Instigator / Pro
2
1484
rating
5
debates
30.0%
won
Topic

Roman Catholicism is False

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
0
3
Sources points
0
2
Spelling and grammar points
1
1
Conduct points
1
1

With 1 vote and 5 points ahead, the winner is ...

Benjamin
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Religion
Time for argument
Two weeks
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender / Con
7
1670
rating
34
debates
66.18%
won
Description
~ 201 / 5,000

In this debate I will attempt to use a reductio ad absurdum to prove that my Catholic opponent is lying to themselves, and therefore unconsciously to us all, by professing to believe in their religion.

Round 1
Pro
Welcome, Benjamin.  Per the debate description I shall prove that you do not really believe in Roman Catholicism.  I hope you do not take offense, and instead consider this opportunity to demonstrate your faith to be an honor.

Syllogism A
Premise 01:  Martyrdom is the surest way to attain Heaven and avoid Hell, if Catholicism is correct.
Premise 02:  True Catholics seek martyrdom.
Premise 03:  My opponent does not seek martyrdom (see Syllogism B).
Conclusion:  My opponent does not really believe in Catholicism.

Syllogism B
Premise 01:  It's never occured to my opponent to petition any government for the opportunity to be executed for their Catholic faith.
Premise 02:  If my opponent sought martyrdom, they would have considered this option (see Syllogism C).
Conclusion:  My opponent does not seek martyrdom.

Syllogism C
Premise 01:  My opponent is about 17 years old (I gleaned this from their profile).
Premise 02:  My opponent has professed to believe in Catholicism for at least most of that time.
Premise 03:  Someone sincerely seeking martyrdom would have, by now, petitioned some government for the opportunity to be executed for their Catholic faith.
Conclusion:  Someone who has not yet made such a petition within this timeframe does not sincerely seek martyrdom, despite any protests to the contrary.

Best of luck.
Con
Thank you, Puacho.


RESOLUTION: Roman Catholicism is False
POSITION: CON

BOP: 

CAMBRIDGE DEFINITIONS OF FALSE:


As can be seen from these definitions, the word "false" does not refer to merely imperfection. It implies either direct deception or inherent falseness.


REBUTTAL:
Even if everything my opponent said was true, that still does not prove tjhat Catolicism is false, it would just prove that I am not a DEDICATED Catholic. But what he said is not true, as he has neither evidence nor sufficient logic behind his claims. PRO asserts that I haven't tried to become a martyr and thus I am not a real Catholic. That is absurd, if every Catholic attempted to become a martyr there would soon be none left --- thus the act of attempting to become a martyr contradicts the very motivation for doings so. Thus one can be a real and sincere Catholic WITHOUT attempting to become a martyr. Thus PRO's argument fails.



CRITIQUE OF PRO'S APPROACH
PRO is attempting to pull a logical train that is simply too large. Not only does he provide no evidence for his syllogisms, but many of the premises are subjective. How does PRO know that every true Catholic seeks to get the highest chance of heaven? How does he know that I am a Catholic, or that I haven't tried to pettition for martyrdom? He doesn't; and thusly fails his entire argument to be built on true information in the first place. Worse for PRO's case is the fact that the resolution and his description contradicts each other methodolically, by virtue of one of them requiring a religious debate to confirm or debunk and the other requiring an interwiev of me personally. Since they contradict each other it is the title that matters. THUS; PRO HAS TO PROVE THAT ROMAN CATHOLICISM IS FALSE! ELSE HE LOSES.

Good luck, PRO!
Round 2
Pro
Thanks, Ben. 

Even if everything my opponent said was true, that still does not prove tjhat Catolicism is false, it would just prove that I am not a DEDICATED Catholic.
If you are not dedicated to avoiding eternal pain and obtaining eternal happiness, it's not plausible that you actually believe in either, and you cannot be Catholic.  Faced with the prospect of burning alive forever, the normal human reaction is panic, and even a slightly rational human being will spend most of their time planning how to achieve eternal happiness, if they believe there's the slightest chance it's within their reach.

You don't seem to be having a panic attack.  Why are you on debateart.com instead of preparing your immortal soul for an unchangable fate in the afterlife?  I know debateart is great and all, but still ... eternal happiness, man.

if every Catholic attempted to become a martyr there would soon be none left --- thus the act of attempting to become a martyr contradicts the very motivation for doings so. 
The motivation for becoming a martyr is to go to Heaven.  Where's the contradiction?

How does PRO know that every true Catholic seeks to get the highest chance of heaven?
I have a private topical island paradise with a marvellous mansion containing all the luxuries life can afford.  It can all be yours, Con, if you abandon everyone and everything and move into the desert to live the life of a hermit for 1 year.  But if I return in 365 days and I find you have treated my offer with disdain, you will find yourself shoved into an oven and slowly roasted alive.  Then you'll be resurrected, and go through the torture again a thousand times.

Based on your reaction to my offer, it is easy to determine whether you truly believe me. If you find yourself casually browsing debateart.com at any point during the next 365 days, one could not say, "He believes in the promise and the threat, but he's just not dedicated to it."

Similarly, it is easy to identify a true Catholic.  

How does he know that I am a Catholic, or that I haven't tried to pettition for martyrdom?
You better hope I don't find out you aren't Catholic, because then I win this debate, since we will both have agreed Catholicism isn't worth believing in.  If you've petitioned for martyrdom, that's a pretty important piece of evidence in your favor that for some reason you are neglecting to put forward.  I can't imagine why, if you are in possession of such concrete documentary proof, you are keeping it in the dark.

Worse for PRO's case is the fact that the resolution and his description contradicts each other methodolically, by virtue of one of them requiring a religious debate to confirm or debunk and the other requiring an interwiev of me personally. 
There is no contradiction; if you don't personally believe in Catholicism then you have accepted a debate you are not qualified for, since the description identifies my opponent specifically as a "Catholic opponent".

