Total votes: 13
🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔
Con agreed with Pro.
Forfeit full.
2 out of 3 forfeit there.
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.
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.
No one posted anything.
Pro forfeited.
Pro forfeited all rounds.
I am leaving arguments as a tie because the common definition of magic isnt magic tricks. And arguing that magic tricks and illusions are real comes a bit strange, when they are by definition fake.
Conduct to Con due to forfeit.
When person forfeits 50% of debate, by voting standards here, the need to consider his arguments ceases.
I dont usually vote, but given that Pro willingly forfeited, I think he wont mind that I vote against him.