Catholic doctrine has an excessive focus on limiting pleasure
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with the same amount of points on both sides...
- 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
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.
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.
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.
voting is necessary, voting is good
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.