This is a formal debate site, to which people are limited to voting based on the competing evidence offered. If only one side offers evidence, then their hands are tied.
Imagine if I were debating about the bible, do you think I'd list passages from it to support my thesis, or would I merely accuse the voters of having not read it?
When I was learning these systems in school, my teacher often went back to the drowning baby hypothetical.
1. Utilitarianism: Save the baby, even at great risk to yourself, as it has longer to live and on balance should be expected to enjoy life more than you.
2. Egoism: If I'll suffer so much as getting my shoes wet, no, unless someone pays me.
3. Kantian Theory: If there is no risk to you, then you are obligated. However, something something about if you are harmed during it, then the baby or its caretakers commited the crime onto you; something imperative?
4. Virtue Ethics: Irrelevant! If you are already awesome, and you chose to not save the baby, then not saving the baby must be the virtuous thing to do...
5. Cultural relativism: ... I'm not going to touch this one.
I'm guessing you had this and the Trump debate confused?
While I don't care to actually debate it, as a hypothetical, here is my argument that Trump isn't racist: As reported by various liberal arts majors, racism is strictly systemic, so an individual cannot be racist; ergo, Donald cannot be racist.
And yes, that is shit. It's shit that conforms to a popular flawed set of beliefs which is in the zeitgeist, but still shit.
For your teachers analogy: You forget they can demonstrate their lesson plan for the potential learning offered. Were we competing teachers, your lesson plan would exclusively be to complain about mine. Whereas mine, used various texts to teach something about the topic.
Seriously, when replying to a specific person, please put their name in the receivers section.
> They'll ask have you watched the documentary. Watch it and maybe we can try this again.
Interestingly, of the two of us, I'm the only one who has mentioned any details from it to imply viewership. But yes, if you ever want a rematch, I'm game for it.
> The science of sex appeal has nothing to do with anybody's fears.
I agree. Hence I argued it was not homophobic, even listing a scene that was outright homoerotic.
> There are those that understand what I'm talking about and they're the ones that say I won because of what they've learned about those dismissing source material.
You did not use any sources in this debate.
> I make those disclaimers due to the rigged voting system as it's based on an echo chamber , not truth.
How is the voting system rigged? While there do exist bad voters as you've mentioned (those who would give you the source point for example), that is them rigging it against its structure. Whereas any decent voter like myself, will vote based on argument strength even if it's against our personal beliefs.
> it's up to each individual to say who won in the debate based on what the debater helped them learn from the debate.
I actually highly agree with your premise on the importance of learning (not so much the conclusion). By this standard, which of us has done more to educate people within this debate?
For some reason your argument reminded me of a recurring joke on one TV show. Do you watch Legends of Tomorrow? In one episode they turned themselves into a Captain Planet-esc avatar to destroy a giant demon:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhRgavGSapo
> I'm not 100% convinced on the source point,
You can count the number they use, the consistency, and as mentioned under tautology: the impact of con gravely harming his own case when trying to employ them. Any lone factor would not be enough to tip it, but combined they add up to an overwhelming margin.
> especially since it seems common/obvious that Catholics visit St. Peter,
That visits to some place are interpreted as idol worship by con, is only an assertion about his own opinion unless evidence is used. While I do not expect every little claim to be sourced, important ones should be, especially as it allows people to double check that claimed facts are indeed facts.
> and pro barely contested that.
Under "CON1: IDOLATRY" his "COUNTER2" to me was very effective, and seemed significantly more than barely contesting the theme of that contention.
> First, I never incorporate the term "seem" into my argument unless I'm identifying it.
Your level of nitpicking seems insane.
> That is, one can be Christian today, a non-Christian tomorrow, and Christian again on Wednesday. This has nothing to do with that which one specifically "does."
Um, ok... Not tied to what they do, except when they fail to engage in idol worship which somehow makes them not Christian... Your special pleading is going all over the place.
> Your personal agreement isn't relevant.
When trying to get votes, getting voters to to agree with your logic is very relevant. If it's not relevant to you, you would not be trying to manipulate the voting. As for the logic in question, I still don't see how a day of the week test for if Catholicism originates from the followers of Jesus Christ makes any kind of sense.
> "Facepalm..."? Do you believe that this mention indicates proper decorum in an RFD?
Obviously when a facepalm is so readily earned, yes.
> But yes, in line with my reasoning, worshiping other gods, or idolatry, would exclude one from following the teachings of Jesus Christ.
*facepalm* You're basically saying someone cannot be a follower of Jesus Christ and be Christian. *facepalm*
> Pro did not make the claim about St. Peter's Square. CON did.
Thank you for catching a minor typo.
> And Pro did not challenge my mention of St. Peter's square any more than he challenged my mention of "Hail Mary"
This is technically true that he did not do it anymore than the other, given that he refuted the idol worship claim with Catholicism expressly forbidding idol worship even while allowing veneration.
