The Instigator
Swedishperspective
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
dsjpk5
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points

The Catholic Church is and has been a force for good in the world

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
dsjpk5
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/23/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,406 times Debate No: 60833
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (18)
Votes (3)

 

Swedishperspective

Con

Round 1. Acceptance of debate terms
Round 2-4: Rebuttals
Round 5: Closing statement. No rebuttals and no new arguments.

For this introductory round I will present my position and the necessary terms for this debate. I wont offer any arguments as to why Catholic Church is not a force for good, just present the terms and succinctly explain what I am going to argue in favor off.

My stance on this debate is, that when viewing the Catholic Church historically and presently, I find that when gauging its worldwide impact, on balance, I deem the Catholic Church to be a force for evil in the world. In order to avoid snarl myself into a semantic mess about "what is good and evil", I will define try to define the term "good" done by a person or an entity as, on balance, someone who contributes with more good than harm to the society at large. I would define the word "good" as something done by a person or entity that promotes the advancement of the well-being of the people living in the society in terms of the peoples' overall health, happiness, and educational attainment. As opposed to my definition of what constitutes good, I choose to render the term "bad" the very antithetical definition of good, namely the hindrance in the advance of and/or worsening of the well-being of the population in terms of their health, happiness and educational attainments.

When the good actions that of an entity or person have been juxtaposed to the bad actions it has taken, these good or bad actions must then be assessed in the light of and in relation to the wealth and capabilities attributed to that person or entity. If, for instance, all criminal organisations in the world gave away just one or two percent of their annual income emanating from the various criminal activities they are involved in, that would amount to considerably more money than the Catholic Church annually contributes to poverty relief aiding organisations and charities in third world countries. Would we deem these criminal organisations as morally righteous on the basis of their annual contributions to charity? Surely you and I are in agreement that this wouldn't be the case for both of us.

When assessing whether the actions taken by the Catholic Church or any other aid organisation for that matter are satisfactory, they have to be gauged in comparative terms, i.e. in relation to their wealth and their overall capabilities to produce these type of results. Hence, if the philanthropic actions by the Catholic Church don't bear in relation to how much its resources have grown and/or is not proportionate to how much it currently holds in assets, then we can give an accurate and empirical estimate of how good the Catholic Church actually is or isn't.

Hence, the definition good and bad as I choose to define it allows us to view this debate not merely as two contrasting subjective opinions and moral convictions, but as two contrasting portrayals of the Catholic church based on empirical facts. On balance, I will demonstrate that the Catholic church has done more evil than good in this world.

There are many good Catholics - and I will stress this point - and I am not criticizing them. I am criticizing the Catholic Church itself. The distinction between Catholics and the Catholic institutions is an important distinction to be made. I am criticizing the Catholic Church, its doctrines and teachings (Of which some, I will argue, are, I deem, dangerous to society) as well as what it is doing and has done in the past.

Now my opponent has some terms defined for this debate. Now, hopefully, he or she knows the objective of this debate and what he or she has to prove - since I have phrased the debate in such a way as to shift the burden of proof to my opponent - in order to win this debate. Don't be afraid to ask if you have any questions so for.

Good luck.
dsjpk5

Pro

I accept the terms of this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Swedishperspective

Con

I will start off by thanking my opponent for accepting my challenge.

If one is going to defend the proposition then one has to begin by making a great deal of heartfelt apologies and request for contrition. The crimes perpetrated by the Catholic Church against humanity and the offenses against the free intelligence must be pardoned for.

In the millennium jubilee of 2000, Bishop Piero Marini used a whole sermon as an apology given by His Holiness the Pope to explained that "given the number of sins committed in the course of 20 centuries, it must be necessarily be rather summary". I think he is just about right so I will try to be rather summary, too.

His Holiness begged forgiveness for, among some other things, the inquisition, the crusades, the persecution of the Jewish people, forced conversion of indigenous people in South America and injustice towards women (half the human race). This was followed by proceeding apologizes that have although already been apologized for in the course of the 20th century, but which he chose to emphasize his regret for in his sermon. These apologizes range from the African slave trade; the fact that Pope Pius XII was silent when the Nazis rounded up the Jews to be deported from Rome " - which partly was due to the fact that German Catholics failed to mount a proper resistance against Hitler"s antisemitism; the fact that the very doctrine that said that Jews murdered Christ was said to have ideologically reinforced Nazism and was an official doctrine taught by the Catholic Church until 1964, the fact that Vatican officials allegedly helped Nazis escape facing trial for what they had done by helping them escape Europe. (1)

And it doesn't end there. There are other albeit less significant admissions of bad conscience. One such admission is of the very fact that rape and torture of orphans have been going on in church-run schools in almost every country on earth. These are serious matters that cannot be brushed aside by referencing to occasional works of Catholic charities or other philanthropically oriented Catholic endeavors.

The Vatican must be exposed for what it is: a criminal body under international law. In fact, it has been declared as a transnational criminal organization by a verdict of the International Common Law Court of Justice. It declared the Catholic Church and its governing body, the Vatican, is to be considered as a criminal body under international law. It found that the Catholic Church along with its highest officials were guilty of aiding and abetting child trafficking worldwide.

The laws passed in Rome criminalized disclosure of information regarding child abuse (or I should say child rape) and molestation. The new internal church policy threatens members with excommunication were any clergy or employee to utter a single word of any sex abuse in the church to the authorities. The internal policy is called 'Crimine solicitationies' from 1962 that the Vatican sent to every bishop in the world.

These laws essentially tells every Catholic in the world to violate their own domestic laws by giving aid and comfort to child rapists. The Pope is not only facilitating international child abuse, he is the head of a criminal conspiracy. By dint of its criminal status, the Pope and the Catholic Church is waging a war against the sovereignty of other nations and the law of nations. Jorge Bergoglio, the head of the Church of Rome and indeed a leading figure in Catholicism, and in extension the whole Catholic Church as such is thereby an enemy of humanity.

In effect, The Roman Catholic Church ought to be subject to all the sanctions prescribed in United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (2000). These sanctions include the seizure of all funds, property and assets of the Church, the arrest of Church officers, and the return of all stolen lands and goods held by the Church. Accordingly, the top officers of the Church of Rome are in fact fugitives from the law and so they must be punished in accordance with international laws. (2)

The Catholic Church has over the course of history managed to establish itself as a powerful institution. The church has managed to ingratiate itself in many areas of society in order to consolidate its monetary wealth and power. Not only has it done so in the past long gone but also at times still remembered today. The power at the Catholic Church"s disposal has often been abused and deployed in ways that has grossly violated human rights and the freedom of men and women alike, but particularly for women.

The Baby Scoop Era was period that lasted somewhere between the end of World War II and approximately between 1970 and 1980s. During this period, religious organizations - primarily the Catholic Church " ran mother care clinics. The most well-known of the religious run institutions was The Magdalene Laundries run by the Catholic Church.

What essentially characterized this period was that many women had little to no control over their reproductive lives. Roe vs Wade had not been implemented so abortions were prohibited until 1973 in US, and abortions were not regularly available in most countries until the early-mid 1970"s. This was also the case for birth control which was not readily available until the 1960"s, albeit these were only granted to married couples in the 1960s and was only available for single mother in the 1970s. The situation for unwed single mothers at this time was, thus, that they had few successful ways to prevent pregnancies and/or to end pregnancies. Since the care of pregnant women out of wedlock were handled primarily the Magdalene asylums (a Catholic institution) not only in the US but across Europe, Australia and Canada, these were subject to the care of Catholics, and, in extension, the Catholic Church itself because it supervised these institutions.

The Magdalene Laundries operated for more than 200 years. It started like a shelter for prostitutes (hence, referring to the prostitute Magdalene in the bible) seemingly as a place where they could come and go. It started off as a penitential asylums but eventually became a closed off detention facility where these "fallen women" were doing laundry and other types of hard labor works to perhaps your parents and grandparents.

However, for some women these were closed communities, essentially detaining centers where women could completely disappear from society. From 1765 until the late 1990, it is estimated that in Ireland alone about 30,000 women were incarcerated in these facilities due to their loss of chastity and, thus, they had fallen from the grace of God. (http://www.the-archer.co.uk...). This was a mischief that was associated with prostitution and was not morally and socially acceptable during these times because of the view that a woman"s sexuality were to be constricted to the status of marriage, under the supervision of an authoritative man. The women were, thus, seen as "fallen", and it was the goal of these institutions to rehabilitate the women to society. However, few women ever returned to society but were instead imprisoned in these facilities in order to work in these facilities and remunerate God, essentially. This included hard labor work such as doing laundry work before the advent of more modern washing machines, boiling coppers and hand wringing devices. (5)

In the 1940s and 1950s, the term "illegitimacy" started to be used as a psychological characterization on the part of the mother as essentially an unfit mother. During this time, two diametrically conflicting paradigms faced each other: a more open view on women"s sexuality as contrasted to the traditional view that chastity was a moral virtue and that everything else was regarded as sin. Because of the liberalization of women"s sexual mores coincided with the traditionalists deliberate attempts to thwart this sexual emancipation through restrictions on access to birth control. This, however, lead to an increase in premarital pregnancies. (3)

In US alone, from approximately 1940 to 1970 an estimated 4 million mothers in the United States had to relinquish their newborn children for adoption; 2 million of the infants were surrendered in 1960 alone. In contrast, the U.S Department of Health and Human Services estimated that about 14000 of these were "voluntarily" given up for adoption in 2003. (4)

The women were, thus, basically forced to carry out adoptions since, in a time when the Catholic Church wielded a lot of cultural influence, they were neither medically or culturally regarded as fit mothers.

In Spain alone it is estimated that over 300,000 babies were trafficked by institution run by the Catholic Church. This lasted from the reign of Franco until early nineties, over a period of five decades. The babies were essentially stolen from their parents (but most often it was single and unwed mothers that were effected) by a secret network of nurses and doctors. The nurses and doctors basically lied and said that the baby had died during or after birth and that the seeing the baby. They then put these infants up for adoption to devout parents that were financially stable, hence seen as "better" parents. Thus, the Catholic Church has made a fortune upon the misery of millions of women and children. (6)

The Catholic Church is, consequently, a contemptible and regrettable institution.

