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

-->
@oromagi
@Athias
@seldiora

Disclaimer: Whiteclaw and Costco Margarita mixed with extra tequila are posting (or at least significantly contributing)! Thank you spell check, for making this something not too awful.

---

Ideally (well, ideally ideally we'd have a lot more active voters...) this debate should be decided by someone non-religious (specifically agnostic... let's face it, Atheists often fall into the trap of accidentally being more committed to religion than thane average actual devotees of religion). For context, I am a Catholic/Pastafarian. So in person I've had too many variants of this debate and Christian conspiracy theories related to it. I genuinely don't think this dominated my vote but only an idiot would deny the mere precedence of slight influence.

On Sunday I start a shit job which I've held out against for way too long... So if no other voter has fairly weighed in by Friday (err, maybe not Friday, I have plans which might turn out badly) or Saturday, I'll try to put a couple hours into a deep contention by contention re-reading.

...

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.

Oro:
You miss some basic points, but do an amazing job levaging definitions. You do more than this, but it is a key thing which determines borderline debates.

Seld:
Yo! You're improving on voting faster than I did! Hell, I unfairly called the first person who stalked me a stalker, yet they had nothing on the second or the third. ... Okay, sorry, I should specify drinking to get through a PTSD episode while my city is on fire (a wildfire near it... air politician, my GF/Ex could not understand why I was freaking out... TMI.).

Okay, first person I called a stalker. I literally can't remember his name, even while I respect him. I voted badly on one of his debates, and he followed me around for a bit complaining. Stalker was over stating it. ... What I mean to say it that you're doing pretty good, even if flawed, still more effort than the vast majority pf readers are putting in, and I suspect the debaters appreciate it.

Anyway, so yeah, tied votes are one of the best things. Don't ever let anyone shame you for it.

For clarity, Athias did not report my vote!

FYI (technically this whole post is such, but you get the gist...), due to my status as a moderator, when my votes have been reported I've often advised other moderators to hold them to a higher standard (delete even if borderline or even slightly above it).

I likewise hold myself to a said higher standard, and of course second guess myself.

To me "ping storm" is obviously a hyperbole, but still gets at a bit of the issues (line by line criticism does get over the top). However, Athias isn't a POS debater like some who I will not name. There's been plenty of times where someone challenges my vote when I literally know their argument better than them, but this is not one of those times.

-->
@Barney
@MisterChris

"That was unexpected but fair considering the ping-storm you're receiving over it."

"Ping-storm" isn't an apt characterization; I'm thorough. (And it's not like I reported the vote.) If an argument is going to lose in a debate, then the actual argument merits the loss, not the impression of it. And look at my debate history: it wouldn't be the first time I took a voter to task over his vote. Consistency and consideration for logical form is essential; if I don't maintain this example myself, then there's no point in expecting the same of anyone else.

And please do consider re-voting Ragnar. I seek only that you exercise more consideration for the actual arguments even if your vote's favor does not change. Thanks for participating.

-->
@Barney

That was unexpected but fair considering the ping-storm you're receiving over it

Removing my vote. I might revote later with one that minimizes any feedback on the impressions the debate leaves readers with...

---

For 5K arguments, those felt more like 15.

Seems the debate hinges upon two key things:
1. If the form of something differs from others of its kind, when does it become something else?
2. Are pre-agreed definitions binding?

For the first con comes close, but pro’s built in defense of pointing out things like the sabbath already leaving true-Christians in doubt if entertaining the fallacy. Con ends up trying to flip this around asserting that Catholics are only as close to being Christian as Hindus are, which was an obvious non-sequitur.

For the second is Catholicism “An Abrahamic religion originating from the community of the followers of Jesus Christ”? Yes. Obviously. While the dictionary should make this cut and dry, out of respect to both debaters I am going to look past it at the real disputes.

---

Pro wisely predicted the No True Scotsman fallacy. While con protested against it, he walked his arguments inside it allowing pro to frame them in those terms. Con for his part does an okay job on said protests, but majorly beating around the bush rather than just saying the form of the fallacy does not guarantee it is being used fallaciously (a Scotsman being someone from Scotland, a guy who spent his whole life in Texas would indeed be not a true scotsman … in his closing con did put it in these clear terms); which should have been swiftly backed up on why said tests absolutely rule someone out from being a true scotsman.

Con did much better on the religious liberty point, pointing out that it's non-falsifiable (that may mean something different to me due to my level of education). Not sure how pro twisted that around to con calling him racist... Anyway, I am finding self-identification was intuitively flawed even while it can't be outright dismissed since religion is defined personally by people (side note: even if scientologists are not really scientists or christians...). As con put it: “transmutation as a consequence of arbitrary identitarianism.”