> And there's nothing in PRO's definition that excludes my expansion
Your rampant special pleading continues... This time that we should reject pro's definition of "the largest Christian church," in favor of yours of "the largest Christian church" is noted. How could this possibly change the outcome? ... And yes, sorry for misrepresenting your argument before by calling it valid, given that if your premise here is true, then opposite conclusion being true is an impossibility.
> So why is CON the "Kritik"?
Please tell me you're joking? ... Ok, in case you were not: not every conversation is a kritik for being instigated. You chose to run a Kritik against the pre-agreed definitions, and then engaged in special pleading against your own definitions. Hence why you are considered to have run the kritik.
> Except that it's an ad populum fallacy.
He defended it as a the non-fallacious form, which you chose to drop. The whole "Columbians are Latinos" bit showed that on opinion being popular can make it true when it comes to identity issues such as this debate deals. Columbia existing by right of it being a popular opinion among the people that live there, is an intuitive baby-step from there. Interestingly this also yields some grounds on the anarchist point, which you could have capitalized.
Spambots got me to check that place out before, it claimed to have a hundred features it clearly lacked. Now they've hidden the absence of anything beyond a forum and bots with a requirement that you give them your information before you look at anything...
---RFD 1 of 2---
Due to repeated implicit requests from con for me to revote, here we go…
My previous vote may be found at:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2152/comment-links/29624
Burden of Proof:
Considering the agreed definitions and resolution, with shared BoP...
Pro must prove that “The ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH is” “of, like or relating to Christianity or Christians” with Christianity defined as “An Abrahamic religion originating from the community of the followers of Jesus Christ”
Con must prove that “The ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH is” NOT “of, like or relating to Christianity or Christians” with Christianity defined as “An Abrahamic religion originating from the community of the followers of Jesus Christ”
While the pre-agreed definition used for Roman Catholic Church is noted, if I right away plugged it in above the debate would be over before a single point is considered; which would defeat the spirit of debate.
---
Arguments: Pro
The very first contention sealed this debate, but if looking deeper this was a true landslide in which pro won every major contention. For con to gain ground, he would need to support that not worshipping idols is worshipping idols, and other such abominations against the nature of shared language.
Sources: Pro
This is a pretty clear sweep. Pro refused to even support his key claim about St. Peter's Square with evidence. Both sides had the bible (once that’s in the hands of catholics, the resolution is self evidently false anyway). A key one was on catechism, which refuted con’s claim about idolatry.
TAUTOLOGY:
Pro argues that “the largest Christian church...the world's oldest and largest continuously functioning international institution” is Christian by definition, and calls back to the definition with how “it has played a prominent role in the history and development of Western civilization.”
Con runs a semantic Kritik to move the goalpost, wherein he calls for rejection of the definition of the Roman Catholic Church, for a competing dictionary one on Roman Catholicism further defined as “Catholic Church,” with a linked definition of that as “the largest Christian church” which con later points out explicitly “delineated by both our cited definitions.” This immediately leaves the debate in a catch-22, wherein if a voter rejects the moving of the goalpost the resolution is pre-affirmed by tautology, whereas if they accept the moving of the goalpost the resolution is likewise re-affirmed by tautology.
We could of course ignore that words have assigned meanings, and speak gibberish. Without actual merit indicated for doing that, we must suffer the tyranny of shared language.
TRUISM:
Pro argues the truth of the resolution is non-disputable by right of overwhelming popularity (I may have been using truism wrong, as I treated it as tautology). He makes a good point for common knowledge, calling back to the definitions that Catholicism is “the world's oldest and largest continuously functioning international institution” predating any other form of Christianity, and he really digs down into showing it indeed exists and has for a very long time.
Con directly concedes this contention, even while calling it “an ad populum fallacy.” And pro defends that definitions are true by merit of their popularity, which con then drops.
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY:
Pro calls religion a personal identity, which the UN declares people have the right to self define. Con compares it in pointlessness to devil worshipers could call themselves Christian, to which pro reminds us that would fit the mutually agreed definition of Christian via “relating to Christianity” (a touch too broad there, but it intuitively shows the sound connections). Pro further leverages Elton John by choice being the singer Elton John.
Con does make one good counterpoint that an anarchist doesn’t seem like an anarchist if they support big government.
(after some weird complaints before, I am not touching the IDENTITARIAN and white nationalism bits)
THEOLOGY:
Pro uses the foundation of previous points, to assert that to be a member of any faith is a spiritual self identification, which cannot be overridden by the No True Scotsman fallacy. Con for his part declares that someone is not a True Christian if they reject Jesus Christ. Pro counters that the original Christians indeed rejected Jesus but are still considered Christians, and the mutually agreed definition likens to them. and further that Christianity is a varied faith which even includes Atheists. Con tries to defend this by insisting people are or are not Christian day to day based on what they are doing at the moment… Pro counters that the test becomes meaningless in general terms when so open ended, and as a voter I agree, I shouldn’t check which day of the week is to decide if something is true or false.
