Roman Catholicism is False
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
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.
Syllogism B
- not real, but made to look or seem real:
- not correct:
- not sincere or expressing real emotions:
- A false friend is not loyal or cannot be trusted.
- (of people or their manner) dishonest or not sincere:
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 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.
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?
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.
the resolution asserts a universal "falseness" of Catholicism
In this debate I will ... prove that my Catholic opponent is lying ... by professing to believe in their religion.
Some people are actually 100% dedicated to eternal happiness, and some people are actually martyrs
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;
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.
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. — Jesus, in John 15:13-17
if I had tried to "trick" God into sending me to heaven by becomming a martyr
Argument: Pro's claimed reductio ad absurdum argument starts down a path of absurdity in R1 by presentation of three "syllogisms." In quotes, because stringing words together does not, by itself, create logic. One is sufficient illogic. Repeating the effort is the absurdity, because all three fail logic. #A, P1 proposes that martyrdom is the sure way to heaven, as if it is the only way. Con deftly rebuts tyhat there are other mans to attain heaven; therefore, since all propositions must hold for a syllogism to be true, #A fails. #B, P1 also fails because, as Con rebutted, because Pro cannot know what occurs to Con, yet makes the claim. P1 is pure conjecture, thus #B fails. #C, P3 fails under the same condition as #A, P1; martyrdom is not the only sure way to heaven. Con successfully rebuts this notion, again. Thus, Con has defeated all three supposed syllogisms.
Pro attempts a goalpost shift in R2 by the claim that Con had better be Catholic [Conargued in R1 that it may not be the case, at least not a dedicated Catholic, or Con will lose. Neither theResolution, nor the Description demand that Con be Catholic. Therefore, the shift, which Con successfully rebuts by that strategy.
Pro's R3 repeats the R1 mantra that martyrdom must be the sure way to heaven, and suggests that a martyr should request the go ernment kill them. Con successfully rebuts by reminder that martyrdom is not accomplished by asking teh government to kill. There is no motive in governments favor to do so. Con wins the argument points.
Sources: Pro offers no sources to support his arguments. Con offers numerous sources, such as offerin g definition of "false," a Resolution keyword. In fact, Pro offers no definitions of Resolution keywords. Con also offers support for the futility of mass suicide as a martyrdom effort, all of which bolster his arguments. Con wins these points.
Legibility: tie
Conduct: tie.
I did notice the update in your RFD and just want to say I appreciate it.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded:
>Reason for Decision:
>Reason for Mod Action:
Voter request.
**************************************************
I must say that yours is the most ridiculous and false RFD I have ever read, but I appreciate any and all votes, so thanks for voting and taking the time to write out your thoughts.
"I live peacefully in my monastary, helping the poor while spreading the good news, only debating online in my free time."
Haha
I will vote soon
Loving this debate so far!
WTF! LOL!
This debate won't work for devil's advocates, anyway.
I would accept, but I'm not good at playing the devil's advocate.
My argument is based on something specifically Christian. I will update the debate.
If you are not Catholic, and wish to argue for a different Christian denomination, please let me know what it is in the comments so I can consider if you are a valid target for the tactic I aim to pursue.
Seems like the resolution should be "Roman Catholicism is not true" or something like that
Change it to "religious" instead of Christian and change the voting period to 2 weeks.