1. https://groups.google.com...
2. http://itccs.org...
3. Gone to an Aunt's: Remembering Canada's Homes for Unwed Mothers. (pp. 7"8)
4. http://pages.uoregon.edu...
5. https://www.youtube.com...
6. http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
dsjpk5

Pro

I would like to start by pointing out that my opponent defines "good"
by "doing good". This makes our definition rather problematic since
we're using the word to define the word. That's like saying "I define a
serpent as a serpent." We still don't have a coherent definition. What
I see as "good" may not be what my opponent sees as "good" (and vice
versa). I would assert that since my opponent is an atheist, he is
unable to offer any kind of objective standard for what is "good". All
he can really do is offer his opinion as to what he personally calls
"good". He really can't say that what I call good is wrong. He can
say it's not for him, but on what authority can he say I am wrong?
Appealing to the popularity of something would be a logical fallacy.
With this in mind, I could simply declare victory now without making a
single argument.

But what fun would that be?

Having said that, I will now make my case for the Catholic
Church being a force for "good" and then rebut my opponent's claims.

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS A FORCE FOR GOOD

1. The Catholic Church is the largest non-government provider of
education and medical services in the world. [1] In 2010, the Catholic
Church's Pontifical Council for Pastoral Assistance to Health Care
Workers said that the Church manages 26% of health care facilities in
the world, including hospitals, clinics, orphanages, pharmacies and
centres for those with leprosy.[2]

2. The Catholic Church gave the world the university system.

The papacy played a central if not exclusive role in the establishment
and encouragement of the universities. Naturally, the granting of a
charter to a university was one indication of this papal role. Some 81
universities had been established by the time of the Reformation. Of
these 33 possessed a papal charter, 15 a royal or imperial one, 20
possessed both, and 13 had none. In addition, it was the accepted view
that a university could not award degrees without the approbation of
pope, king, or emperor. Pope Innocent IV officially granted this
privilege to Oxford University, for example, in 1254. The pope (in
fact) and the emperor (in theory) possessed authority over all of
Christendom, and for this reason it was to them that a university
typically had to turn for the right to issue degrees. Equipped with the
approval of one or the other of these universal figures, the
university"s degrees would be respected throughout all of Christendom.
Degrees awarded only by the approval of national monarchs, on the other
hand, were considered valid only in the kingdom in which they were
issued.[3]

3. The Catholic Church was a major force for the outlawing of slavery.

In his 1839 bull In Supremo Apostolatus, Pope Gregory XVI condemned all
forms of slavery; nevertheless some American bishops continued to
support slavery for several decades.[4] In this historic Bull, Pope
Gregory outlined his summation of the impact of the Church on the
ancient institution of slavery, beginning by acknowledging that early
Apostles had tolerated slavery but had called on masters to "act well
towards their slaves... knowing that the common Master both of
themselves and of the slaves is in Heaven, and that with Him there is
no distinction of persons". Gregory continued to discuss the
involvement of Christians for and against slavery through the ages:[5]

"In the process of time, the fog of pagan superstition being more
completely dissipated and the manners of barbarous people having been
softened, thanks to Faith operating by Charity, it at last comes
aboutthat, since several centuries, there are no more slaves in the
greater
number of Christian nations. But - We say with profound sorrow - there
were to be found afterwards among the Faithful men who, shamefully
blinded by the desire of sordid gain, in lonely and distant countries,
did not hesitate to reduce to slavery Indians, negroes and other
wretched peoples, or else, by instituting or developing the trade in
those who had been made slaves by others, to favour their unworthy
practice. Certainly many Roman Pontiffs of glorious memory, Our
Predecessors, did not fail, according to the duties of their charge, to
blame severely this way of acting as dangerous for the spiritual
welfare of those engaged in the traffic and a shame to the Christian
name; they foresaw that as a result of this, the infidel peoples would
be more and more strengthened in their hatred of the true Religion.

4. The Catholic Church with leadership of Pope John Paul II helped end
totalitarian communism.[9]
REBUTTALS

A few things to keep in mind while reading my opponent's claims:

1. Individuals, or groups of individuals, are not the Catholic Church.
Just because a group of nuns or priests may be doing something doesn't
mean it's condoned by the Church at large.

2. Even if a pope does something someone considers evil, it doesn't mean
the Catholic Church is evil. For example, even if the President of the
United States murdered a baby, we wouldn't by extension assume the
entire concept of a representative democracy was an evil form of
government.

3. If those people who do what some would consider evil are violating
official Church teachings when they do their evil acts, that actually
supports MY claim that the Catholic Church is a force for good. At the
very least, it doesn't condemn the Church as a whole. For example, the
Catholic Church teaches that rape is morally evil [6], so those who
engage in such activities are going AGAINST what the Church says.
Therefore, you can't blame the Church for the priestly scandal since
those priests are acting counter to what the Church teaches. The same
can be said for kidnapping and torture.[7]

Now for a more specific refutation of my opponent's claims.

My opponent's comments will be in quotes. My rebuttals will be
preceded by a #

"If one is going to defend the proposition then one has to begin by
making a great deal of heartfelt apologies and request for contrition.
The crimes perpetrated by the Catholic Church against humanity and the
offenses against the free intelligence must be pardoned for."

#Pure opinion without evidence.

"His Holiness begged forgiveness for, among some other things, the
inquisition, the crusades, the persecution of the Jewish people, forced
conversion of indigenous people in South America and injustice towards
women (half the human race)."

#This is not accurate. The Pope apologized for the sins ASSOCIATED
with those issues, but not the issues themselves. For example, the
concept of the inquisition and crusades was a noble one. The
inquisition was created to protect the stability of a country, and the
crusades were meant to reclaim land that had been stolen.

"This was followed by proceeding apologizes
that have although already been apologized for in the course of the
20th century, but which he chose to emphasize his regret for in his
sermon. These apologizes range from the African slave trade; the fact
that Pope Pius XII was silent when the Nazis rounded up the Jews to be
deported from Rome "

#The claim about Pope Pius XII is ridiculous and wrong. Pope Pius XII
saved approximately 860,000 Jews from certain death. [8]

"the fact that the very doctrine that said that Jews
murdered Christ was said to have ideologically reinforced Nazism and
was an official doctrine taught by the Catholic Church until 1964"

#No such doctrine ever existed. I challenge my opponent to show
otherwise. If his claim is true, it should be easy for him to prove.
Simply give us the name of the magisterial document in which the
doctrine was defined, the Pope or council that promulgated it, and the
year this happened.

"the fact that Vatican officials allegedly helped Nazis escape facing
trial
for what they had done by helping them escape Europe. (1)"

# I would like to see evidence of such a claim (besides a Google blog).

"And it doesn't end there. There are other albeit less significant
admissions of bad conscience. One such admission is of the very fact
that rape and torture of orphans have been going on in church-run
schools in almost every country on earth. These are serious matters
that cannot be brushed aside by referencing to occasional works of
Catholic charities or other philanthropically oriented Catholic
endeavors."

# Remember what I said above about those who violate Church teachings.
It actually supports MY claims.

The Vatican must be exposed for what it is: a criminal body under
international law. In fact, it has been declared as a transnational
criminal organization by a verdict of the International Common Law
Court of Justice. It declared the Catholic Church and its governing
body, the Vatican, is to be considered as a criminal body under
international law. It found that the Catholic Church along with its
highest officials were guilty of aiding and abetting child trafficking
worldwide.

"The laws passed in Rome criminalized disclosure of information
regarding child abuse (or I should say child rape) and molestation. The
new internal church policy threatens members with excommunication were
any clergy or employee to utter a single word of any sex abuse in the
church to the authorities. The internal policy is called 'Crimine
solicitationies' from 1962 that the Vatican sent to every bishop in the
world."

# This document has nothing to do with the sex scandal. It's about a
priest not being allowed to solicit a sinful person to confess their
sins. You can see for yourself here [10]

"The Catholic Church has over the course of history managed to establish
itself as a powerful institution. The church has managed to ingratiate
itself in many areas of society in order to consolidate its monetary
wealth and power. Not only has it done so in the past long gone but
also at times still remembered today."

# What's wrong with that? My opponent's claim is without warrant.

"The power at the Catholic
Church"s disposal has often been abused and deployed in ways that has
grossly violated human rights and the freedom of men and women alike,
but particularly for women.

The Baby Scoop Era was period that lasted somewhere between the end of
World War II and approximately between 1970 and 1980s. During this
period, religious organizations - primarily the Catholic Church " ran
mother care clinics. The most well-known of the religious run
institutions was The Magdalene Laundries run by the Catholic Church.

What essentially characterized this period was that many women had
little to no control over their reproductive lives. Roe vs Wade had not
been implemented so abortions were prohibited until 1973 in US, and
abortions were not regularly available in most countries until the
early-mid 1970"s. This was also the case for birth control which was
not readily available until the 1960"s, albeit these were only granted
to married couples in the 1960s and was only available for single
mother in the 1970s. The situation for unwed single mothers at this
time was, thus, that they had few successful ways to prevent
pregnancies and/or to end pregnancies. Since the care of pregnant women
out of wedlock were handled primarily the Magdalene asylums (a Catholic
institution) not only in the US but across Europe, Australia and
Canada, these were subject to the care of Catholics, and, in extension,
the Catholic Church itself because it supervised these institutions.

The Magdalene Laundries operated for more than 200 years. It started
like a shelter for prostitutes (hence, referring to the prostitute
Magdalene in the bible) seemingly as a place where they could come and
go. It started off as a penitential asylums but eventually became a
closed off detention facility where these "fallen women" were doing
laundry and other types of hard labor works to perhaps your parents and
grandparents.