IDOLATRY:
Con declares that anyone who puts anyone or anything before God from Exodus, cannot be a follower of Jesus Christ (*facepalm*)...
Pro asserts that infractions to the level of violating commandments do not result in excommunication. From here he goes into a bit of whataboutism or an appeal against absurdity, which Con weirdly counters this with seeming to agree that no one qualifies as Christian except him when he was younger...
Pro makes a better defense by explaining that Catholicism explicitly forbids worship of idols in the place of God (which con later declares means “Catholics do not acknowledge idolatry as a sin” which makes no sense against the Catechism source which demonstrates the exact opposite), with the practice mistaken for a workshop in fact being veneration of a go between or visiting tombstones.
The no true scotsman gets extended to some additional bits, like the existence of the pope. However, there is a lack of follow through to support these, such as confirming the pope is not a member of Christianity, or likewise that Christians in general are not.
Please consider the first line of the description: "The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately"
Have you done anything to inform those who view this debate about the documentary? You claim it's implicitly overwhelmingly homophobic, but failed to point people to either it or at least clips from it which might suggest that premise. Again, it was literally not my job to tell you about the documentary, rather it was your job to tell the audience about it to give something of structure value to take away.
Were I to have gone off topic, you would still have the same duty to inform the audience of the intended subject. Instead, you actively allowed my Scott Thompson impersonation to be the only value people took away from this.
Your assertions that Catholicism does not originate from the community of the followers of Jesus Christ, because there is variance in rituals, is a rather obvious non-sequitur. Hence, putting it into terms for how close you've come to making a valid and sound argument that eagles are not birds (we can even define birds by shared genealogy, if you want this to be a closer comparison).
It's about like saying: 'Cats are not mammals, And note, my argument doesn't contain "IF." I'm not stating that "if cats don't bark they are therefore not mammals," I'm starting cats do not bark therefore they are not mammals, hence cats are not mammals.'
To me semantics does not make something sound. Let's look at your eagle example, if you argue an eagle isn't a bird because the wingspan is too big or the diet too varied, you can have all the valid arguments you want, and the conclusion still fails to be sound. You can run around claiming that it's sound that eagles are not birds all you want, and that would just not make it so (even if you do win some debates on it).
I ended up rewriting sections which outright crossed the line. While a homophobic topic like this warrants some mockery, I wouldn't want to lower myself to making a bunch of sexual Ad Hominems.
Also I would have gladly engaged with the moved goalpost were it supported with any evidence (my final round stuff about the shirt sniffing, I prepared expecting to use it in R2 against video evidence... Yes, I would have twisted any segment of the video to be as gay as Archie if you just read between the lines).
Yes, your argument is valid. That doesn't make it sound. That you don't know the difference, likely contributed to why you requested this debate in the first place.
In short, validity means if the premises are true than the conclusion follows. Whereas soundness relates to the ultimate truth of it. ... As an example, someone who likes dogs and agrees they are mammals, might argue that since they dislike cats they must therefore not be mammals. They could validly line up how cats fail to bark and other such evidence, and even win debates with the logic, but that would never be able to make their case actually sound.
Disclaimer: Whiteclaw and Costco Margarita mixed with extra tequila are posting (or at least significantly contributing)! Thank you spell check, for making this something not too awful.
---
Ideally (well, ideally ideally we'd have a lot more active voters...) this debate should be decided by someone non-religious (specifically agnostic... let's face it, Atheists often fall into the trap of accidentally being more committed to religion than thane average actual devotees of religion). For context, I am a Catholic/Pastafarian. So in person I've had too many variants of this debate and Christian conspiracy theories related to it. I genuinely don't think this dominated my vote but only an idiot would deny the mere precedence of slight influence.
On Sunday I start a shit job which I've held out against for way too long... So if no other voter has fairly weighed in by Friday (err, maybe not Friday, I have plans which might turn out badly) or Saturday, I'll try to put a couple hours into a deep contention by contention re-reading.
...
Ath:
You have done a good job outlining slight variations which differentiate Catholicism from mainstream Christendom. That leaves the debate asking is Catholicism still inspired by Jesus? Hopefully someone else answers how the debate answered this.
Oro:
You miss some basic points, but do an amazing job levaging definitions. You do more than this, but it is a key thing which determines borderline debates.
Seld:
Yo! You're improving on voting faster than I did! Hell, I unfairly called the first person who stalked me a stalker, yet they had nothing on the second or the third. ... Okay, sorry, I should specify drinking to get through a PTSD episode while my city is on fire (a wildfire near it... air politician, my GF/Ex could not understand why I was freaking out... TMI.).
