Instigator / Pro
5
1561
rating
112
debates
59.38%
won
Topic
#6138

Non-Denominationalism VS Catholicism (for AdaptableRatman)

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
2
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
1
2

After 2 votes and with 9 points ahead, the winner is...

AdaptableRatman
Parameters
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
Contender / Con
14
1542
rating
14
debates
64.29%
won
Description

This is not going to be a debate about semantics. Failure to engage with intended topic counts as forfeit and does not require rebuttal.

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:

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.

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:

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.