can step in to prevent decisions that are so blatantly unfair no rational person can approve of it, but otherwise our interpretive ability is severely handicapped."

Ragnar's vote is not blatantly unfair (just grossly misinformed.) With that said, I offer no contention with leaving votes at the voter's discretion. The only thing that should dictate the dissemination of votes is decorum, ethics, and service to logic. And just to clarify for everyone: I WAS NOT THE ONE WHO REPORTED RAGNAR'S VOTE. While I do think that his RFD is bananas, as a personal code of conduct, I address grievances myself.

Besides, I'm an anarchist. I would NEVER seek redress from you fascist moderating pigs...

...

...

Just in case that last line fell short, that was a joke.

-->
@oromagi

"70 comments!"

We're doing this Old School--DDO style.

-->
@Barney

"You can count the number they use, the consistency, and as mentioned under tautology: Any lone factor would not be enough to tip it, but combined they add up to an overwhelming margin."

Tautology is irrelevant as it pertains to sources. You listed that under "contentions."

"the impact of con gravely harming his own case when trying to employ them."

You haven't substantiated how this has gravely harmed my case. You have misrepresented my position, though.

"That visits to some place are interpreted as idol worship by con, is only an assertion about his own opinion unless evidence is used."

Who's "moving the goalposts" now? What evidence were you looking for? (Not that you as voter can demand evidence.) And by the way, before I mentioned that millions of Catholics visited St. Peter's Square and bow to Peter's graven image, I quoted specific Bible text that condemned the act. You claimed that PRO refuted my claim of idol worship with mention of Catholic Catechism, but Catechism is an interpretation. In other words, it's an "opinion," albeit by the pope. PRO even makes mention of this when he demands that I submit the reason my interpretation is superior to that of Catholic Catechism. If Catechism was capable of refutation, outside of the context of denial or contradiction, then PRO's demand would be rendered null and futile.

"Under "CON1: IDOLATRY" his "COUNTER2" to me was very effective, and seemed significantly more than barely contesting the theme of that contention."

"Seem" once again is not an argument. But yes, I would "presume" that PRO's delineation of idolatry would have in effect addressed at least partly my reference to St. Peter's Square and idolatry. Whether this is more "effective" reduces to whether one sustains the integrity of the Bible or the integrity of Catholic interpretation. I quoted specific text which EXPLICITLY contradict the notion of Catholic Catechism even before PRO made mention of Catechism (e.g. there are no other "go betweens" other than Jesus himself.) Text from the bible "can't refute," but Catechism clearly could.

"Colombians are Latinos by definition,
Do you know what irony is? You're now arguing that people are what they are by virtue of definition..."

What is ironic about it? Didn't you frequently mention how PRO's stipulated definition was either "mutually agreed upon" or "pre-agreed"? Didn't I premise my own argument on the concept that Christians must strive to live their lives on the principles and values taught by Jesus Christ, which is informed by definition? Wasn't I the one who critcized your attempt to gloss over the definitions in your first vote? Where's the irony? Are you under the impression that I'm arguing against PRO's position because it's premised on definition? Once again, you have misrepresented my position.

Ragnar, I don't take issue with whom you've voted for. I take issue with your perversion of my argument. Like I told seldiora, if doom is imminent then I'd rather go down with my ship, because... it's my ship, dude.

-->
@Athias

> Colombians are Latinos by definition,
Do you know what irony is? You're now arguing that people are what they are by virtue of definition...

-->
@Barney

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ragnar // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 5:0; 5 points to PRO.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments/Debate Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:

When the vote extension within the comments is accounted for, the vote is more than sufficient per the site voting policy standards.

I am unsure why this vote was reported, the only reason I can think of is disagreement in interpretation.

I am tired of repeating this, but it looks like I'll need to once again: users are allowed to assign points in any way they see fit as long as they adhere to DART voting guidelines.

To quote our Moderation Extended Policies and Interpretations:
"It is not moderation's job to judge the rightness or wrongness of the verdict reached. That means that interpretive differences (including what meanings can be deduced or inferred from the text) are not with the scope of reviewable content in a vote. There is one exception to this: the voter actually lying about or blatantly misstating (intentionally or not) what transpired in the debate such that no reasonable person, reading carefully, could reach the conclusion they reached."

Mods can step in to prevent decisions that are so blatantly unfair no rational person can approve of it, but otherwise our interpretive ability is severely handicapped.

-->
@Barney

70 comments!
thx for voting, Ragnar

-->
@seldiora

> I'm not 100% convinced on the source point,
You can count the number they use, the consistency, and as mentioned under tautology: the impact of con gravely harming his own case when trying to employ them. Any lone factor would not be enough to tip it, but combined they add up to an overwhelming margin.