Okay, first person I called a stalker. I literally can't remember his name, even while I respect him. I voted badly on one of his debates, and he followed me around for a bit complaining. Stalker was over stating it. ... What I mean to say it that you're doing pretty good, even if flawed, still more effort than the vast majority pf readers are putting in, and I suspect the debaters appreciate it.
Anyway, so yeah, tied votes are one of the best things. Don't ever let anyone shame you for it.
FYI (technically this whole post is such, but you get the gist...), due to my status as a moderator, when my votes have been reported I've often advised other moderators to hold them to a higher standard (delete even if borderline or even slightly above it).
I likewise hold myself to a said higher standard, and of course second guess myself.
To me "ping storm" is obviously a hyperbole, but still gets at a bit of the issues (line by line criticism does get over the top). However, Athias isn't a POS debater like some who I will not name. There's been plenty of times where someone challenges my vote when I literally know their argument better than them, but this is not one of those times.
I considered accepting this one. The core argument I would have made is that if you're going to live with the knowledge that it's a simulation anyways, why not game the system?
On the other hand, there was a pretty good debate I remember... Something about batman villains are preferable to being a good person, since in a simulation, they take up more time in the simulation, or get rendered in it more often... Sounds like an RM debate. Probably titled something like "It's preferable to not be a good person"?
Removing my vote. I might revote later with one that minimizes any feedback on the impressions the debate leaves readers with...
---
For 5K arguments, those felt more like 15.
Seems the debate hinges upon two key things:
1. If the form of something differs from others of its kind, when does it become something else?
2. Are pre-agreed definitions binding?
For the first con comes close, but pro’s built in defense of pointing out things like the sabbath already leaving true-Christians in doubt if entertaining the fallacy. Con ends up trying to flip this around asserting that Catholics are only as close to being Christian as Hindus are, which was an obvious non-sequitur.
For the second is Catholicism “An Abrahamic religion originating from the community of the followers of Jesus Christ”? Yes. Obviously. While the dictionary should make this cut and dry, out of respect to both debaters I am going to look past it at the real disputes.
---
Pro wisely predicted the No True Scotsman fallacy. While con protested against it, he walked his arguments inside it allowing pro to frame them in those terms. Con for his part does an okay job on said protests, but majorly beating around the bush rather than just saying the form of the fallacy does not guarantee it is being used fallaciously (a Scotsman being someone from Scotland, a guy who spent his whole life in Texas would indeed be not a true scotsman … in his closing con did put it in these clear terms); which should have been swiftly backed up on why said tests absolutely rule someone out from being a true scotsman.
Con did much better on the religious liberty point, pointing out that it's non-falsifiable (that may mean something different to me due to my level of education). Not sure how pro twisted that around to con calling him racist... Anyway, I am finding self-identification was intuitively flawed even while it can't be outright dismissed since religion is defined personally by people (side note: even if scientologists are not really scientists or christians...). As con put it: “transmutation as a consequence of arbitrary identitarianism.”
Pro had a slam dunk on the THEOLOGY point, since con argued that people are and are not Christians at various times based on what they’re currently doing, which undercuts his own argument that Catholics are not Christian because they sometimes sin. That there are customs not specifically endorsed by Jesus, doesn’t defeat the problem pro pointed out about the shortage of true christians if entertaining this standard leads to absurdity of true-Christians not existing (not honoring the sabbath on the correct day, eating meat on friday, etc.). If following the bible incorrectly would further not remove the strive to follow Jesus.
Conduct:
Pro took a decent hit to this at one point on the whole racism accusation, were there any more notable ones he would lose this point.
Similarly at the end con started quoting the debate with quotes that were not present earlier in the debate. (the unclearly that these were con's words instead of pro's, are also an S&G issue, but again, too little of the debate was corrupted by it to actually cost the point IMO)
If there are lesbiens in the audience (and not in the joking way that I'm a lesbian trapped in a man's body), I will happily dedicate one of the rounds to women instead of men.
This is a formal debate site, to which people are limited to voting based on the competing evidence offered. If only one side offers evidence, then their hands are tied.
Imagine if I were debating about the bible, do you think I'd list passages from it to support my thesis, or would I merely accuse the voters of having not read it?
You can also test the waters on potential debate topics in the forums.
That's quite the tongue twister!
Also, sorry no one ended up voting on this.
When I was learning these systems in school, my teacher often went back to the drowning baby hypothetical.
1. Utilitarianism: Save the baby, even at great risk to yourself, as it has longer to live and on balance should be expected to enjoy life more than you.
2. Egoism: If I'll suffer so much as getting my shoes wet, no, unless someone pays me.
3. Kantian Theory: If there is no risk to you, then you are obligated. However, something something about if you are harmed during it, then the baby or its caretakers commited the crime onto you; something imperative?
4. Virtue Ethics: Irrelevant! If you are already awesome, and you chose to not save the baby, then not saving the baby must be the virtuous thing to do...