However, for some women these were closed communities, essentially
detaining centers where women could completely disappear from society.
From 1765 until the late 1990, it is estimated that in Ireland alone
about 30,000 women were incarcerated in these facilities due to their
loss of chastity and, thus, they had fallen from the grace of God.
(http://www.the-archer.co.uk......). This was a mischief that was
associated with prostitution and was not morally and socially
acceptable during these times because of the view that a woman"s
sexuality were to be constricted to the status of marriage, under the
supervision of an authoritative man. The women were, thus, seen as
"fallen", and it was the goal of these institutions to rehabilitate the
women to society. However, few women ever returned to society but were
instead imprisoned in these facilities in order to work in these
facilities and remunerate God, essentially. This included hard labor
work such as doing laundry work before the advent of more modern
washing machines, boiling coppers and hand wringing devices. (5)

In the 1940s and 1950s, the term "illegitimacy" started to be used as a
psychological characterization on the part of the mother as essentially
an unfit mother. During this time, two diametrically conflicting
paradigms faced each other: a more open view on women"s sexuality as
contrasted to the traditional view that chastity was a moral virtue and
that everything else was regarded as sin. Because of the liberalization
of women"s sexual mores coincided with the traditionalists deliberate
attempts to thwart this sexual emancipation through restrictions on
access to birth control. This, however, lead to an increase in
premarital pregnancies. (3)"

# Remember what I said about not blaming an entire government just
because some of its members did what some would consider evil. My
opponent has offered no evidence that the Vatican even knew of this
alleged abuse.

Also remember what I said about those who violate official Church
teachings. The violation supports my claim that the Church is a force
for good.

"In US alone, from approximately 1940 to 1970 an estimated 4 million
mothers in the United States had to relinquish their newborn children
for adoption; 2 million of the infants were surrendered in 1960 alone.
In contrast, the U.S Department of Health and Human Services estimated
that about 14000 of these were "voluntarily" given up for adoption in
2003. (4)"

# The source provided for this data doesn't even mention the Catholic Church, so I don't see how it's relevant to this discussion.

"In Spain alone it is estimated that over 300,000 babies were trafficked
by institution run by the Catholic Church. This lasted from the reign
of Franco until early nineties, over a period of five decades. The
babies were essentially stolen from their parents (but most often it
was single and unwed mothers that were effected) by a secret network of
nurses and doctors. The nurses and doctors basically lied and said that
the baby had died during or after birth and that the seeing the baby.
They then put these infants up for adoption to devout parents that were
financially stable, hence seen as "better" parents. Thus, the Catholic
Church has made a fortune upon the misery of millions of women and
children. (6)"

# Again, no evidence is offered claiming the Vatican knew about this. Also again, those who violate Church teachings.....

I have addressed/ rebutted all my opponent's claims. I am curios to see how he attempts to claim my contentions aren't evidence for.the Catholic Church being a force for good.

Sources:

1. Agnew, John (12 February 2010). "Deus Vult: The Geopolitics of
Catholic Church". Geopolitics 15 (1): 39"61.

2. "Catholic hospitals comprise one quarter of world's healthcare,
council reports". Catholic News Agency. 10 February 2010. Retrieved 17
August 2012

3 http://www.catholiceducation.org...

4.Stark, Rodney (2003-07-01). "The Truth About the Catholic Church and
Slavery". Christianity Today.

5. http://www.papalencyclicals.net...
6. http://www.scborromeo.org...
7.
http://ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com...

8.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...

9. http://www.washingtonpost.com...

10. http://rcf.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Swedishperspective

Con

If my opponent took the time to read through my introduction, he would see that I have laid out a concrete definition as to what constitutes "good".

To begin with, by just viewing the Catholic Church from a default point of view, you might say that the Catholic church is good on the basis of its great share in humanitarian involvement, but that is a wrong way of looking at it. The correct way of looking at the matter is to look at how the Catholic Church governs its institutions and asking if their work is done in a preferable fashion, and, if not so, if someone else could run its affairs better. While you see their big influence as something positive, I see it as their means to assert their world view on the sick and vulnerable that are ultimately dependent upon its humanitarian aid.

In South Africa someone dies from aids every two minutes. In Botswana.23.4% of adults between 15 and 49 are HIV positive; In Swaziland 26% of adults have HIV; in Namibia 13,4% are; In Lesotho, 23,3% are. These are all examples of countries that are affected by Catholic aid organisations and their view on contraception. (1)

In March 2009 Pope Benedict XVI said that Aids is a tragedy "that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems". In May 2009, the Congolese bishops announced "We say no to condoms!"

The Pope's statement is at odds with what the scientific community believes. Condoms do help against the spread of AIDS/HIV, hence it is on account of the opinions of the Catholic Church regarding birth control - the position that it is a mortal sin to use birth control and that eternal hell awaits those who willingly use them - and the superstitious nonsense that furthers the spread of Aids/HIV and, consequently, leads to either death or shorter life spans. (2)
.
The Catholic Church's ban on condoms has left the people they are ostensibly helping exposed to the disease because relief organizations simply block their distribution. It was found that there was a big mismatch between what donors had sent and what was distributed, and the catholic organisations that prevented the condoms from arriving at their designated location did so because of their belief that it would undercut efforts to promote abstinence. (3)

Regarding the Catholic Church's view on education, the Catholic Church has stubbornly kept the populace from gaining access to the bible themselves. It feared that people could misread scripture, and that they regarded as dangerous since that could possibly have swayed them to turn to other religious organisations that the Catholic Church viewed as heretical, such as Catharism or the Waldensians. Hence, they left the reading and the interpretation of the bible to the priests. This was a notion that was later challenged by Protestant reformers who adhered to the notion of Priesthood of All Believers. Before that, the Catholic Church had full control over the spiritual lives of their followers.

The Inquisition was not a noble undertaking, nor were the crusades, and the fact that you say that patently reveals your abject ignorance on the matter. Let's start with the Inquisition.

Heresy was defined as any theological concept that did not conform to the official Catholic doctrines. Heresy at that time was regarded as a worse sin than murder. The common opinion of that time was that Heresy was anarchy and rebellion against the Government (King and Queen), and the Church. It was also believed that propagating Heresy was a worse than destroying a human body because it was dangerous for the salvation of the immortal soul.

Basically, the opinion held by the Catholic Church was, that if I were alive and dissented the Catholic Church's teachings, I would not only be worse than a murderer, I would have be held for trail as a heretic - not by an adversarial judicial system that we have in place today in which the court plays the role as an impartial referee and where the defendant has the right to an attorney but by an inquisitional system in which the court - in this case consisting of cardinals appointed by the pope - played an active role in the investigating of the crime for the sole purpose of unveiling cases of heresy. Since the court was determined to strike down heresy no matter, the defendant was practically forced to confess. In order to cover the expenses of the preliminary hearings, the defendant was confiscated by much of his or her property to the Vatican.

You could be essentially be charged for heresy by anyone. The identity of whomever had pressed charges against you were classified for the defendant, so there was no accountability whatsoever for the person who pressed charges. Once you were gagged and, by violence, escorted to the inquisition chamber for closer examination you had no actual means to defend yourself against the overzealous court. If you denied the charges put against you during the first hearing, the defendants were imprisoned for several months. The dungeons were located underground where the inmates were bound in stocks or chains, essentially unable to move about. The prisoners were starved and often held in solitary confinement with no contact with the outside world; usually the rooms had no light or ventilation.

The horrifying torture chambers that occasionally awaited the defendants were sufficient to strike terror in the bravest of men or women. Not only did they have to endure the dread of not knowing when they were going to be tortured next, they were also aware of the risk of either perpetual incarceration or death at the stake. If you had not confessed during your first hearing, the chances for your acquittal were virtually impossible. The inquisitors were sanctioned to use any means of terror and intimidation in order to extract confessions from their prisoner, this included horrifying devises used to inflict pain by, for instance, slowly dismembering and dislocating the body.

Even those who managed to escape with their lives, were physically and/or mentally maimed for the rest of their lives, driven mad by the confinement and the torture they endured. Many willingly committed suicide in order to save themselves from the callousness of the inquisitors.

What is so noble about this? The undemocratic court system? The blatant disregard of the dignity of the human beings put on trial? The horrifying torture methods? Can you please expand upon your belief, that the main heretics at the time, Catharism and Waldenses, and which later started to include witches (that's right, witches), diviners, blasphemers, were somehow a threat to the stability of the realm? (3)

Concerning the Crusades, I suppose my opponent is only thinking about the fighting surrounding the Holy land. But has my opponent forgotten about the sacking of Constantinople in 1204? How was that justifiable and why was that something "noble"? Are you saying that the Albigensian Crusade against the Cathars - an overtly peaceful Christian movement - was a "noble" undertaking"? Are you saying that the Northern Crusades against the pagan Slavs was a "noble" undertaking? You have a lot of explaining to do, sir.

Furthermore, I wouldn't say that the crusades was a defense war as much as a war of conquest and invasion. The Byzantine empire had already lost the Palestinian lands long before the First Crusade was organized. Palestine had been under Muslim rule for four centuries before the First Crusade. The purpose of the first Crusades was intended primarily to eradicate the heresy and apostasy of Islam, remove the existing Muslim rulers from power in the Levant and install Christian rulers in their place, to convert the native populations from Islam to Christianity by force of arms - not to protect the rights of Christians living under Muslim rulers. After all, the soldiers were indiscriminately killing thousands of civilians, Muslims and Jews alike. The absolving of the crusaders sins by Urban the Pope was not only irresponsible (Isn't responsibility for your actions a good thing?) but probably also led to a heightened fighting morale. After all, previous experiences of wars, for instance the Byzantine empire against the Persians, had showed that civilians constitute a great deal of the number of casualties, so if the Catholic Church had an interest in sparing the lives of civilians, they would have explicitly urged not to kill civilians. No such exhortation was ever issued by the Catholic Church. (4)

Humani generis unitas, known as "The Lost Encyclical", was a draft that denounced antisemitism, racism and the persecution of the Jews commissioned by Pope Pius XI. It would have been sent to all Catholic Churches had not Pius XII kept the document secret. The encyclical was discovered in 1995 in France. Had he published the document it might have saved thousands or millions of Jews, but because antisemitism induced by centuries of teachings that the Jews were "deicides", "moral lepers" and "agents of the devil" for their refusal to accept Christianity, it would have been problematic for him to condone the promulgation of that document. (5)

It was in 1964 that the Catholic Church publicly announced the absolving the Jews from any deicide associations, whether in era of Jesus or in later days. The Ecumenical Council at the Vatican voted to reaffirm the "Jewishness" of the Old Testament and to publicly condemn antisemitism. (7)

To be continued in the next rounds.