> especially since it seems common/obvious that Catholics visit St. Peter,
That visits to some place are interpreted as idol worship by con, is only an assertion about his own opinion unless evidence is used. While I do not expect every little claim to be sourced, important ones should be, especially as it allows people to double check that claimed facts are indeed facts.

> and pro barely contested that.
Under "CON1: IDOLATRY" his "COUNTER2" to me was very effective, and seemed significantly more than barely contesting the theme of that contention.

-->
@seldiora

"I'm not 100% convinced on the source point, especially since it seems common/obvious that Catholics visit St. Peter, and pro barely contested that."

Pro doesn't even contest it at all presumably because like praying to Mary, it's something understood--at least by the both of us--that Catholics do this. So it was "odd" when Ragnar claimed in his RFD that I "refused" to provide a source of evidence, especially when it was never demanded of me. And the language of "pretty clear sweep" insinuates that I provided little to no sources. The "source point" independent of this debate of course is a slippery one. If we're going to point out where and when sources are required, one might as well source every term he or she uses. This is the reason I primarily rely on reasoning.

Oh and "seem" is not an argument.

-->
@Barney

I'm not 100% convinced on the source point, especially since it seems common/obvious that Catholics visit St. Peter, and pro barely contested that.

-->
@seldiora

"In heart, I think you could've worded your challenge in a more direct and powerful way, especially, perhaps mentioning, Roman Catholic is Christian via dictionary definition is a poor way to prove something is something,"

But that isn't necessarily true. Religion like spirituality is immaterial. It's not something that can be proven through empiricism unless to count or confirm the amount of people who say that they're Catholic in an argument that seeks to resolve, "How many Catholics are there?" The definitions are important. My contention was that it was too simple to substantiate Roman Catholicism's Christianity. Not that a definition in and of itself wouldn't suffice. And in PRO's failure to make rigid the definition he stipulated, I was able to expand on it in a manner that would contradict the argument using the definition on which he premised said argument. Contrary to recent RFD's, that wasn't "special pleading." But that's beside the point. Definitions indicate context, and context is essential.

"especially since from olden times it wasn't guaranteed that Catholic fulfilled Christian traditions (Sabbath, commandments, believing in Christ, etc.). "

But the origins of Catholicism wasn't something either of us touched on or substantiated. Admittedly with the 5k character limit, I couldn't go in to the history of Catholicism and its Luciferian/Pagan origins (that is the reason you see me cite its definition, but not extend it in an argument.)

"If you were more thorough in defeating pro's religious argument philosophy, you could've turned it around, since that means even if Catholics are Christian, they must identify as such, but pro gives no such proof that Catholics do indeed identify as Christian."

But to do this, I would have to concede that his point has legimitacy, and it doesn't. If I were to demand that he prove it, he'd need only cite the number of Roman Catholics and their understanding of their own faith.

But PRO's main points were the only one he sought to substantiate, that is: (1) Roman Catholicism relates to Christianity or Christians, (2) Roman Catholicism is popularly understood to be among the Christian tradition, and (3) a Catholic has a right to identify as a Christian given an individual's prerogative to self-identification. The third point without mistake contradicts the first two. It eliminates the need for a standard which the other two set. He would've had to drop one of them to maintain the consistency of his argument, but he doesn't and extends them through all five rounds.

I take no issue sinking with my ship. But if I'm going to sink with my ship, then in must be MY ship. Not a ship built on the impressions of someone else.

-->
@Athias

In heart, I think you could've worded your challenge in a more direct and powerful way, especially, perhaps mentioning, Roman Catholic is Christian via dictionary definition is a poor way to prove something is something, especially since from olden times it wasn't guaranteed that Catholic fulfilled Christian traditions (Sabbath, commandments, believing in Christ, etc.). If you were more thorough in defeating pro's religious argument philosophy, you could've turned it around, since that means even if Catholics are Christian, they must identify as such, but pro gives no such proof that Catholics do indeed identify as Christian.

-->
@Barney

"He defended it as a the non-fallacious form, which you chose to drop."

There is no non-fallacious form of the ad populum. Colombians are Latinos by definition, not by consensus. Even the etymology of the term will tell you that "Colombia" was named for Christoforo Colombo (Christopher Columbus) and its a region that meets the description of Latin America. And I didn't drop it. After Round Four, no new arguments were to be made.

"Your level of nitpicking seems insane."

My insanity is consistent. I've made sure to highlight that since my days at DDO.

"Um, ok... Not tied to what they do, except when they fail to engage in idol worship which somehow makes them not Christian... Your special pleading is going all over the place."