5. Cultural relativism: ... I'm not going to touch this one.
What happened to "the students are the absolute judges"?
Thanks for voting!
I'm guessing you had this and the Trump debate confused?
While I don't care to actually debate it, as a hypothetical, here is my argument that Trump isn't racist: As reported by various liberal arts majors, racism is strictly systemic, so an individual cannot be racist; ergo, Donald cannot be racist.
And yes, that is shit. It's shit that conforms to a popular flawed set of beliefs which is in the zeitgeist, but still shit.
Cool to see Mall switching sides on this one, to attempt to prove that Trump is racist.
While I could prove Trump is not by some subjective standards, I do not feel like putting the effort in.
Bump.
Coffee is indeed a double edged sword.
Thank you for the insanely detailed RFD! It was more than this debate deserved.
Congrats. You are now up to 91 victories.
For some reason this debate made me think of Futurama:
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/2cbu4x/futurama-suicide-booth
I've literally heard that one twisted around by holocaust deniers.
Nice R1!
For your teachers analogy: You forget they can demonstrate their lesson plan for the potential learning offered. Were we competing teachers, your lesson plan would exclusively be to complain about mine. Whereas mine, used various texts to teach something about the topic.
Epic topic! 🤣
I hope you all enjoyed the debate. It was quite enjoyable to write my half of it.
Seriously, when replying to a specific person, please put their name in the receivers section.
> They'll ask have you watched the documentary. Watch it and maybe we can try this again.
Interestingly, of the two of us, I'm the only one who has mentioned any details from it to imply viewership. But yes, if you ever want a rematch, I'm game for it.
> The science of sex appeal has nothing to do with anybody's fears.
I agree. Hence I argued it was not homophobic, even listing a scene that was outright homoerotic.
> There are those that understand what I'm talking about and they're the ones that say I won because of what they've learned about those dismissing source material.
You did not use any sources in this debate.
> I make those disclaimers due to the rigged voting system as it's based on an echo chamber , not truth.
How is the voting system rigged? While there do exist bad voters as you've mentioned (those who would give you the source point for example), that is them rigging it against its structure. Whereas any decent voter like myself, will vote based on argument strength even if it's against our personal beliefs.
> it's up to each individual to say who won in the debate based on what the debater helped them learn from the debate.
I actually highly agree with your premise on the importance of learning (not so much the conclusion). By this standard, which of us has done more to educate people within this debate?
> Colombians are Latinos by definition,
Do you know what irony is? You're now arguing that people are what they are by virtue of definition...
This debate is being put into the Hall of Fame. Any endorsements you would like with it? You can also name anyone you would like to request write one.
This debate is being put into the Hall of Fame. Any endorsements you would like with it? You can also name anyone you would like to request write one.
For some reason your argument reminded me of a recurring joke on one TV show. Do you watch Legends of Tomorrow? In one episode they turned themselves into a Captain Planet-esc avatar to destroy a giant demon:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhRgavGSapo
Nice style guide.
> I'm not 100% convinced on the source point,
You can count the number they use, the consistency, and as mentioned under tautology: the impact of con gravely harming his own case when trying to employ them. Any lone factor would not be enough to tip it, but combined they add up to an overwhelming margin.
> especially since it seems common/obvious that Catholics visit St. Peter,
That visits to some place are interpreted as idol worship by con, is only an assertion about his own opinion unless evidence is used. While I do not expect every little claim to be sourced, important ones should be, especially as it allows people to double check that claimed facts are indeed facts.
> and pro barely contested that.
Under "CON1: IDOLATRY" his "COUNTER2" to me was very effective, and seemed significantly more than barely contesting the theme of that contention.
> First, I never incorporate the term "seem" into my argument unless I'm identifying it.
Your level of nitpicking seems insane.
> That is, one can be Christian today, a non-Christian tomorrow, and Christian again on Wednesday. This has nothing to do with that which one specifically "does."
Um, ok... Not tied to what they do, except when they fail to engage in idol worship which somehow makes them not Christian... Your special pleading is going all over the place.
> Your personal agreement isn't relevant.
When trying to get votes, getting voters to to agree with your logic is very relevant. If it's not relevant to you, you would not be trying to manipulate the voting. As for the logic in question, I still don't see how a day of the week test for if Catholicism originates from the followers of Jesus Christ makes any kind of sense.
> "Facepalm..."? Do you believe that this mention indicates proper decorum in an RFD?
Obviously when a facepalm is so readily earned, yes.
> But yes, in line with my reasoning, worshiping other gods, or idolatry, would exclude one from following the teachings of Jesus Christ.
*facepalm* You're basically saying someone cannot be a follower of Jesus Christ and be Christian. *facepalm*
> Pro did not make the claim about St. Peter's Square. CON did.
Thank you for catching a minor typo.
