Instigator / Pro

FishChaser

1561

rating

115

debates

58.26%

won

Topic

#6149

Catholic doctrine has an excessive focus on limiting pleasure

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 2 votes and with the same amount of points on both sides...

It's a tie!

Parameters

Publication date: 05.14.2025 02:52PM
Last updated date: 06.03.2025 04:35AM
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

Sir.Lancelot

1589

rating

220

debates

54.09%

won

Description

No semantic arguments allowed. Semantic arguments count as forfeit/concession. BOP is equal, you have to justify catholic doctrine just as much as I have to point out it's flaws.

Round 1

FishChaser

05.14.2025 03:57PM

Pro

Catholic doctrine forbids any form of intoxication or sexual activity beyond that in which the aim is reproduction in the context of marriage. The exact interpretation can be a bit iffy but the church generally treats it as "all recreational drug use and sex merely for pleasure is a grave sin". Despite rationalizations, what this really boils down to is the idea that pleasure is evil in itself. I believe that this element of Catholicism is very harmful because you aren't an inherently bad person for masturbating or drinking alcohol any more than you are a good person for not doing those things. If Catholics spent less time being crippled by guilt because they masturbated last week they might be able to actually focus on improving themselves and being good people in meaningful ways.

Once you realize that smoking tobacco is allowed but smoking marijuana is considered a mortal sin, you should be able to realize how nonsensical it is if you have a lick of sense. Tobacco smoking poses a much greater risk of causing lung cancer, a much greater increase in stroke risk, tobacco products contain far more toxic chemicals on average, and because of the tar it leaves in lungs it reduces oxygen intake more. The literal only reason then for banning marijuana is that it generates too much dopamine and pleasure is evil for some reason. Catholics will use the dishonest excuse that mind altering substances leave you more open to demonic attack, but the reduced oxygen from smoking cigarettes can also damage the brain and thus impair reasoning and leave you more open to demonic attack. Do you really think the supreme creator of the universe would be retarded like Catholics seem to be?

It gets even worse though, because since being high/drunk is a mortal sin it's actually better to murder someone then repent afterwards than it is to consistently get a little drunk and high on the weekends even if you don't hurt anyone doing the latter and otherwise live a good Christian life. Every time you commit a mortal sin you lose salvation, but after repenting sufficiently you can regain it. This means that you are less likely to go to hell if you brutally torture someone and murder someone once and then sufficiently repent, because if you smoke weed and drink regularly you will lose your salvation every single time you do it. This proves beyond any doubt that Catholic doctrines limiting drug use or sexual activity have NOTHING to do with being a better person, Catholics literally just hate pleasure. This applies to masturbation too, Catholics believe that God prefers you to murder someone once over masturbating multiple times.

Sir.Lancelot

05.15.2025 01:51AM

Con

Counter-Resolution: Catholicism is consistent with biblical standards about fighting pleasure.

The biblical take on pleasure necessitates a strict worldview on seeing pleasure as an inherently bad thing. Diverting from this course of action has divine consequences beyond your imagination. According to The Bible, a husband need not even be guilty of sleeping with another woman who isn't his wife to be guilty of infidelity, as even a celebrity crush or the desire itself is a sin. In Matthew 5:28-29, God urges his followers to deliberately blind themselves as a means of avoiding the sin of lust. Matthew 5:28-29

Criteria of Excess

We are ultimately attempting to determine whether the catholic doctrine on fighting pleasure is acceptable or not. If it is declared unacceptable, then that means that the strictness of the doctrine is unnecessary. To determine this, I will apply a biblical framework. If the catholic doctrine is adhering to the bible's statements on pleasure, then this means that Con's problem is not with catholic doctrine, but biblical doctrine.

From God's point of view in terms of morality, there is no distinction between partaking in pleasure either casually or recreationally or overindulging in it because pleasure itself is inherently evil.

While pragmatically, most might disagree with this and not actually see pleasure in moderation as a bad thing. The fact remains is that this is a more liberal viewpoint, while the catholics are abiding by a rule framework that is an ancient code of ethics. There is nothing wrong with abstaining from pleasure. As the greatest pleasure of all is to follow the Word of Christ.

Whoever loves pleasure will be a poor man; he who loves wine and oil will not be rich. Proverbs 21:17

Round 2

FishChaser

05.15.2025 04:14PM

Pro

If Catholic doctrine aligns with biblical values it is not accurate to say:

Con's problem is not with catholic doctrine, but biblical doctrine.

You are saying they are one in the same in this instance, yet I have a problem with one and not the other? That is pretty nonsensical.

You are merely arguing based on an appeal to authority, only it is not solely the authority of the catholic church but primarily of the bible. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy and can be dismissed if there isn't evidence accompanying it.