Now you're invoking straw men. That specific comment was in a reference to a "time constraint." It's not in reference to my argument in its entirety. And there's no "special pleading." (I haven't asked for any exceptions "against the rules" to be made.)

"When trying to get votes, getting voters to to agree with your logic is very relevant."

No, it isn't. The soundness of the logic is the soundness of the logic whether one agrees with it or not. For example, I'm not trying to have you agree with my position; I'm attempting to have you not misrepresent my argument as something else (and you've persisted to do this.)

"If it's not relevant to you, you would not be trying to manipulate the voting."

This is rather unfortunate. Not only does it insult me, but it insults you as well. (I didn't know you were prone to being manipulated.) You were the one who decided to remove his initial vote. I neither asked nor told you to do that. Don't project your decisions as blame.

"As for the logic in question, I still don't see how a day of the week test for if Catholicism originates from the followers of Jesus Christ makes any kind of sense."

Outside of a few lines in the OP, PRO rarely speaks of Catholicisms origin, let alone emphasize it in any follow up argument. You're making arguments you believe PRO should have made, not ones that he did.

-->
@MisterChris

"Somehow I predicted this"

So did I.

"I'm starting to rethink voting."

Don't let my "fervor" intimidate you. Eager as I may be, I don't attack anyone personally. If you intend to participate, please do.

-->
@Athias

> First, I never incorporate the term "seem" into my argument unless I'm identifying it.
Your level of nitpicking seems insane.

> That is, one can be Christian today, a non-Christian tomorrow, and Christian again on Wednesday. This has nothing to do with that which one specifically "does."
Um, ok... Not tied to what they do, except when they fail to engage in idol worship which somehow makes them not Christian... Your special pleading is going all over the place.

> Your personal agreement isn't relevant.
When trying to get votes, getting voters to to agree with your logic is very relevant. If it's not relevant to you, you would not be trying to manipulate the voting. As for the logic in question, I still don't see how a day of the week test for if Catholicism originates from the followers of Jesus Christ makes any kind of sense.

> "Facepalm..."? Do you believe that this mention indicates proper decorum in an RFD?
Obviously when a facepalm is so readily earned, yes.

> But yes, in line with my reasoning, worshiping other gods, or idolatry, would exclude one from following the teachings of Jesus Christ.
*facepalm* You're basically saying someone cannot be a follower of Jesus Christ and be Christian. *facepalm*

-->
@Athias

> Pro did not make the claim about St. Peter's Square. CON did.
Thank you for catching a minor typo.

> And Pro did not challenge my mention of St. Peter's square any more than he challenged my mention of "Hail Mary"
This is technically true that he did not do it anymore than the other, given that he refuted the idol worship claim with Catholicism expressly forbidding idol worship even while allowing veneration.

> And there's nothing in PRO's definition that excludes my expansion
Your rampant special pleading continues... This time that we should reject pro's definition of "the largest Christian church," in favor of yours of "the largest Christian church" is noted. How could this possibly change the outcome? ... And yes, sorry for misrepresenting your argument before by calling it valid, given that if your premise here is true, then opposite conclusion being true is an impossibility.

> So why is CON the "Kritik"?
Please tell me you're joking? ... Ok, in case you were not: not every conversation is a kritik for being instigated. You chose to run a Kritik against the pre-agreed definitions, and then engaged in special pleading against your own definitions. Hence why you are considered to have run the kritik.

> Except that it's an ad populum fallacy.
He defended it as a the non-fallacious form, which you chose to drop. The whole "Columbians are Latinos" bit showed that on opinion being popular can make it true when it comes to identity issues such as this debate deals. Columbia existing by right of it being a popular opinion among the people that live there, is an intuitive baby-step from there. Interestingly this also yields some grounds on the anarchist point, which you could have capitalized.

I'm starting to rethink voting

Somehow I predicted this

-->
@Barney

"The no true scotsman gets extended to some additional bits, like the existence of the pope. However, there is a lack of follow through to support these, such as confirming the pope is not a member of Christianity"

There's no extension because no "No True Scotsman" fallacy was imputed (and this is especially inconsistent given that you lauded my point about anarachism as a good counterpoint.) And "pontifex maximus" is a pagan title (and the source shows this.)

"likewise that Christians in general are not."

Once again, this is a not a burden of the argument. The argument isn't whether Christians in general are Christians. It's whether Roman Catholicism is Christian.

"Due to repeated implicit requests from con for me to revote, here we go…"

I did not repeatedly request, let alone implicitly. I explicitly requested that you revote, and that you consider the actual arguments. Unfortunately your misrepresentation as delineated by your RFD was no less inconspicuous than your last RFD. But consider this my last "ping-storm," as I know when I'm beating a dead horse. (I also intend to avoid accusations of "unfair" play.)