> And Pro did not challenge my mention of St. Peter's square any more than he challenged my mention of "Hail Mary"
This is technically true that he did not do it anymore than the other, given that he refuted the idol worship claim with Catholicism expressly forbidding idol worship even while allowing veneration.
> And there's nothing in PRO's definition that excludes my expansion
Your rampant special pleading continues... This time that we should reject pro's definition of "the largest Christian church," in favor of yours of "the largest Christian church" is noted. How could this possibly change the outcome? ... And yes, sorry for misrepresenting your argument before by calling it valid, given that if your premise here is true, then opposite conclusion being true is an impossibility.
> So why is CON the "Kritik"?
Please tell me you're joking? ... Ok, in case you were not: not every conversation is a kritik for being instigated. You chose to run a Kritik against the pre-agreed definitions, and then engaged in special pleading against your own definitions. Hence why you are considered to have run the kritik.
> Except that it's an ad populum fallacy.
He defended it as a the non-fallacious form, which you chose to drop. The whole "Columbians are Latinos" bit showed that on opinion being popular can make it true when it comes to identity issues such as this debate deals. Columbia existing by right of it being a popular opinion among the people that live there, is an intuitive baby-step from there. Interestingly this also yields some grounds on the anarchist point, which you could have capitalized.
Spambots got me to check that place out before, it claimed to have a hundred features it clearly lacked. Now they've hidden the absence of anything beyond a forum and bots with a requirement that you give them your information before you look at anything...
---RFD 1 of 2---
Due to repeated implicit requests from con for me to revote, here we go…
My previous vote may be found at:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2152/comment-links/29624
Burden of Proof:
Considering the agreed definitions and resolution, with shared BoP...
Pro must prove that “The ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH is” “of, like or relating to Christianity or Christians” with Christianity defined as “An Abrahamic religion originating from the community of the followers of Jesus Christ”
Con must prove that “The ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH is” NOT “of, like or relating to Christianity or Christians” with Christianity defined as “An Abrahamic religion originating from the community of the followers of Jesus Christ”
While the pre-agreed definition used for Roman Catholic Church is noted, if I right away plugged it in above the debate would be over before a single point is considered; which would defeat the spirit of debate.
---
Arguments: Pro
The very first contention sealed this debate, but if looking deeper this was a true landslide in which pro won every major contention. For con to gain ground, he would need to support that not worshipping idols is worshipping idols, and other such abominations against the nature of shared language.
Sources: Pro
This is a pretty clear sweep. Pro refused to even support his key claim about St. Peter's Square with evidence. Both sides had the bible (once that’s in the hands of catholics, the resolution is self evidently false anyway). A key one was on catechism, which refuted con’s claim about idolatry.
---RFD 2 of 2---
Contentions...
TAUTOLOGY:
Pro argues that “the largest Christian church...the world's oldest and largest continuously functioning international institution” is Christian by definition, and calls back to the definition with how “it has played a prominent role in the history and development of Western civilization.”
Con runs a semantic Kritik to move the goalpost, wherein he calls for rejection of the definition of the Roman Catholic Church, for a competing dictionary one on Roman Catholicism further defined as “Catholic Church,” with a linked definition of that as “the largest Christian church” which con later points out explicitly “delineated by both our cited definitions.” This immediately leaves the debate in a catch-22, wherein if a voter rejects the moving of the goalpost the resolution is pre-affirmed by tautology, whereas if they accept the moving of the goalpost the resolution is likewise re-affirmed by tautology.
We could of course ignore that words have assigned meanings, and speak gibberish. Without actual merit indicated for doing that, we must suffer the tyranny of shared language.
TRUISM:
Pro argues the truth of the resolution is non-disputable by right of overwhelming popularity (I may have been using truism wrong, as I treated it as tautology). He makes a good point for common knowledge, calling back to the definitions that Catholicism is “the world's oldest and largest continuously functioning international institution” predating any other form of Christianity, and he really digs down into showing it indeed exists and has for a very long time.
Con directly concedes this contention, even while calling it “an ad populum fallacy.” And pro defends that definitions are true by merit of their popularity, which con then drops.
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY:
Pro calls religion a personal identity, which the UN declares people have the right to self define. Con compares it in pointlessness to devil worshipers could call themselves Christian, to which pro reminds us that would fit the mutually agreed definition of Christian via “relating to Christianity” (a touch too broad there, but it intuitively shows the sound connections). Pro further leverages Elton John by choice being the singer Elton John.
Con does make one good counterpoint that an anarchist doesn’t seem like an anarchist if they support big government.
(after some weird complaints before, I am not touching the IDENTITARIAN and white nationalism bits)
THEOLOGY:
Pro uses the foundation of previous points, to assert that to be a member of any faith is a spiritual self identification, which cannot be overridden by the No True Scotsman fallacy. Con for his part declares that someone is not a True Christian if they reject Jesus Christ. Pro counters that the original Christians indeed rejected Jesus but are still considered Christians, and the mutually agreed definition likens to them. and further that Christianity is a varied faith which even includes Atheists. Con tries to defend this by insisting people are or are not Christian day to day based on what they are doing at the moment… Pro counters that the test becomes meaningless in general terms when so open ended, and as a voter I agree, I shouldn’t check which day of the week is to decide if something is true or false.