1. http://www.avert.org...
2. http://www.fda.gov...
3. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...
4. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...
5. http://en.wikipedia.org...
6. http://en.wikipedia.org...
7. http://www.jta.org...
dsjpk5

Pro

Below, please find my opponent's claims in quotes. My rebuttals will
follow the # sign

"If my opponent took the time to read through my introduction, he would
see that I have laid out a concrete definition as to what constitutes
"good"."

# Originally in round one, my opponent defined "good" as "good" (look
for yourself).

"To begin with, by just viewing the Catholic Church from a default
point
of view, you might say that the Catholic church is good on the basis of
its great share in humanitarian involvement, but that is a wrong way of
looking at it. "

#Again, I would assert that, as an atheist, my opponent is unable to
say that there is a "wrong" way of looking at something. If there is
no universal law giver, then there are no universal laws. Society may
agree to act a certain way, but anyway would be just as "good" as
another as long as the majority agreed. So, as I said in round one, he
can't really prove the Catholic Church is wrong. He may personally not
like something, but he has no authority to say it's wrong. Therefore,
I cannot be wrong either.

"The correct way of looking at the matter is to look at
the Catholic Church governs its institutions and asking if their
work is done in a preferable fashion, and, if not so, if someone else
could run its affairs better. While you see their big influence as
something positive, I see it as their means to assert their world view
on the sick and vulnerable that are ultimately dependent upon its
humanitarian aid."

#More claims without evidence. This argument is dismissed because it
is without warrant.

"In March 2009 Pope Benedict XVI said that Aids is a tragedy "that
cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even
aggravates the problems". In May 2009, the Congolese bishops announced
"We say no to condoms!"T he Pope's statement is at odds with what the
scientific community
believes. Condoms do help against the spread of AIDS/HIV, hence it is
on account of the opinions of the Catholic Church regarding birth
control - the position that it is a mortal sin to use birth control and
that eternal hell awaits those who willingly use them - and the
superstitious nonsense that furthers the spread of Aids/HIV and,
consequently, leads to either death or shorter life spans. "

#Pope Benedict was right! But don't take my word for it; take the
word of Edward C. Green, director of the AIDS Prevention Research
Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies,
In an article he wrote for the Washington Post right after Pope
Benedict made those comments, he said: "Most non-Catholic commentary
has been highly critical of the pope. A cartoon in the Philadelphia
Inquirer, reprinted in The Post, showed the pope somewhat ghoulishly
praising a throng of sick and dying Africans: "Blessed are the sick,
for they have not used condoms.Yet, in truth, current empirical
evidence supports him." Mr Green went on to say:
"In 2003, Norman Hearst and Sanny Chen of the University of California
conducted a condom effectiveness study for the United Nations' AIDS
program and found no evidence of condoms working as a primary
HIV-prevention measure in Africa. UNAIDS quietly disowned the study.
(The authors eventually managed to publish their findings in the
quarterly Studies in Family Planning.) Since then, major articles in
other peer-reviewed journals such as the Lancet, Science and BMJ have
confirmed that condoms have not worked as a primary intervention in the
population-wide epidemics of Africa. In a 2008 article in Science
called "Reassessing HIV Prevention" 10 AIDS experts concluded that
"consistent condom use has not reached a sufficiently high level, even
after many years of widespread and often aggressive promotion, to
produce a measurable slowing of new infections in the generalized
epidemics of Sub-Saharan Africa." [11]

#So much for being counter to what the scientific community believes.

Back to my opponent's comments:

"Regarding the Catholic Church's view on education, the Catholic Church
has stubbornly kept the populace from gaining access to the bible
themselves. It feared that people could misread scripture, and that
they regarded as dangerous since that could possibly have swayed them
to turn to other religious organisations that the Catholic Church
viewed as heretical, such as Catharism or the Waldensians."

# This is not accurate. Notice my opponent didn't even offer a source
for this claim. Here are the facts:
"After the invention of the printing press, prior to Luther's Bible
being published in German, there had been over 20 versions of the whole
Bible translated into the various German dialects (High and Low) by
Catholics. Similarly, there were several vernacular versions of the
Bible published in other languages both before and after the
Reformation. The Church did condemn certain vernacular translations
because of what it felt were bad translations and anti-Catholic notes
(vernacular means native to a region or country).

The Catholic Douay-Rheims version of the whole Bible in English was
translated from the Latin Vulgate. It was completed in 1610, one year
before the King James Version was published. The New Testament had been
published in 1582 and was one of the sources used by the KJV
translators. The Old Testament was completed in 1610.

The Latin Vulgate was always available to anyone who wanted to read it
without restriction. Some Evangelicals have said that it would only
have been usable by people who read Latin. But in the 16th Century
there were no public schools and literacy was not that common,
especially among the peasants. Those people who could read had been
well educated and could read Latin.left the reading and the
interpretation of the bible to the priests."[12 ]

My opponent went on to say:

"This was a notion that was later challenged by Protestant reformers who
adhered to the notion of Priesthood of All Believers. Before that, the
Catholic Church had full control over the spiritual lives of their
followers."

# Again, not true. Catholics believe in that too. [ 13]

"The Inquisition was not a noble undertaking, nor were the crusades, and
the fact that you say that patently reveals your abject ignorance on
the matter. Let's start with the Inquisition.

Heresy was defined as any theological concept that did not conform to
the official Catholic doctrines. Heresy at that time was regarded as a
worse sin than murder. The common opinion of that time was that Heresy
was anarchy and rebellion against the Government (King and Queen), and
the Church. It was also believed that propagating Heresy was a worse
than destroying a human body because it was dangerous for the salvation
of the immortal soul.

Basically, the opinion held by the Catholic Church was, that if I were
alive and dissented the Catholic Church's teachings, I would not only
be worse than a murderer, I would have be held for trail as a heretic -
not by an adversarial judicial system that we have in place today in
which the court plays the role as an impartial referee and where the
defendant has the right to an attorney but by an inquisitional system
in which the court - in this case consisting of cardinals appointed by
the pope - played an active role in the investigating of the crime for
the sole purpose of unveiling cases of heresy. Since the court was
determined to strike down heresy no matter, the defendant was
practically forced to confess. In order to cover the expenses of the
preliminary hearings, the defendant was confiscated by much of his or
her property to the Vatican.

You could be essentially be charged for heresy by anyone. The identity
of whomever had pressed charges against you were classified for the
defendant, so there was no accountability whatsoever for the person who
pressed charges. Once you were gagged and, by violence, escorted to the
inquisition chamber for closer examination you had no actual means to
defend yourself against the overzealous court. If you denied the
charges put against you during the first hearing, the defendants were
imprisoned for several months. The dungeons were located underground
where the inmates were bound in stocks or chains, essentially unable to
move about. The prisoners were starved and often held in solitary
confinement with no contact with the outside world; usually the rooms
had no light or ventilation.

The horrifying torture chambers that occasionally awaited the
defendants were sufficient to strike terror in the bravest of men or
women. Not only did they have to endure the dread of not knowing when
they were going to be tortured next, they were also aware of the risk
of either perpetual incarceration or death at the stake. If you had not
confessed during your first hearing, the chances for your acquittal
were virtually impossible. The inquisitors were sanctioned to use any
means of terror and intimidation in order to extract confessions from
their prisoner, this included horrifying devises used to inflict pain
by, for instance, slowly dismembering and dislocating the body.

Even those who managed to escape with their lives, were physically
and/or mentally maimed for the rest of their lives, driven mad by the
confinement and the torture they endured. Many willingly committed
suicide in order to save themselves from the callousness of the
inquisitors.

What is so noble about this? The undemocratic court system? The blatant
disregard of the dignity of the human beings put on trial? The
horrifying torture methods? Can you please expand upon your belief,
that the main heretics at the time, Catharism and Waldenses, and which
later started to include witches (that's right, witches), diviners,
blasphemers, were somehow a threat to the stability of the realm? "

# First, I ask the voters to notice the source my opponent offered
DOESN'T EVEN MENTION THE INQUISITION. Second, remember I said that I
recognized that sins were committed BY INDIVIDUALS during the
Inqusitions. Remember, those who committed those evils were VIOLATING
Church teachings and as such, the Church was not at fault. Lastly, the
Inquisition was instituted in Spain, for example, for the preservation
of the state. (A noble concept) We have to remember that there was n separation of church and state in those times. Only Christians were allowed to have political power. Therefore, if someone in power was pretending to be Christian, they were seen as an infiltrating influence that threatened society. [ 14]

"Concerning the Crusades, I suppose my opponent is only thinking about
the fighting surrounding the Holy land. But has my opponent forgotten
about the sacking of Constantinople in 1204? How was that justifiable
and why was that something "noble"? Are you saying that the Albigensian
Crusade against the Cathars - an overtly peaceful Christian movement -
was a "noble" undertaking"? Are you saying that the Northern Crusades
against the pagan Slavs was a "noble" undertaking? You have a lot of
explaining to do, sir.