Pro had a slam dunk on the THEOLOGY point, since con argued that people are and are not Christians at various times based on what they’re currently doing, which undercuts his own argument that Catholics are not Christian because they sometimes sin. That there are customs not specifically endorsed by Jesus, doesn’t defeat the problem pro pointed out about the shortage of true christians if entertaining this standard leads to absurdity of true-Christians not existing (not honoring the sabbath on the correct day, eating meat on friday, etc.). If following the bible incorrectly would further not remove the strive to follow Jesus.

Conduct:
Pro took a decent hit to this at one point on the whole racism accusation, were there any more notable ones he would lose this point.

Similarly at the end con started quoting the debate with quotes that were not present earlier in the debate. (the unclearly that these were con's words instead of pro's, are also an S&G issue, but again, too little of the debate was corrupted by it to actually cost the point IMO)

THBT: The FLOOR is FLOOR

-->
@Barney

One more thing (noticed this only after I re-read your RFD):

"Seems the debate hinges upon two key things:
1. If the form of something differs from others of its kind, when does it become something else?"

Why would you presume this? There's nothing in the argument that suggests that a comparison between denominations is necessary. (In the short description, oromagi points out that I've claimed most Christian denominations aren't "truly" Christian.) If my premise is the principles of Jesus Christ, and oromagi's is self-identification and Roman Catholicism's definition, what relevance do "others of its kind"--Roman Catholicism that is--bear? (I also made mention of this in the debate with oromagi.)

Thanks again for participating.

-->
@Barney

"Would you have preferred a simple two line vote that you lost the debate from the start on definitions?"

Preference is of no consequence. I scrutinize all votes that either misrepresent or unfairly characterize the arguments. If you're in need of further convincing, you can read below where I scrutinize seldiora's vote even though it was initially made in my argument's favor. And even using the definitions alone, I wouldn't have lost automatically. It's a matter of consistency with the premise, not tautology. And if you looked past the premise, then you might as well have looked past the argument.

"You chose to present things as quotations by putting them inside double quotation marks. Double checking that you did this, only took about 15 seconds to find an easy example from the end of the debate: My opponent misconstrued my argument as taking a "single act of sin""

Yes, I do this for emphasis, much like my use of the embolden function. I did not state that oromagi stated the contents of the quote. I'm familiar with the quote function on this site, and if I intended to quote oromagi directly, I would've done so like I've done throughout the entire debate. (I even quoted "Pontifex Maximus," a term never mentioned by oromagi.) The misconstruction derived from when he referenced single acts of sin by Saul and Peter as a response to my tests of principle. Hence, "single act of sin." And I stressed this point to juxtapose it with the customary and ritual sins of Catholics, the statement after which I emboldened for effect.

I know my arguments better than anyone. And even though, this point you allege was of no consequence in your decision, I will always criticize misrepresentations of my argument. In other words, I did not "put words in oromagi's mouth." (You see, you didn't state this, but I'm representing your statement as such based on other statements you said.)

-->
@Athias

> "Where did I do this? In my closing arguments I didn't really quote anyone."

You chose to present things as quotations by putting them inside double quotation marks. Double checking that you did this, only took about 15 seconds to find an easy example from the end of the debate: My opponent misconstrued my argument as taking a "single act of sin"

You can double check for yourself if pro wrote "single act of sin" inside the debate or not. This is again something I pointed out to caution against in future, without actually assigning a point penalty.

-->
@Barney

"Pro had a slam dunk on the THEOLOGY point, since con argued that people are and are not Christians at various times based on what they’re currently doing, which undercuts his own argument that Catholics are not Christian because they sometimes sin."

I made no such argument. Even when pro insinuated that I was assessing single acts of sin at different moments in time, I made sure to explicitly mention adherence to the principle. And it's not that Catholics "sometimes" sin. They "customarily" sin--customarily being synonymous with "usually." And I made sure to mention that in my argument. So how was my argument undercut? If to practice Catholicism is to customarily sin, then how does that undercut the argument that Christianity has no time constraints?

"That there are customs not specifically endorsed by Jesus"

No, I stated they were rejected by Jesus, and substantiated that rejection with Bible quotes as well as definitions.

"doesn’t defeat the problem pro pointed out about the shortage of true christians if entertaining this standard leads to absurdity of true-Christians not existing (not honoring the sabbath on the correct day, eating meat on friday, etc.). If following the bible incorrectly would further not remove the strive to follow Jesus."

