Non-Denominationalism VS Catholicism (for AdaptableRatman)
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 9 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
This is not going to be a debate about semantics. Failure to engage with intended topic counts as forfeit and does not require rebuttal.
This debate was poorly set-up as a clear argument of Non-demoninationalism vs Catholicism, and clearly intended a specific member to debate the point, but which participant takes which subject? This should have been made clear in the Description so both participants are clearly aware of which subject is their burden of proof. That they clarified it between themselves privately seems evident. But I, as a voter, must have a clear understanding of it, too, and, given what is within the debate, itself, there is nothing until the debate begins. Poor set-up, and I fault Pro for that oversight. Pro indicates in Description “Failure to engage with intended topic counts as forfeit” Engage which side of the argument? Only Pro’s R1 argument makes clear his BoP is Non-denominationalism, but then errs in an argument that Paul is unable to argue spreading the gospel to gentiles when it is Peter who has the dream of a sheet from heaven filled with animals considered by Jews and early Christians as clean and unclean, and is shown that what God cleans cannot then be considered by Peter as unclean. Peter is convinced by the Lord, and does not need Paul’s convincing. Is that a precursor to Pro’s stand of disagreement? But Con does not argue this point - a missed opportunity, other than his argument than nondenon does’t make sense, and one must agree with that as a voter, so maybe Con’s argument is sufficient.
Pro finally defines a stand in R2: “Ultimately con is missing the entire point, the ability to disagree is the greatest strength of being nondenom.” But what is disagreement? It is not defined by Pro in his context. Failure. To what does one rally around with others if disagreement is the core belief? “We agree to disagree” ends up being an oxymoron, too, which Pro argues against in R1.
Cutting to the chase, this debate is both won and lost in R2. Con wins with two simple arguments: “When life gets too hard to stand, kneel.” And “Uniting under Christ is far beyond Sunday Mass. It is Societal too, Christianity is also meant to help make moral societies.” Pro never rebuts either argument in R3. Pro also loses in R2 with the argument already noted: “Ultimately con is missing the entire point, the ability to disagree is the greatest strength of being nondenom.” Nonsense.
Con cites multiple sources justifying his position. Pro cites one source in R3, but too little too late.
When it comes to arguments, here is a weighing system:
1. Being united
2. Not always being right
3. Being able to customize religion
4. Preventing harm
If debaters disagree with this weighing system and wish to add more goalposts to my vote, just message me and I will change it.
Burden of proof is on Pro. Even if I were to accept that only 1 of non-Denominationalism must be better than Christianity, the problem is that Pro didnt present any specific which is better there.
1. Being united
Pro loses badly on this one. His customization of religion is the greatest obstacle to being united, as Con points out. Pro says that Catholic church caused division, but in comparison, Catholic Church is much more united than non-Denominationalism.
2. Not always being right
Pro says that pope isnt always right there. I accept that argument. However, the main problem is that, as Con points out, the other side is wrong much more times. In fact, due to customization, people less capable of reason will make much worse conclusions about religion now.
3. Being able to customize religion
This point essentially goes to Pro. He is right in that his side offers more customization.
4. Preventing harm
Pro points out cases of sexual abuse there. Con counters by saying that these dont happen only in Catholic Church. They and others might happen even more in custom religion, because while Catholic Church has actual official stance against these, the non-Denominationalism doesnt. non-Denominationalism can even be used to justify these, as person can use Sola Scriptura according to own interpretation. Con also brings examples of Catholics standing up against Hitler.
I think Con wins on 1, 2 and 4 clearly. Pro wins on 3, but its not enough to outweigh the rest now. Arguments to Con there.
Pro also used insults in a debate. I think this costs a conduct point.
In case debaters have issue with my vote, they can either state which weighing goal to add, or which specific weigh goal was weighed wrong there.
Not true. It means I am drained to make brand new rebuttals instead of reinforcing my case. It also baits me into a blitzkrieg.
If a mormon and a sun-worshipper can vote properly surely you can too. The mods have deleted my votes at least 10 times though, it seems like some kind of weird bias they have against me because often my votes seemed fine.
When voting, you must mention arguments from both sides in your vote. Just do something simple like list 5 to 10 main goalposts in debate and see who won on which there. Also, dont add your own arguments to vote. Its important to use what is found in debate only. It takes some time to understand how voting works here. But some votes are much easier to do than others. If one side forfeits their whole debate, you can just vote for the other side by just saying "forfeit". Those are easiest votes. But there are cases where debaters agree that forfeited rounds are instead posted in comments there. Thats different case then. But if you see clear forfeit by one side, its an easy vote.
Sorry I’m new to how this works. I truly apologize.
Re: your #5, blitzkrieg really only applies in a last round if your opponent is on the "bottom inning" of the last round, but that was not the case in this debate; you, as Con, had the last word, and, therefore, the opportunity to respond, which you did.
>Vote: 21Pilots // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Pro (Arguments, Legibility, Conduct), 2 points to Con (Sources)
>Reason for Decision:
I believe that pro did better then con except for the sources, I would’ve probably voted con more because of the sue of reliable sources.
Reason for Removal: The voter provides no reasoning for awarding Legibility and Conduct.
On both arguments and sources, the voter merely states that one side "did better" or had more "reliable sources." To award points like this, the voter must explain their decision, not merely repeat it with more words. What aspects of Pro's arguments made them "better"? What makes Con's sources more "reliable"? These have to be explained to cast a vote with those points.
**************************************************
I appreciate the vote.
I dont usually ever ignore arguments in debate. The only time I might consider such thing is if opponent waits till last round to post all arguments, and other person cannot even respond. As long as you can respond to argument, the choice not to do so would make me treat argument as unchallenged.
Ty for vote
Most voters wont allow what Pro did in Round 3 blitzKrieg so my rebuttal wouldnt be needed but I knew a voter might consider it so I replied.
"only 1 of non-Denominationalism must be better than Christianity"
I meant better than catholicism there. Typing error.
✝️⛪🙏
Let the voting commence
Forgive me for my sloth sin here. I typed all Rounds on phone without autocorrect and this is a hobby.
Please St. Mary intercede so the Christ and Father alike forgive me for the spelling errors and laziness when representing the 1 true church.
Amen.