# Again, any evils committed BY INDIVIDUALS violated Church teachings, so the Church cannot be seen as evil here.

"Furthermore, I wouldn't say that the crusades was a defense war as much
as a war of conquest and invasion. The Byzantine empire had already
lost the Palestinian lands long before the First Crusade was organized.
Palestine had been under Muslim rule for four centuries before the
First Crusade. The purpose of the first Crusades was intended primarily
to eradicate the heresy and apostasy of Islam, remove the existing
Muslim rulers from power in the Levant and install Christian rulers in
their place, to convert the native populations from Islam to
Christianity by force of arms - not to protect the rights of Christians
living under Muslim rulers. After all, the soldiers were
indiscriminately killing thousands of civilians, Muslims and Jews
alike. The absolving of the crusaders sins by Urban the Pope was not
only irresponsible (Isn't responsibility for your actions a good
thing?) but probably also led to a heightened fighting morale. After
all, previous experiences of wars, for instance the Byzantine empire
against the Persians, had showed that civilians constitute a great deal
of the number of casualties, so if the Catholic Church had an interest
in sparing the lives of civilians, they would have explicitly urged not
to kill civilians. No such exhortation was ever issued by the Catholic
Church. "

#Regardless of how long it had been, it's a historical FACT that Muslim forces had stolen the land they occupied from Christian families. Therefore, the Crusades can easily be seen as an attempt to reclaim stolen land. [ 15]

"Humani generis unitas, known as "The Lost Encyclical", was a draft that
denounced antisemitism, racism and the persecution of the Jews
commissioned by Pope Pius XI. It would have been sent to all Catholic
Churches had not Pius XII kept the document secret. The encyclical was
discovered in 1995 in France. Had he published the document it might
have saved thousands or millions of Jews, but because antisemitism
induced by centuries of teachings that the Jews were "deicides", "moral
lepers" and "agents of the devil" for their refusal to accept
Christianity, it would have been problematic for him to condone the
promulgation of that document. "

# Notice, I asked my opponent to show me evidence of a doctrine that denounced Jews in any way, and he gives us a document that did THE EXACT OPPOSITE! This should be all anyone needs to know that my opponent's claims were false.

THE REBUTTALS MY OPPONENT DID NOT ADDRESS.

My opponent did not address the following rebuttals of mine from the previous round. Therefore, they have been "dropped" and presumed true for the remainder of the debate. My opponent need not waste any time nor space trying to refute them now. He already had his chance. " An argument is normally considered dropped if it is not answered in the speech in which the opposing team has the first opportunity to answer it. " [ 16]
___________________________________________________________

the fact that Vatican officials allegedly helped Nazis escape facing
trial
for what they had done by helping them escape Europe. (1)"

# I would like to see evidence of such a claim (besides a Google blog).

"And it doesn't end there. There are other albeit less significant
admissions of bad conscience. One such admission is of the very fact
that rape and torture of orphans have been going on in church-run
schools in almost every country on earth. These are serious matters
that cannot be brushed aside by referencing to occasional works of
Catholic charities or other philanthropically oriented Catholic
endeavors."

# Remember what I said above about those who violate Church teachings.
It actually supports MY claims.

The Vatican must be exposed for what it is: a criminal body under
international law. In fact, it has been declared as a transnational
criminal organization by a verdict of the International Common Law
Court of Justice. It declared the Catholic Church and its governing
body, the Vatican, is to be considered as a criminal body under
international law. It found that the Catholic Church along with its
highest officials were guilty of aiding and abetting child trafficking
worldwide.

"The laws passed in Rome criminalized disclosure of information
regarding child abuse (or I should say child rape) and molestation. The
new internal church policy threatens members with excommunication were
any clergy or employee to utter a single word of any sex abuse in the
church to the authorities. The internal policy is called 'Crimine
solicitationies' from 1962 that the Vatican sent to every bishop in the
world."

# This document has nothing to do with the sex scandal. It's about a
priest not being allowed to solicit a sinful person to confess their
sins. You can see for yourself here [10]

"The Catholic Church has over the course of history managed to establish
itself as a powerful institution. The church has managed to ingratiate
itself in many areas of society in order to consolidate its monetary
wealth and power. Not only has it done so in the past long gone but
also at times still remembered today."

# What's wrong with that? My opponent's claim is without warrant.

"The power at the Catholic
Church"s disposal has often been abused and deployed in ways that has
grossly violated human rights and the freedom of men and women alike,
but particularly for women.

The Baby Scoop Era was period that lasted somewhere between the end of
World War II and approximately between 1970 and 1980s. During this
period, religious organizations - primarily the Catholic Church " ran
mother care clinics. The most well-known of the religious run
institutions was The Magdalene Laundries run by the Catholic Church.

What essentially characterized this period was that many women had
little to no control over their reproductive lives. Roe vs Wade had not
been implemented so abortions were prohibited until 1973 in US, and
abortions were not regularly available in most countries until the
early-mid 1970"s. This was also the case for birth control which was
not readily available until the 1960"s, albeit these were only granted
to married couples in the 1960s and was only available for single
mother in the 1970s. The situation for unwed single mothers at this
time was, thus, that they had few successful ways to prevent
pregnancies and/or to end pregnancies. Since the care of pregnant women
out of wedlock were handled primarily the Magdalene asylums (a Catholic
institution) not only in the US but across Europe, Australia and
Canada, these were subject to the care of Catholics, and, in extension,
the Catholic Church itself because it supervised these institutions.

The Magdalene Laundries operated for more than 200 years. It started
like a shelter for prostitutes (hence, referring to the prostitute
Magdalene in the bible) seemingly as a place where they could come and
go. It started off as a penitential asylums but eventually became a
closed off detention facility where these "fallen women" were doing
laundry and other types of hard labor works to perhaps your parents and
grandparents.

However, for some women these were closed communities, essentially
detaining centers where women could completely disappear from society.
From 1765 until the late 1990, it is estimated that in Ireland alone
about 30,000 women were incarcerated in these facilities due to their
loss of chastity and, thus, they had fallen from the grace of God.
(http://www.the-archer.co.uk.........). This was a mischief that was
associated with prostitution and was not morally and socially
acceptable during these times because of the view that a woman"s
sexuality were to be constricted to the status of marriage, under the
supervision of an authoritative man. The women were, thus, seen as
"fallen", and it was the goal of these institutions to rehabilitate the
women to society. However, few women ever returned to society but were
instead imprisoned in these facilities in order to work in these
facilities and remunerate God, essentially. This included hard labor
work such as doing laundry work before the advent of more modern
washing machines, boiling coppers and hand wringing devices. (5)

In the 1940s and 1950s, the term "illegitimacy" started to be used as a
psychological characterization on the part of the mother as essentially
an unfit mother. During this time, two diametrically conflicting
paradigms faced each other: a more open view on women"s sexuality as
contrasted to the traditional view that chastity was a moral virtue and
that everything else was regarded as sin. Because of the liberalization
of women"s sexual mores coincided with the traditionalists deliberate
attempts to thwart this sexual emancipation through restrictions on
access to birth control. This, however, lead to an increase in
premarital pregnancies. (3)"

# Remember what I said about not blaming an entire government just
because some of its members did what some would consider evil. My
opponent has offered no evidence that the Vatican even knew of this
alleged abuse.

Also remember what I said about those who violate official Church
teachings. The violation supports my claim that the Church is a force
for good.

"In US alone, from approximately 1940 to 1970 an estimated 4 million
mothers in the United States had to relinquish their newborn children
for adoption; 2 million of the infants were surrendered in 1960 alone.
In contrast, the U.S Department of Health and Human Services estimated
that about 14000 of these were "voluntarily" given up for adoption in
2003. (4)"

# The source provided for this data doesn't even mention the Catholic Church, so I don't see how it's relevant to this discussion.

"In Spain alone it is estimated that over 300,000 babies were trafficked
by institution run by the Catholic Church. This lasted from the reign
of Franco until early nineties, over a period of five decades. The
babies were essentially stolen from their parents (but most often it
was single and unwed mothers that were effected) by a secret network of
nurses and doctors. The nurses and doctors basically lied and said that
the baby had died during or after birth and that the seeing the baby.
They then put these infants up for adoption to devout parents that were
financially stable, hence seen as "better" parents. Thus, the Catholic
Church has made a fortune upon the misery of millions of women and
children. (6)"

# Again, no evidence is offered claiming the Vatican knew about this. Also again, those who violate Church teachings.....

I have addressed/ rebutted all my opponent's claims. I am curios to see how he attempts to claim my contentions aren't evidence for.the Catholic Church being a force for good.

Sources:
11.
http://www.washingtonpost.com...
12.
http://catholicbridge.com...

13. http://ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com...
w.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1546.htm

14.http://www.catholic.com...
15. http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
16. http://en.m.wikipedia.org...(policy_debate)
Debate Round No. 3
Swedishperspective

Con

To begin with, I made some sloppy and inadvertent mistakes concerning my source list that I apologize for. Here are the references concerning the inquisition and about he fact that the Catholic Church made a concerted effort to prevent its followers from reading the Bible thoroughly enough and the fact that sermons in the church were held Latin, which the common man of the day couldn't understand. http://reformationhistory.org... , http://en.wikipedia.org...

I was not aware of the debate rules concerning the "dropped points", otherwise I wouldn't have gone about expanding on the issues that were dropped in the first round without mentioning them in the third round (I intended to expand those arguments in this round). I thus beg everyone to take into consideration that I did not know of this and in light of that take the rest of the debate into consideration instead.

" Originally in round one, my opponent defined "good" as "good" (look
for yourself)."

Obviously, that statement is wrong if you actually look at what I wrote: " I would define the word "good" as something done by a person or entity that promotes the advancement of the well-being of the people living in the society in terms of the peoples' overall health, happiness, and educational attainment."

This is the concrete definition I gave and that I wanted to use for the purpose of this debate. I urge everyone to read the first comments in the comments section in which me and my opponent discussed the debate terms. I wrote: "For the purpose of this debate we are going to debate whether or not the Catholic Church is a force for good based on the definition that I gave in my introduction." I then urged my opponent to notify me if there were any disagreements concerning the debate terms themselves so that we could settle them in the comments section. Now, he has obviously not cared to listen nor heeded the debate terms since he has stubbornly raised this point twice now I expect this to be a discount in terms of his debating conduct since he has deliberately chosen not to abide by the debate rules.

The definition of "good" that I laid out offers us the possibility to look at evidence and evaluate them empirically and from the point of view of different scientific disciplines. It is up to us to judge evidence from the point of view of whether or not they have advanced the society in terms of its overall health, happiness and educational attainment and based on that draw a reasonable conclusion. Science has no bias. Science is only about the facts. The arguments that I have raised regarding the Catholic Church's evil acts have been raised because I have inferred that it has either hindered or not done enough to contribute to the advancement of the overall health, happiness and educational attainment of the societies in which it has ingrained itself.