Since they contradict each other it is the title that matters.
I strongly resent the notion that someone can accept my own debate which I created and arbitrarily dictate what we will be arguing about.
Con
Thank you, Puachu.


NOTE
PRO simply asserts that I personally must be a Catholic to even have a chance at winning this debate. That is some BS without any justification. I am simply putting on a role, as a Catholic, and defends catholicism against PRO's accusations of falseness. Remember that the resolution asserts a universal "falseness" of Catholicism, which PRO has yet to even try to prove. Some people are actually 100% dedicated to eternal happiness, and some people are actually martyrs --- meaning PRO's argument fails regardless of what he says.



REBUTTAL
PRO claims that one must try 100% to become a martyr to be a catholic. Yet Jesus himself taught us to be selfless, and to spread the good news around the world. If every Catholic became martyr, and thusly catholicism died out, then no more people would get saved. For me to become a martyr without needing to would be a selfish act; I would be attempting to increasy MY chances of getting to heaven at the expence of the people that I could have otherwise helped come to the truth. In other words, me attempting to become a martyr would mean that I put my own desire for heaven above the need of other people to come to heaven --- thus contradicting Jesus's command to be selfless. In essence, if I had tried to "trick" God into sending me to heaven by becomming a martyr, then God would expose me as both a selfish AND cheating person; this would definatelly decrease my chances of getting to heaven. Trying to cheat oneself a ticket to heaven rather than helping others to get there is definately NOT a thing a true Catholic would do.



CONCLUSION
PRO's argument is Bullshit --- it doesn't make sense and assumes that true Catholics must break the very values of Catholicism and Jesus's teachings.

The resolution stands unsupported by PRO; and PRO has the BoP.

Good luck, PRO.
Round 3
Pro
the resolution asserts a universal "falseness" of Catholicism
Acktshually, per the debate description:

In this debate I will ... prove that my Catholic opponent is lying ... by professing to believe in their religion.
If my opponent wants to play the role of devil's advocate, that's fine, but they will have to come up with a plausible justification for how their assumed persona is alive and in sufficient health to participate in this debate, instead of having been hypothetically martyred long ago.

Some people are actually 100% dedicated to eternal happiness, and some people are actually martyrs
Martyrdom absolves you of all your sins plus the punishments due to them, and sends you straight to Heaven.  Unlike the lazy "live it out and see" my opponent is pursuing, with all the risks and temptations that entails, it is the only valid tactic available to someone sincerely afraid of eternal Hellfire and desiring eternal happiness.

Go to Heaven now, or risk Hell later?  All sincere Catholics will choose the first without thinking twice, and martydom is the only way to achieve it.

Sincere Catholics do not deliberately risk burning alive for all eternity.

Jesus himself taught us to be selfless, and to spread the good news around the world. 
No better way to spread the good news around the world than the headlines, "Benjamin Martyred for His Catholic Faith" in newspapers all across the world, and probably a shaky vertical video on one of those gore sites too.

If every Catholic became martyr, and thusly catholicism died out, then no more people would get saved. 
People are going to stop getting saved at the end of the world anyway.  If "no more people would get saved" was inherently bad, there would be no prophesy of an apocalypse in Catholic dogma.

For me to become a martyr without needing to would be a selfish act;

me attempting to become a martyr would mean that I put my own desire for heaven above the need of other people to come to heaven --- thus contradicting Jesus's command to be selfless.
Martyrdom is the best way to help others get to Heaven:

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. — Jesus, in John 15:13-17
The best way to show your love for your best friend, Jesus, is to die for him.  This is called martyrdom.  It is also the best way to show your love for your earthly friends, because it proves you believe your faith is seriously legit and sets the perfect example for all of them.

Which way is more likely to convince others the faith is real:  Con dying for their faith, or Con trying to avoid death by arguing on debateart.com that this ultimate sacrifice is actually selfish and so he shouldn't do it?

The first proves Con is sincere.  The second proves Con doesn't actually believe in Catholicism.

if I had tried to "trick" God into sending me to heaven by becomming a martyr
Seeking martyrdom is not deceptive in any way.  It's not a "trick", and Con has provided us with no reason to think it is.  Was Jesus trying to "trick" God the Father by letting himself get arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane, and telling the Apostles to not fight back, even though he knew this would lead to his own martyrdom?

If my opponent believes seeking martyrdom is a "trick", then he must also believe that Jesus was the greatest trickster of all time.
Con
Since PRO brought up new points (that martyrdom creates followers of Catholicism), I am going to rebut and make a few points myself.


PRO proposes we ask the government to be killed -- which means we would not be martyrs, as it is not our beliefs, but our request to be killed, that causes our suffering and death. Moreover, religious mass-suicide does not make any religion or sect more attractive, quite the contrary. Why should it be different when there is only one? As a final spike in the coffin for PRO's claim -- Jesus was supposed to die for the sins of the world -- he didn't die to come to heaven; Jesus did not try to trick God when he intentionally got himself killed. However, PRO claims that true Catholics seek heaven not by following Jesus's commandment to make diciples of the world, but rather by taking suicide, harming their friends and failing to show up to protect those in need --- which is what Catholicism has always been about. Why should I get myself killed when I live peacefully in my monastary, helping the poor while spreading the good news, only debating online in my free time. If God sends me to hell for not killing myself, then I suppose the God PRO talks about is not the Catholic God.


CONCLUSION
PRO's argument, and his resolution, is still unsupported bullshit with no logical support beyond PRO's self-proclaimed expertice in religion and human psycology

The resolution fails, thank you!