Nevertheless, thanks for participating, Ragnar.

-->
@Barney

"Con directly concedes this contention, even while calling it “an ad populum fallacy.” And pro defends that definitions are true by merit of their popularity, which con then drops."

I conceded that the understanding was "popular." I did not concede that it was true. (I mentioned this several times.) And how did I drop the point? I addressed it in Round Four, and in Round Five, I couldn't present any new arguments as stipulated by PRO.

"Pro calls religion a personal identity,"

Yes, and that contradicts his citation of Roman Catholicism's definition. If it were a "personal identity," then definitions wouldn't matter.

"Con does make one good counterpoint that an anarchist doesn’t seem like an anarchist if they support big government."

First, I never incorporate the term "seem" into my argument unless I'm identifying it. "Seem" is not an argument. Second, how would my point about anarchism be a good counterpoint, when my point about Roman Catholicism either fails or imputes a "No True Scotsman" fallacy, when both arguments follow the same line of reasoning?

"Pro uses the foundation of previous points, to assert that to be a member of any faith is a spiritual self identification, which cannot be overridden by the No True Scotsman fallacy. "

That's your personal opinion and your non sequitur. My argument does not impute a "No True Scotsman." You're subscribing to the same contradiction by endorsing the point about personal identity and Roman Catholicism's and Christianity's definition.

" Pro counters that the original Christians indeed rejected Jesus but are still considered Christians, and the mutually agreed definition likens to them. "

And I pointed out that their Christianity was "restored" because they repented.

"Con tries to defend this by insisting people are or are not Christian day to day based on what they are doing at the moment… "

Once again, I never made this argument. I never suggest that one's "being" Christian on a day-to-day basis was informed by that which one does at the moment. The point made on my part illustrated the lack of "time constraint." That is, one can be Christian today, a non-Christian tomorrow, and Christian again on Wednesday. This has nothing to do with that which one specifically "does."

"Pro counters that the test becomes meaningless in general terms when so open ended, and as a voter I agree, I shouldn’t check which day of the week is to decide if something is true or false."

Your personal agreement isn't relevant. Ironic as it may be, this debate isn't a popularity contest. It's a measure of who substantiates their position best.

"Con declares that anyone who puts anyone or anything before God from Exodus, cannot be a follower of Jesus Christ (*facepalm*)..."

"Facepalm..."? Do you believe that this mention indicates proper decorum in an RFD? And no I did not "declare" that anyone who puts anyone or anything before God from Exodus cannot be a follower of Jesus Christ. The line indicates a refrain from worshipping other Gods. But yes, in line with my reasoning, worshiping other gods, or idolatry, would exclude one from following the teachings of Jesus Christ.

"Pro asserts that infractions to the level of violating commandments do not result in excommunication."

And this isn't relevant. My contention wasn't that a group of Catholics or Christians would ostracize deviants.

"From here he goes into a bit of whataboutism or an appeal against absurdity, which Con weirdly counters this with seeming to agree that no one qualifies as Christian except him when he was younger..."

Where did I do this? I cited my own experience growing up Christian to create an exception to PRO's argument that almost no Christians observe the Sabbath on Saturday. Where did I ever state that I was the only one who qualified as "Christian"? And it should be noted that PRO's source was taken from a sample of Protestants.

"Pro makes a better defense by explaining that Catholicism explicitly forbids worship of idols in the place of God (which con later declares means “Catholics do not acknowledge idolatry as a sin” which makes no sense against the Catechism source which demonstrates the exact opposite), with the practice mistaken for a workshop in fact being veneration of a go between or visiting tombstones."

Catechism does not explicitly forbid the worship of idols in place of God. It explains it away. And I retorted by mentioning the bit PRO elided. Not to mention, I specifically quoted statements from the Bible which condemns their acts in spite of their explanation (e.g. 1st Timothy chapter two, verse five where it states that Jesus is the only mediator between mankind and God.) So no, there are no other "go betweens," according to the Bible. I thought this alone would have sufficed in eliminating the Catechist argument since the reference was made in my very first argument.

....

-->
@Barney

"Sources: Pro
This is a pretty clear sweep. Pro refused to even support his key claim about St. Peter's Square with evidence. Both sides had the bible (once that’s in the hands of catholics, the resolution is self evidently false anyway). A key one was on catechism, which refuted con’s claim about idolatry."

Pro did not make the claim about St. Peter's Square. CON did. And Pro did not challenge my mention of St. Peter's square any more than he challenged my mention of "Hail Mary" presumably because it was understood that Catholics do this. So how did I "refuse" to provide evidence?