In regards to the issue of homosexuality, we know by now that it is not only a choice - multiple evidence now confirms the existence of a certain genome sequence that leads to homosexuality (1) - but is pervasive throughout the animal kingdom, including our own (2). From a scientific point of view, we can conclude that it is perfectly natural and is nothing to be ashamed of, even though the Catholic Church will have it otherwise. The Catholic Church condemns homosexuality as gravely immoral, that it is a mortal sin and that it is against the human nature based on the teachings of the Bible. Even though they are to be respected, the church holds that all sexual acts between persons of the same gender are intrinsically evil and always objective mortal sins, they teach that perfectly decent homosexuals who love each other are condemned to hell for eternity. But as I have demonstrated, the Catholic Church doesn't have any justifications to be opposed to homosexuality save for the Bible since it is absolutely normal in nature.

We know that those who defend The Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, do so overwhelmingly because of religious reasons, so we know there are many Catholics among them, especially because of the church's adamant position on gay marriage. DOMA section 8 had barred the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, thus excluding gay couples from receiving welfare benefits and tax reliefs on a state level. Same sex couples are, for instance, heavily restricted when it comes to transferring assets between each other tax-free as can married couples who can use a marital deduction from federal estate and gift tax. As such, If a spouse in a same-sex couple dies, the surviving spouse has to pay an estate tax that heterosexually married couples are exempted from and that is what happened in the famous Windsor case who was forced to pay $363,053 in federal taxes because she was in a same-sex marriage. In total, there have been up to 1,138 state benefits and rights that same-sex couples have not been eligible for (4). Although a few changes has been made recently there still exists a huge discrepancy between the rights of same-sex and heterosexual couples.

These teachings are nothing but immoral and downright evil and unjustifiable. It is because of Catholics - along with other religious people - inspired by the Church's teaching that gays are treated unfairly. And, above all, it is because of your objective morality - your god-given commands - that Catholic act and think this way. The Catholics aren't dumb. They knew that this injustice would follow if same-sex couples were denied the state recognition of marriage. They did it anyway because of their objective morality - the one you reprimands me for not having - that tells these Catholics that the right course of actions are the ones that have already been taken - and the results for gays are absolutely abhorrent.

Concerning the condom issue, it is true that condoms doesn't render a 100% protection against STDs and AIDS, and especially when used improperly. When used properly and consistently condoms offer up to 98-99% protection against HIV transmission. One study showed that out of the 123 different couples who used condoms consistently during sex, none was infected with HIV. However, among the 122 who used condoms inconsistently, 12 of them got infected. (5) So we know that when used consistently and properly condoms do render an almost complete protection against AIDS and HIV.

So condoms is by no means the only tool to solve the AIDS-epidemic. Sex education programs are by far more important than the issuing of condoms itself. Abstinence is more effective than condoms without the right knowledge how to effectively use them. In fact, research demonstrably shows that comprehensive sex education is more effective than abstinence programs (6). It also shows that abstinence ails to decrease the risk of transmission of HIV in the developed world when compared to comprehensive sex education efforts (7). By telling people - as the Catholic Church has done - that condoms do not protect against AIDS because they have tiny holes in them through which HIV can pass, which of course is patently false since the scientific community agrees that condoms are impermeable to the HIV virus (8). Even though the church's medical institutions in Sub-Saharan Africa emphasizes fidelity, the work in trying to promote sex awareness is ultimately thwarted by Church officials statements that condoms are sinful and high-appointed Catholic officials unscientific announcements that incites distrust against condoms by citing misleading studies to communities that . In 1990, Pope John Paul II toured the Africa, and in his addresses to communities that condoms were sinful in all situations (9). So far we know that comprehensive sex education combined with condoms work since the science proves this. However, without the church's concerted effort to promote correct knowledge about the disease and how to curtail it, we wont be able to solve the crisis. The Catholic Church's anti-condom policy is so far responsible for approximately 30 million deaths. (10)

Again, you have not demonstrated which church teachings that these acts violated. Scripture, of course, can inspire in different ways. In fact, it was Pope Gregory IX that instituted the inquisition, so it was not accidentally related to the church (11). As I have shown in my sources, the crusades were holy wars so they were called on by different popes at the time - all religiously inspired called upon by the Vatican.

Since antisemitism can be found in the Bible - and has been used in history to persecute Jews - The very doctrine itself was the absence of any teaching that admonished antisemitism, it was and had been an official doctrine. That is why Pope Pius XII hid "The Lost Encyclical". You didn't refute the fact I demonstrated, that the church had CONDEMNED antisemitism in 1964 and the teachings in scripture that incited antisemitism, so I guess that since you did not try to refute that point, that point has now been "dropped".

Vote con.

1. http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
2.http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. http://www.thedailybeast.com...
4. http://www.respectformarriage.org...
5. http://www.aidschicago.org...
6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
7. http://www.siecus.org...
8. http://www.theguardian.com...
9. http://www.consultancyafrica.com...
10. "Rethinking the African AIDS epidemic." Population and Development Review 26.1 (2000): 117-135.
11. http://galileo.rice.edu...
dsjpk5

Pro

"""

"""

Pull Down to Refresh

Drafts

Re: force 3
Shannon Glasford to you
6:28PMShow Details

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail

* My opponent's comments will be in quotes, while my comments will be
preceded by the # sign

My opponent said

"To begin with, I made some sloppy and inadvertent mistakes concerning
my source list that I apologize for. Here are the references concerning
the inquisition and about he fact that the Catholic Church made a
concerted effort to prevent its followers from reading the Bible
thoroughly enough and the fact that sermons in the church were held
Latin, which the common man of the day couldn't understand.
http://reformationhistory.org...... , http://en.wikipedia.org...;

# It is ridiculous to claim the Church forbade anyone from reading the
Bible. There were certain poor translations of the Bible that were
banned, but that was done in order that believers wouldn't receive
unbiblical teachings [19]. It is also unfair to say that the common
man couldn't
understand Latin. This is because, during the Middle Ages, most
"common" men were illiterate. They couldn't read or right ANY language
[20]. Latin was the one language that educated, literate people could
read. It was the language of universities, science, and law.[21]

#But, while we're on the subject of dropped points, here are some other
arguments of mine that my opponent never responded to. Standard debate
rules require them to be presumed true for the remainder of the debate:

1. The Catholic Church is the largest non-government provider of
education and medical services in the world.

2. The Catholic Church gave the world the university system.

3. The Catholic Church was a major force for the outlawing of slavery.

4. The Catholic Church with leadership of Pope John Paul II helped end
totalitarian communism.

# These claims were never challenged by my opponent. With this in
mind, they have been "dropped" and presumed to be true for the
remainder of the debate. [ 16]

# In round one, I said: " Originally in round one, my opponent defined
"good" as "good" (look
for yourself).

# My opponent said:

"Obviously, that statement is wrong if you actually look at what I
wrote: " I would define the word "good" as something done by a person
or entity that promotes the advancement of the well-being of the people
living in the society in terms of the peoples' overall health,
happiness, and educational attainment."

# Let me quote my opponent from round one, ", I will define try to
define the term "good" done by a person or an entity as, on balance,
someone who contributes with more good than harm to the society at
large." As I said, My opponent defined good as "good". Now we can put
this issue to bed once and for all.

# My opponent went on to say:

"In regards to the issue of homosexuality, we know by now that it is not
only a choice - multiple evidence now confirms the existence of a
certain genome sequence that leads to homosexuality "

# Whether or not same sex attraction is a choice is not a matter of
settled science. Some studies say yes, and some say no. But even if
it is not a choice, that is irrelevant to whether or not practicing
homosexual behavior is moral or not. Some people are born with an
inclination to become alcoholics, but that doesn't mean that one should
practice such behavior.

-" but is
pervasive throughout the animal kingdom, including our own. "

# The fact that it exists in the animal kingdom is also irrelevant.
Female black widow spiders eat their mates, but no one would say this
fact makes it ok for humans to do the same.

" The Catholic Church condemns homosexuality as
gravely immoral, that it is a mortal sin and that it is against the
human nature based on the teachings of the Bible. Even though they are
to be respected, the church holds that all sexual acts between persons
of the same gender are intrinsically evil and always objective mortal
sins, they teach that perfectly decent homosexuals who love each other
are condemned to hell for eternity. But as I have demonstrated, the
Catholic Church doesn't have any justifications to be opposed to
homosexuality save for the Bible since it is absolutely normal in
nature."

# I would say two things regarding this comment. First, as I have
illustrated, just because something takes place in the animal kingdom
doesn't mean that it's something humans should engage in. For example,
adult lions have been known to kill baby lions. Would my opponent
claim that it's ok for adult humans to kill infant humans? [[ 17]
Second, Catholics have more than the Bible to support their beliefs on
this subject. They also have the natural law. [18 ]

"We know that those who defend The Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, do so
overwhelmingly because of religious reasons

# My opponent offers no evidence of this. It should be rejected as
warrantless. [26]

"so we know there are many
Catholics among them, especially because of the church's adamant
position on gay marriage. DOMA section 8 had barred the definition of
marriage as a union between a man and a woman, thus excluding gay
couples from receiving welfare benefits and tax reliefs on a state
level. Same sex couples are, for instance, heavily restricted when it
comes to transferring assets between each other tax-free as can married
couples who can use a marital deduction from federal estate and gift
tax. As such, If a spouse in a same-sex couple dies, the surviving
spouse has to pay an estate tax that heterosexually married couples are
exempted from and that is what happened in the famous Windsor case who
was forced to pay $363,053 in federal taxes because she was in a
same-sex marriage. In total, there have been up to 1,138 state benefits
and rights that same-sex couples have not been eligible for (4).
Although a few changes has been made recently there still exists a huge
discrepancy between the rights of same-sex and heterosexual couples.

These teachings are nothing but immoral and downright evil and
unjustifiable."

#Since my opponent gives no reasons why this is evil, his claims should
be rejected as warrantless. [26] In reality, there are plenty of
secular
reasons why the state should only recognize marriage as between one man
and one woman. [22]

"Concerning the condom issue, it is true that condoms doesn't render a
100% protection against STDs and AIDS, and especially when used
improperly. When used properly and consistently condoms offer up to
98-99% protection against HIV transmission. One study showed that out
of the 123 different couples who used condoms consistently during sex,
none was infected with HIV. However, among the 122 who used condoms
inconsistently, 12 of them got infected. (5) So we know that when used
consistently and properly condoms do render an almost complete
protection against AIDS and HIV.