IDOLATRY:
Con declares that anyone who puts anyone or anything before God from Exodus, cannot be a follower of Jesus Christ (*facepalm*)...
Pro asserts that infractions to the level of violating commandments do not result in excommunication. From here he goes into a bit of whataboutism or an appeal against absurdity, which Con weirdly counters this with seeming to agree that no one qualifies as Christian except him when he was younger...
Pro makes a better defense by explaining that Catholicism explicitly forbids worship of idols in the place of God (which con later declares means “Catholics do not acknowledge idolatry as a sin” which makes no sense against the Catechism source which demonstrates the exact opposite), with the practice mistaken for a workshop in fact being veneration of a go between or visiting tombstones.
The no true scotsman gets extended to some additional bits, like the existence of the pope. However, there is a lack of follow through to support these, such as confirming the pope is not a member of Christianity, or likewise that Christians in general are not.
"That's not my argument"
If that was not your argument, then your argument was simply off topic to the debate you agreed to participate.
Please consider the first line of the description: "The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately"
Have you done anything to inform those who view this debate about the documentary? You claim it's implicitly overwhelmingly homophobic, but failed to point people to either it or at least clips from it which might suggest that premise. Again, it was literally not my job to tell you about the documentary, rather it was your job to tell the audience about it to give something of structure value to take away.
Were I to have gone off topic, you would still have the same duty to inform the audience of the intended subject. Instead, you actively allowed my Scott Thompson impersonation to be the only value people took away from this.
Your assertions that Catholicism does not originate from the community of the followers of Jesus Christ, because there is variance in rituals, is a rather obvious non-sequitur. Hence, putting it into terms for how close you've come to making a valid and sound argument that eagles are not birds (we can even define birds by shared genealogy, if you want this to be a closer comparison).
It's about like saying: 'Cats are not mammals, And note, my argument doesn't contain "IF." I'm not stating that "if cats don't bark they are therefore not mammals," I'm starting cats do not bark therefore they are not mammals, hence cats are not mammals.'
Appeals to novelty vs tradition. With both talking about the unknown future, this falls flat to me.
To me semantics does not make something sound. Let's look at your eagle example, if you argue an eagle isn't a bird because the wingspan is too big or the diet too varied, you can have all the valid arguments you want, and the conclusion still fails to be sound. You can run around claiming that it's sound that eagles are not birds all you want, and that would just not make it so (even if you do win some debates on it).
Humor aside, I hope this debate was informative for you about how to structure an argument and leverage evidence.
I ended up rewriting sections which outright crossed the line. While a homophobic topic like this warrants some mockery, I wouldn't want to lower myself to making a bunch of sexual Ad Hominems.
Also I would have gladly engaged with the moved goalpost were it supported with any evidence (my final round stuff about the shirt sniffing, I prepared expecting to use it in R2 against video evidence... Yes, I would have twisted any segment of the video to be as gay as Archie if you just read between the lines).
Yes, your argument is valid. That doesn't make it sound. That you don't know the difference, likely contributed to why you requested this debate in the first place.
In short, validity means if the premises are true than the conclusion follows. Whereas soundness relates to the ultimate truth of it. ... As an example, someone who likes dogs and agrees they are mammals, might argue that since they dislike cats they must therefore not be mammals. They could validly line up how cats fail to bark and other such evidence, and even win debates with the logic, but that would never be able to make their case actually sound.
@VOTERS:
I agree with any conduct penalties applied to my case.
You seem very passionate about this. While your argument is unsound, I'll give you that it is internally valid.
NOTICE: Only 4 days remain for voting, with the debate currently tied.
Here's a link to a snippet of the same data:
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/videos/a21993/gay-porn-stats-by-state/
(And yes, I'll try to remember to include it next round for anyone in need of an alternative link).
As a reminder, your argument is due early tomorrow.
Disclaimer: Whiteclaw and Costco Margarita mixed with extra tequila are posting (or at least significantly contributing)! Thank you spell check, for making this something not too awful.
---
Ideally (well, ideally ideally we'd have a lot more active voters...) this debate should be decided by someone non-religious (specifically agnostic... let's face it, Atheists often fall into the trap of accidentally being more committed to religion than thane average actual devotees of religion). For context, I am a Catholic/Pastafarian. So in person I've had too many variants of this debate and Christian conspiracy theories related to it. I genuinely don't think this dominated my vote but only an idiot would deny the mere precedence of slight influence.