"Con runs a semantic Kritik to move the goalpost, wherein he calls for rejection of the definition of the Roman Catholic Church, for a competing dictionary one on Roman Catholicism further defined as “Catholic Church,” with a linked definition of that as “the largest Christian church” which con later points out explicitly “delineated by both our cited definitions.” This immediately leaves the debate in a catch-22, wherein if a voter rejects the moving of the goalpost the resolution is pre-affirmed by tautology, whereas if they accept the moving of the goalpost the resolution is likewise re-affirmed by tautology."

In order for the goal posts to be moved in logic, two arguments would have already need to have been made after which more stipulations are demanded post facto. How could I have "moved the goalpost" when I expanded the definition in my very first argument? And there's nothing in PRO's definition that excludes my expansion, so it's not a "competing" definition--especially given that I use the very same source as PRO.

And once more--like I told Seldiora: all arguments are semantic. The fact that you believe PRO won this by definition is based on semantics. So why is CON the "Kritik"?

"Pro argues the truth of the resolution is non-disputable by right of overwhelming popularity (I may have been using truism wrong, as I treated it as tautology). He makes a good point for common knowledge, calling back to the definitions that Catholicism is “the world's oldest and largest continuously functioning international institution” predating any other form of Christianity, and he really digs down into showing it indeed exists and has for a very long time."

Except that it's an ad populum fallacy. PRO cites distorted reasoning like a name is a name because it's accepted by consensus. A truism is a proposition true by virtue of its proposed logic making it very similar to a tautology.

.....

---RFD 1 of 2---
Due to repeated implicit requests from con for me to revote, here we go…
My previous vote may be found at:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2152/comment-links/29624

Burden of Proof:
Considering the agreed definitions and resolution, with shared BoP...
Pro must prove that “The ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH is” “of, like or relating to Christianity or Christians” with Christianity defined as “An Abrahamic religion originating from the community of the followers of Jesus Christ”
Con must prove that “The ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH is” NOT “of, like or relating to Christianity or Christians” with Christianity defined as “An Abrahamic religion originating from the community of the followers of Jesus Christ”

While the pre-agreed definition used for Roman Catholic Church is noted, if I right away plugged it in above the debate would be over before a single point is considered; which would defeat the spirit of debate.

---

Arguments: Pro
The very first contention sealed this debate, but if looking deeper this was a true landslide in which pro won every major contention. For con to gain ground, he would need to support that not worshipping idols is worshipping idols, and other such abominations against the nature of shared language.

Sources: Pro
This is a pretty clear sweep. Pro refused to even support his key claim about St. Peter's Square with evidence. Both sides had the bible (once that’s in the hands of catholics, the resolution is self evidently false anyway). A key one was on catechism, which refuted con’s claim about idolatry.

---RFD 2 of 2---
Contentions...

TAUTOLOGY:
Pro argues that “the largest Christian church...the world's oldest and largest continuously functioning international institution” is Christian by definition, and calls back to the definition with how “it has played a prominent role in the history and development of Western civilization.”

Con runs a semantic Kritik to move the goalpost, wherein he calls for rejection of the definition of the Roman Catholic Church, for a competing dictionary one on Roman Catholicism further defined as “Catholic Church,” with a linked definition of that as “the largest Christian church” which con later points out explicitly “delineated by both our cited definitions.” This immediately leaves the debate in a catch-22, wherein if a voter rejects the moving of the goalpost the resolution is pre-affirmed by tautology, whereas if they accept the moving of the goalpost the resolution is likewise re-affirmed by tautology.

We could of course ignore that words have assigned meanings, and speak gibberish. Without actual merit indicated for doing that, we must suffer the tyranny of shared language.

TRUISM:
Pro argues the truth of the resolution is non-disputable by right of overwhelming popularity (I may have been using truism wrong, as I treated it as tautology). He makes a good point for common knowledge, calling back to the definitions that Catholicism is “the world's oldest and largest continuously functioning international institution” predating any other form of Christianity, and he really digs down into showing it indeed exists and has for a very long time.
Con directly concedes this contention, even while calling it “an ad populum fallacy.” And pro defends that definitions are true by merit of their popularity, which con then drops.

RELIGIOUS LIBERTY:
Pro calls religion a personal identity, which the UN declares people have the right to self define. Con compares it in pointlessness to devil worshipers could call themselves Christian, to which pro reminds us that would fit the mutually agreed definition of Christian via “relating to Christianity” (a touch too broad there, but it intuitively shows the sound connections). Pro further leverages Elton John by choice being the singer Elton John.

