The stories of the saints are scary
Debate Rounds (3)
St. Thomas Aquinas - caught alone - screaming in a golden box known as a tabernacle to communion wafers saying "GIVE ME THE ANSWER"
St. John Vianney - ate rotten potato's everyday except on feast days when he would eat a regular potato. iimagine how scary he looked.
St. Margaret - nun who lives in convent says a child appears to her in the night and leads her to the chapel where after a short wait the virgin mother of god steps onto an altar out of nowhere...
St. Padre Pio - walking around with holes in his hands and showing up at like 2 places at once. ... church women harming eachother just to get into his masses...
St. Paul - kills a bunch of christians then shows up at a christian's house after claiming to have been blinded by jesus- shows up at the council meetings of the apostles and informs them that whether they like it or not - he's an apostle.
CAN I GET AN "AMEN" ... ANYONE!?
I accept. Since my opponent has not provided definitions, and details, I shall describe how this debate shall proceed.
Pro has the BoP to show that "The stories of the saints are scary" is true. This means that any story about a saint, in itself, is objectively scary.
Scary: "causing fright" (1)
Deconstructing Pro's arguments
Pro gives different examples of "scary" stories of the saints. However, these stories are unreferenced, and thus we do not know whether or not to accept them as true. Until he does so, we should not accept them as fact.
Furthermore, "scary" is subjective. What one person finds scary, another may not find scary. My opponent must show that all stories of the saints are always scary to everyone, due to the very nature of the stories.
Unfortunately, this is just not the case. I, for one, do not find these stories scary at all. The resolution is not "I find some saint stories scary." Rather, the resolution is "The stories of the saints are scary." My opponent has not justified this position in any way.
A not-so scary saint story
If you still aren't convinced, here is a not-so scary saint story about St. Nicholas.
"Hearing of the girls' plight, Nicholas decided to help them, but being too modest to help the family in public (or to save them the humiliation of accepting charity), he went to the house under the cover of night and threw three purses (one for each daughter) filled with gold coins through the window opening into the house." (2)
Pro has undertaken an immense load. It is as if I were to argue "E.T. is a scary movie." While there may be certain parts of "E.T" which I may find scary, what is "scary" depends upon the viewer or reader. Pro has not met his BoP, and the resolution has been negated. "The stories of the saints are scary" has not been established as true.
(2) Bennett, William J. (2009). The True Saint Nicholas: Why He Matters to Christmas. Howard Books. pp. 14–17
With regards to the cons "clarifications" I would like to say that I submit to these burdens.
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
It means I have to convince judges that there is an objectively scary "causing fright" dynamic to the stories of the saints. Stories of Saints are by no means scientific or on par with any objective standard used by any institution outside of the confines of the very particular council headed by the prefect for the causes of the saints and the pope. That being said if more people believe these stories I have shared are or would be a cause of fright - YOU WOULD BE RIGHT TO VOTE PRO.
THAT BEING EXPRESSED
The con has no reason why the stories I gave are either not true or not scary. IN FACT THE CON DOESN"T ADDRESS THEM AT ALL.
I think most people would share with me a reaction of fright if, for example again, "a child appears to her in the night and leads [you] to the chapel where after a short wait the virgin mother of god steps onto an altar out of nowhere..."
I'M SORRY - I'D PROBABLY THROW UP OUT OF FRIGHT!
My friend has proposed a saint story of his own. St. Nicholas... Santa Claus.... WHO IS PERHAPS ONE OF THE SCARIEST SAINTS OF ALL!
Some man breaks into your house - puts oranges or coins or whatever in a stocking and slips out ...and not just your house
NO ONE'S HOUSE WAS SAFE FROM INTRUSION OF ST. NICHOLAS. In modern times we still associate this saint with somehow getting down chimneys and FLYING AROUDN THE WORLD ON REINDEER WTF?!
EVEN STILL- plenty of children around the world wake up on christmas and wonder if they were naughty enough that year to get coal instead of glorious gifts.
MY FRIENDS - the con has provided the best reason for the affirmation.
THE STORIES OF THE SAINTS ARE INCREDIBLY AND DISTURBINGLY FRIGHTENING WHEN TAKEN FOR THE LORE THAT THEY ARE.
Thank you. Good times.
My opponent has agreed with my definitions, and his BoP. Once again, this means that he must demonstrate that all Stories of the saints are inherently scary. Unfortunately, this is an immense burden, and he does not even come close to meeting it.
Pro complains that I have not responded to his stories. This is indeed false, for I surely have. However, he has not provided us with one sourced story. For example, I could make up a story about a saint, and just claim to be true. Unless I provide some sort of reference we have no reason to believe that the story really happened. My opponent must provide sources for his stories. Otherwise, we cannot be certain of whether or not they actually happened.
