Instigator / Pro

1500

rating

debates

42.31%

won

Topic

#3090

Roman Catholicism is False

Status

Finished

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

Winner & statistics

Better arguments

Better sources

Better legibility

Better conduct

After 1 vote and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...

Benjamin

Tags

Religion

Parameters

Publication date: 05.30.2021 09:04PM
Last updated date: 06.20.2021 02:11PM
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

Contender / Con

Benjamin

1760

rating

debates

76.92%

won

Description

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

Puachu

05.31.2021 08:29PM

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.

Benjamin

06.01.2021 08:39AM

Con

Thank you, Puacho.

RESOLUTION: Roman Catholicism is False

POSITION: CON

BOP:

CAMBRIDGE DEFINITIONS OF FALSE:

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:

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

Puachu

06.02.2021 01:00AM

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.

Benjamin

06.05.2021 09:53AM

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

Puachu

06.05.2021 11:37PM

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.

Benjamin

06.06.2021 02:11PM

Con

Since PRO brought up new points (that martyrdom creates followers of Catholicism), I am going to rebut and make a few points myself.

Cambridge definition of Martyrdom: an occasion when someone suffers or is killed because of their religious or political beliefs

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!

Puachu

06.07.2021 10:00PM

#12

-->

@fauxlaw

I did notice the update in your RFD and just want to say I appreciate it.

Barney

06.07.2021 08:42AM

#11

**************************************************
>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.
**************************************************

Puachu

06.07.2021 01:41AM

#10

-->

@fauxlaw

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.

Puachu

06.06.2021 10:55PM

"I live peacefully in my monastary, helping the poor while spreading the good news, only debating online in my free time."

Haha

fauxlaw

06.06.2021 08:06PM

I will vote soon

Barney

06.01.2021 10:13AM

Loving this debate so far!

Benjamin

06.01.2021 06:03AM

-->

@Puachu

WTF! LOL!

Puachu

05.31.2021 08:32PM

-->

@DeadFire27

This debate won't work for devil's advocates, anyway.

DeadFire27

05.31.2021 06:21AM

-->

@Puachu

I would accept, but I'm not good at playing the devil's advocate.

Puachu

05.31.2021 01:41AM

-->

@Sum1hugme

@Bones

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.

Sum1hugme

05.31.2021 12:18AM

-->

@Puachu

Seems like the resolution should be "Roman Catholicism is not true" or something like that

Bones

05.30.2021 11:01PM

-->

@Puachu

Change it to "religious" instead of Christian and change the voting period to 2 weeks.

fauxlaw

06.07.2021 03:14PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

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.