Con does make one good counterpoint that an anarchist doesn’t seem like an anarchist if they support big government.

(after some weird complaints before, I am not touching the IDENTITARIAN and white nationalism bits)

THEOLOGY:
Pro uses the foundation of previous points, to assert that to be a member of any faith is a spiritual self identification, which cannot be overridden by the No True Scotsman fallacy. Con for his part declares that someone is not a True Christian if they reject Jesus Christ. Pro counters that the original Christians indeed rejected Jesus but are still considered Christians, and the mutually agreed definition likens to them. and further that Christianity is a varied faith which even includes Atheists. Con tries to defend this by insisting people are or are not Christian day to day based on what they are doing at the moment… Pro counters that the test becomes meaningless in general terms when so open ended, and as a voter I agree, I shouldn’t check which day of the week is to decide if something is true or false.

IDOLATRY:
Con declares that anyone who puts anyone or anything before God from Exodus, cannot be a follower of Jesus Christ (*facepalm*)...

Pro asserts that infractions to the level of violating commandments do not result in excommunication. From here he goes into a bit of whataboutism or an appeal against absurdity, which Con weirdly counters this with seeming to agree that no one qualifies as Christian except him when he was younger...

Pro makes a better defense by explaining that Catholicism explicitly forbids worship of idols in the place of God (which con later declares means “Catholics do not acknowledge idolatry as a sin” which makes no sense against the Catechism source which demonstrates the exact opposite), with the practice mistaken for a workshop in fact being veneration of a go between or visiting tombstones.

The no true scotsman gets extended to some additional bits, like the existence of the pope. However, there is a lack of follow through to support these, such as confirming the pope is not a member of Christianity, or likewise that Christians in general are not.

-->
@Barney

"If that was not your argument, then your argument was simply off topic to the debate you agreed to participate."

No, it wasn't. You merely presented a single clause of oromagi's definition and are using it to argue irrelevance. But even if it were the case that the definition were to merely comprise of just that first clause, the definition would still be "too simple." I could've challenged the meaning of "originate" since oromagi didn't explicitly argue this to be synonymous with "begin." (Originate is also synonymous with "create.") But nevertheless, there's a second clause (and you know this) when expanding the definition of "Christian" that discretely states "or Christians" (noun form.) I expanded this definition using the same site oromagi used to include for "a believer in Christianity OR an individual who seeks to live his or her life according to the principles and values taught by Jesus Christ."

I was able to employ my own definitions while simultaneously avoiding any re-definitions. A grammatical technicality if you will. Since he defined only the adjectival form of Christian, and the noun form of Christianity, it left the noun form of Christian wide open. Hence, I made sure to define it before I started.

-->
@Athias

"That's not my argument"
If that was not your argument, then your argument was simply off topic to the debate you agreed to participate.

-->
@Barney

"Your assertions that Catholicism does not originate from the community of the followers of Jesus Christ, because there is variance in rituals, is a rather obvious non-sequitur."

That's not my argument; how is that then my non sequitur?

"Hence, putting it into terms for how close you've come to making a valid and sound argument that eagles are not birds (we can even define birds by shared genealogy, if you want this to be a closer comparison)."

As long as it's consistent with a substantiated premise, there should be no question of its soundness.

"It's about like saying: 'Cats are not mammals, And note, my argument doesn't contain "IF." I'm not stating that "if cats don't bark they are therefore not mammals," I'm starting cats do not bark therefore they are not mammals, hence cats are not mammals.'"

If one has substantiated the premises of defining mammals and demonstrating how Cats don't meet that description, then that would be a sound argument. Likening my argument to the above example would be like insinuating my argument states "Catholics aren't Christians because they don't bark." Once again, you've persisted in likening my argument to a No True Scotsman. I employed a definition and extended my argument's reasoning to its logical conclusion. I'm not arbitrarily picking characteristics, practices, rituals, or customs and using them as fodder for an argument excluding Catholics. I made specific references with its relevant substantiation.

-->
@Athias

Your assertions that Catholicism does not originate from the community of the followers of Jesus Christ, because there is variance in rituals, is a rather obvious non-sequitur. Hence, putting it into terms for how close you've come to making a valid and sound argument that eagles are not birds (we can even define birds by shared genealogy, if you want this to be a closer comparison).

It's about like saying: 'Cats are not mammals, And note, my argument doesn't contain "IF." I'm not stating that "if cats don't bark they are therefore not mammals," I'm starting cats do not bark therefore they are not mammals, hence cats are not mammals.'

-->
@Barney

"To me semantics does not make something sound."

Actually it does, especially when the subject focuses on the immaterial.