So condoms is by no means the only tool to solve the AIDS-epidemic."

# My opponent has just conceded that the Pope was right to say that
condoms themselves won't solve the AIDS crisis.

"Sex
education programs are by far more important than the issuing of
condoms itself. Abstinence is more effective than condoms without the
right knowledge how to effectively use them. In fact, research
demonstrably shows that comprehensive sex education is more effective
than abstinence programs (6). It also shows that abstinence ails to
decrease the risk of transmission of HIV in the developed world when
compared to comprehensive sex education efforts (7). "

# Again, the Pope was right.

"By telling people
- as the Catholic Church has done - that condoms do not protect against
AIDS because they have tiny holes in them through which HIV can pass,
which of course is patently false since the scientific community agrees
that condoms are impermeable to the HIV virus (8)."

"Even though the
church's medical institutions in Sub-Saharan Africa emphasizes
fidelity, the work in trying to promote sex awareness is ultimately
thwarted by Church officials statements that condoms are sinful and
high-appointed Catholic officials unscientific announcements that
incites distrust against condoms by citing misleading studies to
communities that . In 1990, Pope John Paul II toured the Africa, and in
his addresses to communities that condoms were sinful in all situations
(9). So far we know that comprehensive sex education combined with
condoms work since the science proves this. However, without the
church's concerted effort to promote correct knowledge about the
disease and how to curtail it, we wont be able to solve the crisis. The
Catholic Church's anti-condom policy is so far responsible for
approximately 30 million deaths. (10)"

# First, blaming the Catholic Church for 30 million AIDS deaths is
nonsense. According to the World Health Organization, only 36 million
victims have died from the AIDS virus since it's introduction.
Certainly my opponent is not claiming that 85% of all AIDS victims were
Catholic. [24] Second, emerging science illustrates the Church is
correct to say that the AIDS virus can find its way through the holes
in condoms. [ 23]. Thirdly, Pope Benedict said in that using a condom
to prevent the spread of AIDS is less immoral than intentionally
exposing a partner to AIDS by not using a condom.[ 25]

"Again, you have not demonstrated which church teachings that these acts
violated. Scripture, of course, can inspire in different ways. In fact,
it was Pope Gregory IX that instituted the inquisition, so it was not
accidentally related to the church (11). As I have shown in my sources,
the crusades were holy wars so they were called on by different popes
at the time - all religiously inspired called upon by the Vatican."

# And I have shown in my rebuttals how the intention of the.inquisition
was ethical, and how the Crusades were initially an attempt to reclaim
stolen land, and therefore justified.

"Since antisemitism can be found in the Bible"

# My opponent offers no evidence to support his claim, and therefore
should be disregarded as warrantless. [ 26]

" and has been used in
history to persecute Jews - The very doctrine itself was the absence of
any teaching that admonished antisemitism, it was and had been an
official doctrine."

# My opponent makes the ridiculous claim that a doctrine is the ABSENCE
of a teaching!

"That is why Pope Pius XII hid "The Lost Encyclical".
You didn't refute the fact I demonstrated, that the church had
CONDEMNED antisemitism in 1964 and the teachings in scripture that
incited antisemitism, so I guess that since you did not try to refute
that point, that point has now been "dropped"."

# I don't deny that Pope Pius XII taught that antisemitism was wrong,
but that fact supports MY claims concerning the Catholic Church, not my
opponent's. I'd like to thank my opponent for making my case for me.
But having said that, shouldn't my opponent's comments be considered a
CONCESSION on his part? Hasn't he just admitted that the Catholic
Church is a force for good?!

Sources:
17.http://m.youtube.com...

18.http://plato.stanford.edu...

19.http://christianity.stackexchange.com...
dence-for-the-claim-that-the-catholic-church-suppressed-translat

20.http://www.quora.com...

s-in-medieval-Europe

21.http://www.dmlbs.ox.ac.uk...

-middle-ages

22.http://tech.mit.edu...

23.http://www.dianedew.com...

24.http://www.who.int...

25.http://content.time.com...

26.http://debate-central.ncpa.org...
te/
Debate Round No. 4
Swedishperspective

Con

I would again like to remind everyone of the premises of this debate. Whether or not my opponent has been aware of it, we are debating whether or not the Catholic Church is a force for good based on its achievements in terms of either its hindrance or the bolstering of the advancement in terms of health, happiness ad educational attainment in the world.

When reviewing this question, we ought to be aware of the wealth and power that the Catholic Church wields and through which it has managed to gain influence in a wide array of policy areas, one of which is HIV/AIDS health out of which 25% of the worldwide HIV/AIDS care is being run by Catholic organisations.

When looking at this particular issue, I believe we ought to adopt a mindset that gauges the Church not so much from the point of view of the mere scale of its operations as much as to how these institutions are run. As the information that I presented earlier plainly shows, the best way to prevent any further spread of AIDS/HIV is to combine distribution of condoms with comprehensive sex education. These two means combined is a more effective way of remedying the AIDS-problem than the dogmatic abstinence-approach the Catholic Church insists the recipients of its care to follow. Furthermore, when high church officials, Pope John Paul II among them, assert certain untrue notions about the effectiveness and the safeness of (since this is not a formal rebuttal round, I urge the readers to review both of me and my pieces of information concerning the notion there are small holes in the condom through which the AIDS-virus could supposedly permeate, in order to settle your mind at this particular conundrum) as well as the sinfulness off using condoms, the necessary approach to handle the AIDS-issue is being thwarted because of the fear of and the suspicion against condoms that high raking catholic officials instills in the populace in those communities it provides social services for. Thus, since the Catholic Church's religious elements manifestly stands in the way for true progress in Africa with regards to the AIDS-issue, the immense scale of its involvement in AIDS/HIV health care worldwide is an argument against - and not for - the Catholic Church. If we were to hand over the responsibility of Catholic organisations to secular ones, we know they would implement the necessary course of actions needed to battle the AIDS-epidemic because they are not constrained by any religious dilemmas as is apparently the Catholic Church. The Church's overreaching influence in this area is therefore more problematic than a good thing.

During our debate my opponent has tried to gloss over the numerous crimes perpetrated by the Catholic Church, essentially not by building up his own case, but by instead trying to copy-paste certain parts of my rebuttals that fit his purpose - while deliberately omitting some important bits - and try to refute those certain parts of information that I presented. This has led to some misleading errors on his part.

For instance, we were discussing whether or not the Catholic Church had an official teaching until 1964, that it were the Jews who murdered Christ. I submitted that this doctrine was replaced with a new doctrine in 1964 which officially admonished antisemitism and which also ABSOLVED the Jews from the deicides relating to the killing of Jesus Christ. Why didn't my opponent choose to respond to that particular fact? I also wrote about how Jews have been persecuted over the course of history.

If there had been a doctrine that denounced antisemitism and the association Jews had with the crucifixion of Jesus, the persecution of the Jews over the course of history committed by the Catholic Church would probably not have happened, or at least not to the same extent. Furthermore, the antisemitism we are debating at the moment is the fact that the Jews are reviled in the Bible because they crucified Jesus. I assumed that you were aware of that particular fact since, being a Catholic yourself, you ought to be knowledgeable of the Bible. I apologize if you are not, but in light of the information I presented - in which the Catholic Church evidently stated that the teaching that the Jews murdered Christ should be viewed in light of the Catholic Church's new stance, namely one of openly opposition to antisemitism - it should be patently clear that because the Catholic Church's doctrines"are based on the Bible, we know that the cause of the antisemitism is the very Bible itself

My opponent has failed at acknowledging my contention, that The Lost Encyclical would have been completely unnecessary to produce in the first place were it not for the fact that the Catholic Church did not have a doctrine that denounced the parts in the Bible that could be a potential incitement violence against Jews. My opponent has not given any reason as to why Pope Pius XI views were in accordance with the Catholic Church at the time but not Pope Pius XII. My opponent has failed to give an answer to this question and has instead tried to dodge the question completely

My opponent has also failed to give an account as to why homosexuality is wrong. He has given reasons as to why some natural occurrences and genetic dispositions, such as a genetic predisposition towards alcoholism, are wrong but has failed to draw any reasonable connections to homosexuality and somehow show that homosexuality is as wrong or dangerous as the aforementioned things. My opponent is also purposefully misleading when he argues for the "natural law". The natural law is the belief system that human rights should be on reality and in the nature of human beings. This, of course leaves room for interpretation as to what these laws are and how they should relate to the rights to human beings. So in essence the "natural law" is nothing more than the objective morality in the form of the eternal laws given to us by God, which is essentially what my opponent has tried to argue for during this debate. If my opponent would have replaced "natural law" with "objective morality", his argument would have entailed the same meaning, so that was not a new argument. My opponent has therefore purposefully tried to circumvent the question about why homosexuality is wrong and, hence, has not presented any criterion and reasonable arguments for his case.

I take it to be a fact that opposition towards homosexual marriage in the US has major religious underpinnings and also that the US is an overwhelmingly Christian country with quite a large percentage of the American population being Catholic. I seriously doubt that my opponent has somehow overlooked these facts since he purportedly is a Catholic himself. I also demonstrated the Church's position about homosexual marriage. With that in mind, I affirm that Catholics have been a leading and contributing force in the instituting and the maintenance of DOMA 8 on the behalf of the "natural law" they believe in. But the natural law you have presented has, again, no sound basis so as to conclude that homosexuality is bad, so the discrimination against gays by the dint of the discriminatory DOMA 8 is therefore to be concluded to be evil in terms of the premise we are using for this debate since it unfoundedly harms a segment of the US population.

"If those people who do what some would consider evil are violating
official Church teachings when they do their evil acts, that actually
supports MY claim that the Catholic Church is a force for good."

This is an argument that my opponent has reiterated a couple of times and, as I have shown, is inherently a flawed argument since the scripture and the message of the Catholic Church can inspire different acts. It is an astoundingly ridiculous notion to only take into account the good acts that Catholics are doing, given that they are inspired by their religion in doing so, and leave out the bad things perpetrated by Catholics that have been inspired differently by the Church's teachings. Furthermore, the Church has not had a fixed set of teachings, decrees and positions on public policy, so, again, this argument does not hold water.