There was no problem. This happens too often. A logical absurdity is not the same as that which you personally find incredulous. An absurdity in logic is an inevitable contradiction rendered from extending premises to their logical conclusions (e.g. the reductio ad absurdum I assessed when pointing out that oromagi argued that "Christian" was informed by both identity and definition.) Where do you my arguments contradict? They don't at all.

"If following the bible incorrectly would further not remove the strive to follow Jesus."

How did CON substantiate this at all? You assessed the identitarian argument flawed, and you "looked past" the definitions.

"Pro took a decent hit to this at one point on the whole racism accusation, were there any more notable ones he would lose this point."

Once again, oromagi didn't accuse me of racism.

"Similarly at the end con started quoting the debate with quotes that were not present earlier in the debate. (the unclearly that these were con's words instead of pro's, are also an S&G issue, but again, too little of the debate was corrupted by it to actually cost the point IMO)"

Where did I do this? In my closing arguments I didn't really quote anyone. The only time I used quotes was to highlight the analogies and the fallacies. But I never stated that oromagi stated the content of the quotes, namely the analogies. I used the very same words oromagi used to describe his position. And then I started paraphrasing since it was a closing argument.

Thank you for participating, Ragnar.

-->
@Athias

Would you have preferred a simple two line vote that you lost the debate from the start on definitions?

-->
@Barney

"Pro wisely predicted the No True Scotsman fallacy. While con protested against it, he walked his arguments inside it allowing pro to frame them in those terms. Con for his part does an okay job on said protests, but majorly beating around the bush rather than just saying the form of the fallacy does not guarantee it is being used fallaciously (a Scotsman being someone from Scotland, a guy who spent his whole life in Texas would indeed be not a true scotsman … in his closing con did put it in these clear terms); which should have been swiftly backed up on why said tests absolutely rule someone out from being a true scotsman."

Yes, Pro did wisely anticipate my premise because he set out from the beginning to eliminate tests of principle. Tests of principle by virtue don't constitute a "No True Scotsman." Only if I had sought out to "redefine" ad hoc (like Nemiroff did in your example,) would it count as a "No True Scotsman." And what is meant by
"[backing] up on why said tests absolutely rule someone out from being a true scotsman"? I did it with thorough reasoning and numerous analogies. Even if I were to demonstrate just one principle violated, that would've sufficed since a religion much like philosophy is a system of principles. My not committing adultery makes me no more Christian than, for example, eating Kosher meats make Jewish. It's a set of principles which in their entirety constitute the religion.

"For the first con comes close, but pro’s built in defense of pointing out things like the sabbath already leaving true-Christians in doubt if entertaining the fallacy."

If you examined that source, you would've noticed that the survey was taken using a sample of Protestants, not Catholics. But I'll come back to this later.

"Con ends up trying to flip this around asserting that Catholics are only as close to being Christian as Hindus are, which was an obvious non-sequitur."

Far from the truth Ragnar. That was in response to CON's identitarian argument--a point by the way, you mentioned was flawed. There was no non sequitur. My response merely proposed a reductio ad absurdum. If anyone can "identify" as an adherent to any religion that they desire, then the religion is no longer defined by its principles (or set of beliefs) but by individual identity--in which case, a Catholic is no more "Christian" than a Hindu.

"For the second is Catholicism “An Abrahamic religion originating from the community of the followers of Jesus Christ”? Yes. Obviously. While the dictionary should make this cut and dry, out of respect to both debaters I am going to look past it at the real disputes."

Why would you have looked "past" them? Both Oromagi and I premised our arguments on these definitions. The premises are an essential part of an argument.

"Not sure how pro twisted that around to con calling him racist..."

CON did not allege that I called him racist.

"Anyway, I am finding self-identification was intuitively flawed even while it can't be outright dismissed since religion is defined personally by people (side note: even if scientologists are not really scientists or christians..."

If that were a conclusion you drew from observing our debate, then you should've re-examined your allegation of "flawed" as pertained to oromagi's argument (If it can't be dismissed, then it's not flawed.) If you're rendering this assessment based on your own, for lack of a better term, "feelings" about religion, then I must ask what place--if any--you believe that has in placing a vote in a debate where you're neither PRO or CON?

To be continued.

-->
@seldiora

Problems aside, your votes are improving. Keep up the progress

-->
@seldiora

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: seldiora // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:1; 1 points to CON.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments
>Reason for Mod Action:

This vote fell under the definition of a "tied vote."