"Let's look at your eagle example, if you argue an eagle isn't a bird because the wingspan is too big or the diet too varied, you can have all the valid arguments you want, and the conclusion still fails to be sound."

This is flawed. You're extending a No True Scotsman fallacy because you are redefining ad hoc in this example. I did no such thing. I'm not making up definitions or redefining anything. I cited my definitions at the very beginning, and I even used the same source as oromagi. And note, my argument doesn't contain "IF." I'm not stating that "if Roman Catholics' rituals and customs undermined the teachings of Jesus Christ, Roman Catholics therefore would not Christian." I'm stating that Roman Catholic customs and rituals do undermine the teachings of Jesus Christ (exampled by the mentions during the debate with specific references to the Bible;) hence Roman Catholics aren't Christians. A religion is a system of beliefs which in their entirety inform the Religion's distinction. Therefore, I needed only to provided just one example.

Now you might be thinking to yourself, one is not "enough" to disqualify one's being Christian. If that were the case, most if not all Christian denominations would be disqualified. And you personally find this absurd. But is this "logically" absurd? According to the definitions, there's nothing which states a specific amount of adherents or denominations. So the number of adherents or denominations isn't a burden of the argument. If one entertains that "one isn't enough," then it creates a slippery slope premised on personal arbitration. How many principles does one have to follow? 10? Five? One? Can one still be a Christian by not coveting his neighbor's wife, but sacrificing prepubescent children to Moloch, yelling "Hail Satan?" I know this is hyperbolic, but the examples I mentioned in the debate were specific, and cited particularly to demonstrate not the absence of principle, but the contradiction of it (e.g. "Hail Mary.")

"You can run around claiming that it's sound that eagles are not birds all you want, and that would just not make it so (even if you do win some debates on it)."

You persist to either explicitly or implicitly liken my argument to a No True Scotsman. Look it up. Even when using oromagi's source, it explicitly states the description of a well-defined "Scotsman," which isn't fallacious (e.g. No True Vegetarian would eat meat.) And I made mention of this numerous times during the debate as well.

-->
@oromagi

"To be clear, Athias challenged me to a debate and suggested Catholics are not Christians based on old debate I had with GeneralGrant. I honestly did not expect Athias to accept the first draft unconditionally since I made the terms as tilted in my favor as possible - so long as VOTERS agree that the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH relates to Christianity or Christians (and this is undeniable) then by the terms of this debate PRO wins. I expected some counter-offer from Athias that might give me some sense of his reasoning but instead he just accepted."

Your tact was acutely perceptive (Sun Tzu would be proud.) You chose the simplest premise while simultaneously putting a muzzle on me with the character count. Let's also not forget your preemptive strike with your mention of the No True Scotsman fallacy (which in actuality was a poisoning of the well.) So then the question became: was there any path to victory for my argument? As long as my grasp on logic and reason was firm, I had no reason to avoid engagement regardless of how disadvantaged my position was. If there were any flaws, inconsistencies, or contradictions in your argument, I'd be sure to find them (and I did.) And while you did choose the simplest definition on which to base your argument, it was too simple, leaving it open to scrutiny and expansion. I accepted because I welcomed the challenge.

"It seem to me that all Athias' best arguments (and now there have been a lot of them) come after my R5 and any chance to respond. I deliberately set 5000 characters so that the need for response overtaxed Athias' usual eloquence and it seems to me unfair that he gets to dump so much into the mix in the voting period."

That isn't necessarily accurate. In your description, you stipulated that no new arguments shall be made in round five. Despite that, you introduced new arguments. I could've simply responded to your round five argument, but I chose not to out of personal integrity (also, any response at that point would've been redundant.) Instead, I complied with your stipulation. But having integrity didn't mean that I didn't know how to take advantage of an opportunity. My having the last word was an inescapable consequence of the format. And while I did beef up my closing argument, there's no argument there that I didn't make before.

And please don't confuse this exchange with Ragnar and me in the comment section as last minute "politicking." I've already made my intentions clear: I will scrutinize any misrepresentations of the arguments. (And you'll notice that I've done this on your behalf as well when Seldiora rendered a vote of poor(er) conduct and Ragnar claimed that you accused me of racism.) And by all means, if there's any "foul play" please identify where (specific statements) this is being done. I made sure not hash out anything new, even in this comments section, so as to not further my argument.

-->
@Athias

To me semantics does not make something sound. Let's look at your eagle example, if you argue an eagle isn't a bird because the wingspan is too big or the diet too varied, you can have all the valid arguments you want, and the conclusion still fails to be sound. You can run around claiming that it's sound that eagles are not birds all you want, and that would just not make it so (even if you do win some debates on it).