My opponent has made some unequivocal and plainly clear positions regarding the Crusades and the Inquisition. He did not specify as to what parts of the Crusades and the Inquisition he rejected, so we have to assume that he supports all of it since, as I demonstrated, they were instituted by the Catholic Church - hence not accidentally linked to the church.

My opponent started by saying that "the concept of the inquisition and crusades was a noble one". He then went on to say that "sins were committed BY INDIVIDUALS during the Inquisitions" and that they were "VIOLATING Church teachings and as such, the Church was not at fault". So evidently this was a fruitless effort to defend the intention of the Inquisition but not how they operated per se. However, I presented the evidence that the inquisition was INSTITUTED and OVERSEEN by the Catholic Church itself. He responded by returning to his initial defense of the Inquisition by saying that the Inquisition was "ethical". My opponent has thus demonstrated his abject ignorance about the Inquisition and he has not given any justification as to how the heretics, predominately the Cathars and the Waldenses, posed any threat whatsoever to the realm.

Concerning the Crusades, my opponent has seemed to ignore the facts I presented about there being several crusades, not only about the holy land. I talked about the Northern Crusades in which the catholic church waged a war against the pagan Slavs and the Cathars. There was also the attack on the Eastern Orthodox Church in the fourth crusade in 1204 when the crusaders sacked the whole of Constantinople. If you are inattentive or unknowingly stating that the Crusades were somehow noble, then you are by definition including all of the crusades.

Given the arguments, I urge you to vote con.
dsjpk5

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for an interesting and spirited
debate. I think we both learned a lot about each other.

BROKEN RULES

I would like to begin my closing statement by pointing out how my
opponent broke the rules of this debate with his last argument. Rules
he insisted on in round one. The rules for round five were as follows:

Round 5: Closing statement. No rebuttals and no new arguments.

So, round five specifically banned rebuttals, but my opponent did offer
a rebuttal. He first quoted me, and then tried to rebut my argument.
Here's proof:

I said:

"If those people who do what some would consider evil are violating
official Church teachings when they do their evil acts, that actually
supports MY claim that the Catholic Church is a force for good."

Then my opponent said:

"This is an argument that my opponent has reiterated a couple of times
and, as I have shown, is inherently a flawed argument since the
scripture and the message of the Catholic Church can inspire different
acts. It is an astoundingly ridiculous notion to only take into account
the good acts that Catholics are doing, given that they are inspired by
their religion in doing so, and leave out the bad things perpetrated by
Catholics that have been inspired differently by the Church's
teachings. Furthermore, the Church has not had a fixed set of
teachings, decrees and positions on public policy, so, again, this
argument does not hold water."

This is clearly an attempt to rebut my claim, and it's a clear
violation of the rules. Whether or not this is a new rebuttal from.him
is irrelevant. The rules say there are to be "NO rebuttals". It
doesn't only ban new rebuttals;; it bans ALL rebuttals. With this in mind, I will not be responding to the rebuttals my opponent attempted to provide in this round. To do so would be a violation of the rules for round five. Voters should keep this in mind when voting on debate conduct.

DROPPED ARGUMENTS

Standard debate rules say that when an argument/rebuttal is made by
tour opponent, you have to respond to it the first.chance you get. If
you fail to do so, it means that you either accept it as true, or are
unable to refute the argument. My opponent did that NUMEROUS
times,.And it's one of the main reasons he ha lost this debate.

I was stunned at the vast amount this debate my opponent didn't even
ATTEMPT to deny/refute. Let me recap for the voters exactly how often he did so:

ARGUMENTS AND REBUTTALS MY OPPONENT DROPPED/IGNORED

1. EVERY ONE OF MY CONTENTIONS.

Don't take my word for it; check for yourself. I offered the following
contentions/arguments, and my opp NEVER challenged any of them:

As I said earlier:

A. As an atheist, my opponent has no basis to call anything
objectively
good..He can say he doesn't LIKE a practice, but he really has no basis
for saying something is being done "wrong". Now good voters, you may or may not personally agree with this claim of mine, but that's not the point. The point is that my opponent NEVER DENIED OR EVEN ATTEMPTED TO REFUTE IT. So we have no choice but to presume he agrees with my claim. As I said earlier, that fact in itself is enough for me to win this debate. Because if my opponent can't tell you what is good or bad, he can't tell you the Catholic Church is bad.

B. The Catholic Church is the largest non-government provider of
education and medical services in the world. My opponent never
attempted to refute this as a force for good.

C.The Catholic Church gave the world the university system. Again,
this was never challenged.

D.The Catholic Church was a major force in the outlawing of slavery.
Never challenged.

E. The Catholic Church with leadership of Pope John Paul II helped end totalitarian communism. Never challenged.

2. MY OPPONENT DROPPED SEVERAL OF MY REBUTTALS

These are probably too numerous to mention individually. In the
interest of saving characters, I will simply point the voters to the
third round. I'm that round alone, my opponent dropped no less than SEVEN of my rebuttals. One can only presume he was unable to do so.

FINAL POINTS TO REMEMBER:

I, on the other hand, offered refutatiions of EVERY single argument my opponent made. I also made the following points:

If someone commits an act some would consider "bad", but that action is in direct VIOLATION of the teachings of the Catholic Church, you can't blame the Church for that. As I said the Catholic Church teaches AGAINST torture, slavery, murder, etc, so anyone who breaks those rules cannot be said to be acting based on what the Church taught them. As I said, even if an American government official commits a crime, that doesn't mean that our form of government (representative democracy) is somehow now not a force for good. On the other hand, if when someone follows the laws of our government some good occurs, that's an indication that this form of government is a force for good. This fact remains true even if the violator is the Pope.or President of the United States. Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton both committed felonies while President, but that doesn't mean that the United States is evil.

In conclusion, my opponent didn't refute all my claims, while on the other hand, I refuted all of his. There is one thing him and I can agree on: At times, my opponent was very "sloppy". Again, don't take my word for it. My opponent admitted being sloppy in this debate in the beginning of round four. I couldn't agree more. My opponent seems like a nice guy, but as a debater, I hope this debate will serve as a learning experience for him.

The choice is clear... vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 5
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
I am glad this debate gave you an opportunity to learn about the importance of addressing ALL contentions and rebuttals immediately. I really think you have potential to win a lot of debates here once you get a little more organized. Good luck to you!
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
My guess is he noticed how you admitted to being "sloppy" when it came to your sources.
Posted by Swedishperspective 2 years ago
Swedishperspective
1Credo: Can you at least justify why my opponents sources were better?
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
I respect the vote, but in no way did I try to make this a semantic debate.
Posted by FaustianJustice 2 years ago
FaustianJustice
"I would define the word "good" as something done by a person or entity that promotes the advancement of the well-being of the people living in the society in terms of the peoples' overall health, happiness, and educational attainment." --- C'mon... dude specifically states he is trying to avoid a semantic argument, then you proceed to hand him one. If for whatever reason that wasn't clear, that should have been commented, or messaged, or something, especially since the first round didn't actually hold any other than examples to quantify and explain the defintion.

Anyways. I gave a brief blurb in the voting, and voting came after reading the comment section. Overal it was a good debate, but think Con was able to demonstrate the short comings enough to prove the resolution from the terms.
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
I respectfully disagree, but let's let the voters decide.
Posted by Swedishperspective 2 years ago
Swedishperspective
The closing statement is a summation of your main points as well as an observational assessment of and a chance to offer comments and remarks about the debate itself. During my closing statement I have gone through the arguments that I have presented and given reasons as to why those are true without offering any new arguments but instead reiterated their importance.

I have gone through your arguments as well without offering any new information but, again, by reiterating what I have already stated in my previous rounds. You have made a lot of unelaborated and brief points throughout the debate - you have provided a wealth of sources but haven't expanded so much on the content itself in much of the points we went through. What I also noticed was that some of your arguments were purposefully misleading, not once but several times. One of those arguments were about homosexuality in which you claimed that besides from the Bible the Catholic Church also derives its conclusion from "the natural law", to which I explained why it was a deceitful argument because it in essence is the same thing as the "objective morality" which you have invoked several times during our debate. Although you might object and say that I offered a factual rebuttal, I would defend myself by saying that I have already refuted your arguments concerning why we ought not to follow an objective morality. Thus, I would argue that since those two are basically the same thing, I feel like I needed to point that out and restate that I have already offered an answer to that particular point. Thus, you have failed to offer any good criterion or reasons as to why homosexuality in and of itself is wrong.

If you look at the other things I quoted you on, the answers I provided to those particular points have already been given in any of the previous rounds. I also quoted you as to show have you have been acting during the debate. I did not offer any new factual arguments, so I haven't broken any rule.
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
You do realize that you broke your own rules concerning the final round of this debate, right? You specifically quoted me, and then offered a rebuttal. Rebuttals are strictly prohibited by our debate rules in the final round.
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
Sorry about the header at the top of my current argument. My tablet took a dive, and I had to post this from my phone. I emailed it to my phone, and then posted it here. I didnt notice it until I already posted it Hopefully it wasn't too confusing!
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
Never mind. I guess my suspicion was misplaced.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 1Credo 2 years ago
1Credo
Swedishperspectivedsjpk5Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gave better arguments/rebuttals in favor of their position. Con failed to address each of these points. This was a fun debate to read!
Vote Placed by daley 2 years ago
daley
Swedishperspectivedsjpk5Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's argument seems to have been, that if the church did bad things, this proved it wasn't also a source of good things, which is silly. Even Hitler could do good deeds. The debate wasn't about if the church itself is good, but if it has been A FORCE FOR good in the world. The evilest person can be a force for good just by donating a lot to charity. Con also blames the majority of Catholics who make up the church for what the leaders do, which isn't fair. Because the priest might be bad, doesn't make the flock less good. Most Catholics in history were not bad people.
Vote Placed by FaustianJustice 2 years ago
FaustianJustice
Swedishperspectivedsjpk5Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was able to satisfy the condition of the resolution, further explanation in comments.