I will now follow up with a syllogism that proves Catholic doctrine has an excessive focus on limiting pleasure

Major premise: Pleasure is desirable by definition unless it causes more harm than good, because it feels good and isn't assumed to be inherently harmful by default

minor premise: Neither Catholicism or the bible provide evidence that it typically causes more harm than good

conclusion: pleasure in itself is good and catholic doctrine is false

We know for a fact that pleasure feels good, we know for a fact that pleasure isn't universally harmful within temporal and observable reality. The burden of proof is entirely on the side of Catholic doctrine to demonstrate that pleasure is bad and that it causes you to go to hell. Seeking pleasure is more enjoyable than avoiding it by definition, so the default course of action is to seek pleasure unless it is solidly proven to be a bad idea.

Catholics believe in a God that would rather you die of lung cancer than feel good.

Catholics believe in a God that prefers you to murder someone than to live a peaceful but hedonistic life.

Sir.Lancelot

05.18.2025 04:14PM

Con

Forfeited

Round 3

FishChaser

05.18.2025 04:49PM

Pro

My arguments remain unchallenged.

Sir.Lancelot

05.20.2025 04:35AM

Con

Reminder: Pro's problem then is with biblical doctrine, not catholic.

Pro does nothing to contend with my arguments about catholic merely following the biblical rules about partaking in pleasure, thereby conceding to it.

Pro doesn't put in enough effort to give us an idea of what doctrine against pleasure qualifies as too strict, or how limiting pleasure is even harmful.

In effect, I am using a criteria that uses christian standards. Since catholicism is consistent with using the bible to make its rules, then it stands to reason that it is consistent with traditional christian church values. Since pleasure is not a biological necessity for survival, and Pro has not proven anything harmful about catholic doctine in limiting pleasure. I aim to extend all my arguments and sources.

I yield my conduct point, since I forfeited one of the rounds.

Matthew 5:28-29

Whoever loves pleasure will be a poor man; he who loves wine and oil will not be rich. Proverbs 21:17

FishChaser

05.20.2025 04:40AM

-->

@Barney

@whiteflame

@TheGreatSunGod

@21Pilots

voting is necessary, voting is good

AdaptableRatman

05.15.2025 02:14AM

-->

@Sir.Lancelot

You are wrong about Catholicism but I won't say more than that statement for now or it helps Pro too much.

Your angle is wrong.

fauxlaw

05.23.2025 01:56AM

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 failed to define terms, specifically, his keyword of the Resolution; pleasure, and is dealing with a 19th and much of the 20th centuries version of Catholic thought that is no longer the doctrine today. Although Pro's view of Catholic-version "pleasure" is anachronistic as its demonstration, by Pro, is limited to sex and substance abuse, is a far wider application of causes and effects he is not willing to, or at least did not argue or acknowledge. Pro's R2 offers a syllogism, in name, but is not an argument of logic, because one premise offers "Pleasure is desirable by definition unless it causes more harm than good..." which is a piece of nonsense. While the first clause is sensible, the latter is far from it. In practice, even pleasure that is temptingly desireable, its consequences may not be viewed as such by any rationale.
Con missed opportunity to capitalize on these deficiencies, and even missed a full round of argument altogether by forfeit. Con's first round appears to take the tactic presented by pro of a limited view of what pleasure is, but at least cites sources to attempt to justify the view, such as Matthew 5 and Proverbs 21, so neither participant has a realistic objective of what pleasure is. Tie.

Sourcing:
Pro simply ignores sourcing altogether, presenting only his own opinions on the limited matters he presents.
Con does offer sourcing in two rounds, but it does little to support his one good argument, that Pro's argument problem is not Catholic doctrine, but biblical doctrine. He does little to flesh out that argument, with maybe the Proverbs citation attempts that justification, but it is a tangent, at best. Con wins points.

Legibility: Both were easy to read. Tie

Conduct; Con loses this point, and acknowledges it, by forfeit of R2.

TheGreatSunGod

05.20.2025 01:16PM

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:

Topic "Catholic doctrine has an excessive focus on limiting pleasure"

Con say: "Counter-Resolution: Catholicism is consistent with biblical standards about fighting pleasure"

This is a literal attempt to change the topic there. Maybe I could grant that "excessive focus" can be defined as "not consistent with biblical standards", but it wasnt defined that way in the description, and obviously not defined that way in any dictionary there.

For this alone, I could give arguments to Pro too, because what Con is saying is basically irrelevant to topic. It can be consistent with the Bible and it can be excessive focus. It isnt even opposite of resolution.

Still, I will let other voters decide about arguments there. Maybe they see something I dont, and I dont want having to vote again in case of some great misunderstanding.

Conduct to Pro due to forfeit.