-->
@Athias

To be clear, Athias challenged me to a debate and suggested Catholics are not Christians based on old debate I had with GeneralGrant. I honestly did not expect Athias to accept the first draft unconditionally since I made the terms as tilted in my favor as possible - so long as VOTERS agree that the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH relates to Christianity or Christians (and this is undeniable) then by the terms of this debate PRO wins. I expected some counter-offer from Athias that might give me some sense of his reasoning but instead he just accepted.

It seem to me that all Athias' best arguments (and now there have been a lot of them) come after my R5 and any chance to respond. I deliberately set 5000 characters so that the need for response overtaxed Athias' usual eloquence and it seems to me unfair that he gets to dump so much into the mix in the voting period.

-->
@Barney

That to which you refer is not "soundness." A sound argument is one where the premises are true and the extensions of them as a consequence are true. A valid argument doesn't necessitate the truth of the premises; it necessitates only that the premises--true or not--be extended to a reasonable conclusion. Case in point:

If I were a healthy eagle with functional wings,
I'd be able to fly.

This is a valid argument. The premise is not true because I'm not an eagle with functional wings, but the inductive reasoning renders this argument valid.

A man is an adult human being with a male reproductive organ,
I am an adult human being with a male reproductive organ,
Therefore, I am a man.

This is both valid and sound. The premises are true. And the conclusion is true.

Now let's look at my argument:

"Christian" is informed by striving to live one's life according to the principles taught by Jesus Christ,
Roman Catholics (Roman Catholicism) do not strive to live their lives according to the principles taught by Jesus Christ (informed during the debate,)
Therefore, Roman Catholics aren't Christians.

Now one can attempt to contradict my minor premise, but the extension of the contention would result in a logical absurdity (i.e. identifying whimsically or arbitrarily choosing tenets to follow virtually renders any distinction of the Religion absent.) That substantiates the truth of my minor premise. The argument is both valid and sound.

-->
@Athias

Yes, your argument is valid. That doesn't make it sound. That you don't know the difference, likely contributed to why you requested this debate in the first place.

In short, validity means if the premises are true than the conclusion follows. Whereas soundness relates to the ultimate truth of it. ... As an example, someone who likes dogs and agrees they are mammals, might argue that since they dislike cats they must therefore not be mammals. They could validly line up how cats fail to bark and other such evidence, and even win debates with the logic, but that would never be able to make their case actually sound.

-->
@Barney

I do have a passion for logic; and, it's not that my argument is "unsound"--because it really isn't. It's bridging the mental gap between that which one has believed and accepted to be true one's whole life--one does not necessarily have to practice Catholicism to maintain the belief that Catholicism is Christian--and that which is logically consistent. It's like telling a child that televised wrestling is "fake" or that the story of Santa Klaus is a "myth." I know my arguments go against the current, but unless there's something erroneous about my premise--i.e. Christian being inform by striving to live one's life according to the principles taught by Jesus Christ--and its extension to its logical conclusion--i.e. living one's life undermining the principles taught by Jesus Christ makes one non-Christian--then despite one's disagreeing with the notion of my argument, the argument itself is sound.

-->
@Athias

You seem very passionate about this. While your argument is unsound, I'll give you that it is internally valid.

-->
@Barney

"Ath:
You have done a good job outlining slight variations which differentiate Catholicism from mainstream Christendom. That leaves the debate asking is Catholicism still inspired by Jesus? Hopefully someone else answers how the debate answered this."

My argument has never intended to create a distinction between Catholicism and mainstream Christianity. I wasn't arguing that Catholicism was more or less Christian than other known (or believed to be) Christian denominations. My argument is that Roman Catholicism isn't Christian because its customs and rituals contradict the principles taught by Jesus Christ, the set of which I argue defines Christianity. [I can argue the same for many of the other denominations but the subject is Roman Catholicism.] Now extending this premise to its logical conclusion may render a result you find personally absurd--i.e. most, if not all, Christian denominations aren't truly Christian--but that's not the same as its being "logically" absurd.

A religion, like a philosophy, is a set of beliefs and principles. If one were to identify oneself as an adherent of a religion by arbitrarily choosing which principles to follow and ignore, then how would that be any different from the premise of self-identification? Hence, my argument is always consistent. I'm not arguing that Catholics aren't Christians, but Protestants are; that Baptists are Christian, but Catholics aren't. My argument is "DON'T FOLLOW PRINCIPLES OF RELIGION = DON'T REPRESENT RELIGION." And my analogies involving vegetarians and meat, and anarchists and the State, help to extend that reasoning.

I plan on judging this debate before the time expires.

NOTICE: Only 4 days remain for voting, with the debate currently tied.