There are three types of tied votes:
(1) Ones which allot zero points. They have no meaningful impact on the debate outcome, and are thus only moderated if warranted for other reasons.
(2) Ones which cancel themselves out. While the category assignments may serve as feedback to the debaters, there is no still meaningful impact for moderation consider. These are in essence the same as the previous type.
(3) Votes which leave arguments tied, but assign other categories. While these need not meet the sufficiency standards for an argument vote, they must still evaluate arguments enough to justify no clear winner. There is however an exception for >=50% forfeitures allowing conduct only with no further explanation.
Further reading: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1718/moderation-and-tied-votes

As a vote falling under category 3, the voter just barely justified leaving the argument tied enough to where I'd call the vote borderline if they had properly justified a conduct violation.

That said, the voter did not do a very good job justifying the designation of conduct points.

To award conduct points, the voter must:
(1) identify specific instances of misconduct,
(2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and
(3) compare each debater's conduct.

The voter neglected points 2 & 3.

TL;DR: If the voter wants to resubmit their vote, they should elaborate on points 2 & 3 of the conduct vote requirements.

VOTE PART 1:
Once again Oromagi tries a trickery semantic debate with many different interpretations, to be honest I don't know who won, because Oromagi tried to assert it a truism and prove there were exceptions to Con's cases, especially nitty gritty Catholic vs Christian picking. Con made some good points but honestly I'm not 100% convinced even with the mention of gender vs sex at the end that confuses believer vs true follower. It's a 50/50 to me. Conduct to con because this feels like Oromagi wanted some kind of easy win based on dictionary definition...

VOTE PART 2:
full RFD:

Pro: Christianity is Christianity. People get to say their beliefs.
Con: Christians must truly serve Jesus and idolize him.

Pro: Even Bible some Christians rejected Jesus before being accepted, nobody adheres to Sunday law
Con: ""Christian," isn't informed by a temporal aspect. "

Pro: Betrayal was known beforehand and still prepared for, so sins don't stop them being Christian
Con: Catholics differ from Christian, the more strict definition is superior for "Christian", (I'm not personally convinced by the Sunday law exception with her experience)

Pro: religious liberty (where did it go? lol), says con dropped all cases
Con: " popular understanding does not necessarily inform truth." (why didn't you say this before?), the difference between sub-religions is important,

Pro: UnChristian people can call themselves Christian, Jesus's specific preaching too vague, other args dropped
Con: brings up "trans religion" similar to gender vs sex, prayer has precise meaning, and pro is too inconsistent

Overall I feel like this was a back and forth that was really painful to go through, it's very clear Oromagi was arguing over semantics. I'm not convinced either side won, but I'm pretty sure con got the conduct point since oromagi claimed he thought it was a truism

Thx 4 voting, Seldiora!

I've read most of this. In a few days if no one has cast an argument vote, please remind me and I will.

Seeing so much talk of No True Scotsman, I had to look back to one of my debates which was basically on that point...
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1560-physicians-are-scientists

-->
@Intelligence_06

bsh (https://www.debate.org/debates/The-Treaty-of-Versailles-Was-Unjust/1/) knows what happens

No one knows what happens when you beat Oromagi.

-->
@Athias

of course, I understand your argument was not as extreme as "must", but it might as well have been since Oromagi was sticking to his guns all the way to the end. He stubbornly stayed with his definition while batting away yours, but you kept up with counter examples and put a lot of doubt in whether Oromagi was justified to merely say that belief is all it takes. That's why I feel like conduct is leaning towards you.

-->
@seldiora

"Con: Christians must truly serve Jesus and idolize him."

Not explicitly what I stated. I stated Christians must seek to live their lives according to the principles taught by Jesus Christ. That isn't necessarily restricted to just idolization and servitude.

"Catholics differ from Christian, the more strict definition is superior for "Christian", (I'm not personally convinced by the Sunday law exception with her experience)"

It isn't a "strict" definition; it's an expanded definition using oromagi's references (i.e. wiktionary.) And I'm not a "she." And your being "personally convinced" should play no role in a vote. I cited a fact: I grew up going to church and have observed Sabbath on a Saturday. And I know thousands who did the same.

' " popular understanding does not necessarily inform truth." (why didn't you say this before?)"

I didn't have to, before. While oromagi did make mention of "popular understanding" he didn't explicitly argue that its popularity informed truth until the third round and fourth round. (Note that since Round 2, I was contradicting the notion that we were arguing over the popular understanding of Roman Catholicism.)

"Overall I feel like this was a back and forth that was really painful to go through, it's very clear Oromagi was arguing over semantics."

