Instigator / Pro
6
1496
rating
3
debates
50.0%
won
Topic
#77

Modern-Day Progressivism and Roman Catholicism are not compatible

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
2
2

After 2 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...

drafterman
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
14
1540
rating
6
debates
75.0%
won
Description

Pro will argue that Modern-Day Progressivism and Roman Catholicism are not compatible. That is the side I shall be taking.

Con will argue that Modern-Day Progressivism and Roman Catholicism are compatible. That is the side drafterman shall be taking.

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:

I was initially undecided, as I felt one of you was minimizing the significance of the Pope and the other was minimizing the significance of the Bible. My thoughts on the various arguments were:

- I found the examples of progress Con supplied relatively minuscule, with the exception of the Church's turnaround on capital punishment. Con certainly showed that Catholicism is capable of progress by inches, but the inches in question did not stack up to overall compatibility with progressivism in my view.

- Con made a valid point that progressivism is not limited to abortion, gay rights, and capital punishment, and that it and Catholicism do have some overlapping values. Christianity has always concerned itself with humanitarian causes like the poor and ailing, making income equality and healthcare relevant issues.

- I found Pro's assertion that the Bible is the Catholic Church to be possibly his weakest argument. Documents and human-run institutions are not interchangeable. No human institution is static, even if its document is.

What ultimately swayed me was Con's argument that interpretive differences are the only way to distinguish one denomination from another, so interpretation must be treated with recognized legitimacy -- and imo Con showed that the *current* Pope's interpretation of Christianity is arguably compatible with progressivism.

I've given sourcing a tie, as I consider the Pope, the Bible, and Catechism to all be valid sources on the subject of Roman Catholicism. That is, when judging an institution, it is valid to look at its founding document, its leadership, and its doctrine/policy.

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:

Con wins because the debate was about Catholicism and not Christianity of the Protestant forms. In Catholicism you take the adapted interpretations of the Pope and Bishops (especially the Bishop of Rome in this case) and listen to them in how to adapt Christianity to present times.

On top of making it clear how Catholic figureheads have moved towards Progressivism in multiple ways over time, Con also wins sources because he doesn't use Wikipedia and copy pastes the links Wiki uses which almost all links to expansion on what the terms mean rather than any reference to back up what it is saying as well as avoiding linking a personal blog of someone who seems to have no qualifications on the matter (https://dissidentvoice.org/2013/01/what-is-progressivism/). I am not saying at all the personal blogs are wrong and as a conspiracy theorist myself know the issue with trusting more qualified writers in and of itself but Pro's entire case rested upon Bible verses which Pro never even linked to which source and/or interpretation of the Bible they were relying on and we needed to take his word for it whereas Con backed up all stated facts with reliable sources and this mattered enough for me to give the reference/reliability vote to Con.