On Sunday I start a shit job which I've held out against for way too long... So if no other voter has fairly weighed in by Friday (err, maybe not Friday, I have plans which might turn out badly) or Saturday, I'll try to put a couple hours into a deep contention by contention re-reading.
...
Ath:
You have done a good job outlining slight variations which differentiate Catholicism from mainstream Christendom. That leaves the debate asking is Catholicism still inspired by Jesus? Hopefully someone else answers how the debate answered this.
Oro:
You miss some basic points, but do an amazing job levaging definitions. You do more than this, but it is a key thing which determines borderline debates.
Seld:
Yo! You're improving on voting faster than I did! Hell, I unfairly called the first person who stalked me a stalker, yet they had nothing on the second or the third. ... Okay, sorry, I should specify drinking to get through a PTSD episode while my city is on fire (a wildfire near it... air politician, my GF/Ex could not understand why I was freaking out... TMI.).
Okay, first person I called a stalker. I literally can't remember his name, even while I respect him. I voted badly on one of his debates, and he followed me around for a bit complaining. Stalker was over stating it. ... What I mean to say it that you're doing pretty good, even if flawed, still more effort than the vast majority pf readers are putting in, and I suspect the debaters appreciate it.
Anyway, so yeah, tied votes are one of the best things. Don't ever let anyone shame you for it.
For clarity, Athias did not report my vote!
FYI (technically this whole post is such, but you get the gist...), due to my status as a moderator, when my votes have been reported I've often advised other moderators to hold them to a higher standard (delete even if borderline or even slightly above it).
I likewise hold myself to a said higher standard, and of course second guess myself.
To me "ping storm" is obviously a hyperbole, but still gets at a bit of the issues (line by line criticism does get over the top). However, Athias isn't a POS debater like some who I will not name. There's been plenty of times where someone challenges my vote when I literally know their argument better than them, but this is not one of those times.
I considered accepting this one. The core argument I would have made is that if you're going to live with the knowledge that it's a simulation anyways, why not game the system?
On the other hand, there was a pretty good debate I remember... Something about batman villains are preferable to being a good person, since in a simulation, they take up more time in the simulation, or get rendered in it more often... Sounds like an RM debate. Probably titled something like "It's preferable to not be a good person"?
Removing my vote. I might revote later with one that minimizes any feedback on the impressions the debate leaves readers with...
---
For 5K arguments, those felt more like 15.
Seems the debate hinges upon two key things:
1. If the form of something differs from others of its kind, when does it become something else?
2. Are pre-agreed definitions binding?
For the first con comes close, but pro’s built in defense of pointing out things like the sabbath already leaving true-Christians in doubt if entertaining the fallacy. Con ends up trying to flip this around asserting that Catholics are only as close to being Christian as Hindus are, which was an obvious non-sequitur.
For the second is Catholicism “An Abrahamic religion originating from the community of the followers of Jesus Christ”? Yes. Obviously. While the dictionary should make this cut and dry, out of respect to both debaters I am going to look past it at the real disputes.
---
Pro wisely predicted the No True Scotsman fallacy. While con protested against it, he walked his arguments inside it allowing pro to frame them in those terms. Con for his part does an okay job on said protests, but majorly beating around the bush rather than just saying the form of the fallacy does not guarantee it is being used fallaciously (a Scotsman being someone from Scotland, a guy who spent his whole life in Texas would indeed be not a true scotsman … in his closing con did put it in these clear terms); which should have been swiftly backed up on why said tests absolutely rule someone out from being a true scotsman.
Con did much better on the religious liberty point, pointing out that it's non-falsifiable (that may mean something different to me due to my level of education). Not sure how pro twisted that around to con calling him racist... Anyway, I am finding self-identification was intuitively flawed even while it can't be outright dismissed since religion is defined personally by people (side note: even if scientologists are not really scientists or christians...). As con put it: “transmutation as a consequence of arbitrary identitarianism.”
Pro had a slam dunk on the THEOLOGY point, since con argued that people are and are not Christians at various times based on what they’re currently doing, which undercuts his own argument that Catholics are not Christian because they sometimes sin. That there are customs not specifically endorsed by Jesus, doesn’t defeat the problem pro pointed out about the shortage of true christians if entertaining this standard leads to absurdity of true-Christians not existing (not honoring the sabbath on the correct day, eating meat on friday, etc.). If following the bible incorrectly would further not remove the strive to follow Jesus.
Conduct:
Pro took a decent hit to this at one point on the whole racism accusation, were there any more notable ones he would lose this point.
Similarly at the end con started quoting the debate with quotes that were not present earlier in the debate. (the unclearly that these were con's words instead of pro's, are also an S&G issue, but again, too little of the debate was corrupted by it to actually cost the point IMO)
Good resolution!
If there are lesbiens in the audience (and not in the joking way that I'm a lesbian trapped in a man's body), I will happily dedicate one of the rounds to women instead of men.
My opponent should definitely use that as a point.