All arguments are semantic. Thus, we stipulate definitions before hand. The matter is whether or not we're consistent with these defined premises.

"I'm not convinced either side won, but I'm pretty sure con got the conduct point since oromagi claimed he thought it was a truism."

I'm not sure about that which constitutes the standard for conduct, but I'll go out on a limb and state that oromagi's conduct was no worse than mine.

"I feel like Christianity should be able to interpreted many ways, since religion is a blurred line."

In the interest of a rational and logically consistent exchange, one ought to judge based on that which one observes not that which one "feels." Both oromagi and I presented descriptions of Christianity, and the only question for a voter is whether each debater's argument logically and consistently extends the premises to their respective conclusions.

"You shouldn't be able to completely defile god while believing in god. That makes no sense."

I agree. That's the reason I made no such argument. I argued whether the description "Christian" applies to a religion or one whose practices undermine the teachings of Christ. I never scrutinized Catholics' belief in God; Judaists also believe in God, so belief in God couldn't be the defining factor for the description, "Christian."

Thank you for participating, seldiora.

to me, it feels like a cross-examination before or during the debate could have greatly helped, both pro and con brought up and dropped arguably equal amount of points with con barely managing to bring up the reasonable doubt in oromagi's seeming truism definition. I feel like Christianity should be able to interpreted many ways, since religion is a blurred line. You shouldn't be able to completely defile god while believing in god. That makes no sense. But for con to win, she had to PUSH for this definition with greater force. For Pro to win, he would had to shut off con in every which way, but the last round put in enough doubt for a tie overall.

full RFD:

Pro: Christianity is Christianity. People get to say their beliefs.
Con: Christians must truly serve Jesus and idolize him.

Pro: Even Bible some Christians rejected Jesus before being accepted, nobody adheres to Sunday law
Con: ""Christian," isn't informed by a temporal aspect. "

Pro: Betrayal was known beforehand and still prepared for, so sins don't stop them being Christian
Con: Catholics differ from Christian, the more strict definition is superior for "Christian", (I'm not personally convinced by the Sunday law exception with her experience)

Pro: religious liberty (where did it go? lol), says con dropped all cases
Con: " popular understanding does not necessarily inform truth." (why didn't you say this before?), the difference between sub-religions is important,

Pro: UnChristian people can call themselves Christian, Jesus's specific preaching too vague, other args dropped
Con: brings up "trans religion" similar to gender vs sex, prayer has precise meaning, and pro is too inconsistent

Overall I feel like this was a back and forth that was really painful to go through, it's very clear Oromagi was arguing over semantics. I'm not convinced either side won, but I'm pretty sure con got the conduct point since oromagi claimed he thought it was a truism

-->
@oromagi
@Athias

Looks like a legendary debate

-->
@Athias

Thanks, Athias. Good debate.

R5 SOURCES:
http://www.wcdebate.com/1parli/29truism.htm
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/or
http://www.wcdebate.com/1parli/29truism.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Osteen
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Amish
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury#Christianity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery#Middle_Ages
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7&version=KJV

-->
@oromagi

Round Three Sources:

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

-->
@Athias

R4 SOURCES:

http://www.wcdebate.com/1parli/29truism.htm
http://www.wcdebate.com/1parli/29truism.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elton_John

-->
@Athias

R3 SOURCES:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Catholic_Church
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identitarian_movement
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2022&version=KJV
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019&version=KJV
https://lifewayresearch.com/2018/12/04/most-churchgoers-see-sunday-as-sabbath/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_attendance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

-->
@Athias

R2 SOURCES:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+8%3A1-3&version=KJV
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2018:13-27&version=KJV
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesuism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
http://ccc.usccb.org/flipbooks/catechism/514/index.html

-->
@Athias

R1 SOURCES:

http://www.wcdebate.com/1parli/29truism.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Christian
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church
https://www.britannica.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion
https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

-->
@oromagi

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

-->
@oromagi

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Roman_Catholicism
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Latin_Church
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Christian#Noun
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Luciferianism
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Lucifer
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Bible

-->
@oromagi

Interesting approach. I'll prepare my argument.

-->
@oromagi

No problem. Excellent job in outlining your stipulations. It'll make my job more difficult (as it should be.) But you did leave me some wiggle room. So whenever you're ready, we'll get started.

ok now THIS is epic

-->
@Athias

Thx, for acceptance. I look forward to an excellent debate.

SOURCES used in DESCRIPTION:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Christian#Adjective
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Christianity#Proper_noun
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_%28philosophy%29

Ooooo this should be spiccy

-->
@oromagi

I thought that was truism