My opponent also argues that, since he finds each one of these stories scary, then they are inherently scary. However, this is absurd! It simply does not follow that just because I personally find something scary, then in its very nature, it is scary. This is what my opponent must demonstrate, and as of yet, he has not.
If my opponent can argue that since he finds something scary, then it is, then I can do the same. I do not find any of these stories scary. Thus, they are not scary. My opponent has ignored this point, and unless he counters it, all of his unsourced stories and arguments remain disproven.
My opponent straw-mans me. The story of St. Nicholas I provided made no reference to Santa Claus whatsoever. This is simply a Red-Herring.
In conclusion, my opponent has yet to provide one validly referenced story of a Saint. Furthermore, his arguments are all based upon personal opinion of something. Personal opinion can also be used to demonstrate that since I do not think something is scary, then it is not scary. Since my opponent has not even come close to demonstrating that all stories about saints are scary to everyone, the resolution has not been affirmed.
The con opens with the great immensity of the burden of proof and he doesn't believe its able to be met.
HE WISHES THAT WERE THE CASE. LET'S REFRESH HIM ON THIS MATTER.
SAINTS. SAINTS ARE STORIES therefore regarding "inherent" truths and what is believable or votable to anyone who would judge this debate ALL THAT IS NEEDED TO MEET THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS THE QUALIA (experience) of identification with the point. I can't prove what its like to ride a bicycle but I can share clips that everyone understands. THEREFORE - IF YOU ARE VOTING ON THIS ITS ALL ABOUT WHETHER YOU IDENTIFY WITH THE FRIGHTENING NATURE OF THE STORIES OF THE SAINTS.
NOW the con states that I have not provided sources for the stories of the saints. I gave names. You can go read these stories yourself if you need them to be verified. BUT - THE CON'S ONLY AFFIRMATIVE ARGUMENT WAS FROM THE SAME BASIC SOURCE OF KNOWLEDGE WHEN HE USED "St. Nicholas" Surely my opponent isn't expecting his only example to outshine my several examples provided.
IT IS TRUE that it is my opinion that these stories including the con's of St. Nick ARE SCARY - THAT ARGUMENT DOESN'T make a man screaming at a wafer in a gold box any more comforting to you as a judge. It doesn't make the scary John Vianney any more comforting with rotten potato breath. AS A VOTER YOU CAN STILL VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE AND ADMIT THESE ARE ALL SCARY STORIES INCLUDING (and for my next point)
I don't straw man him... he created that problem himself. We don't need to think about modern santa claus... BUT AS A VOTER ARE YOU MORE OR LESS FRIGHTENED BY A MAN BREAKING INTO YOUR HOUSE TO PUT ORANGES OR COINS IN YOUR SOCKS? ABSOLUTELY NOT! THATS THE STORY OF ST NICK. ITS FREAKING SCARY! IF YOU AGREE - VOTE PRO.
To conclude: ALL THAT MATTERS IS IF YOU ARE FRIGHTENED BY THE STORIES YOU HAVE SEEN HERE.
Do like I do and admit it that these people are scary
Unfortunately, my opponent has not referenced any of his saint stories. He claims that if we want to verify them, we can do this ourselves. Unfortunately, that is not how debates work. If I claim a word to be defined as something, then it is my duty to reference that this definition is true.
Once again, I would invite readers to remember that my opponent must show that all stories about saints are necessarily "scary." I have responded to all of my opponents arguments, that whether or not one finds a story subjectively "scary" does not mean that the story is inherently scary.
Now my opponent appeals to the readers emotions. Don't you find these stories scary? Therefore, they are scary! However, I have dealt with this argument in the previous round.
Not all saint stories are necessarily scary
My opponent has only provided a few, unsourced, saint stories. He argues ad nauseam that these are scary, despite my objections. But it simply does not follow from this that all saint stories are scary. Remember, my opponent must show that every single story about a saint is objectively scary.
In conclusion, it should be quite clear that my opponent has not met his burden of proof. The burden that he must establish is that all saint stories, are objectively scary. Instead, he has only presented a very few, unsourced, stories, and has insisted that since he personally finds them scary, then they must be objectively scary.
If my opponent can use his personal opinion to establish something as objectively true, I can do the same.
I think my opponent's arguments are ridiculous. Therefore, they are objectively ridiculous.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by CynicalDiogenes 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro has not fulfilled his burden of proof.He has merely expressed his opinion.The lives of Saints have been a perpetual source of inspiration for people worldwide, I did not see any reason given by Pro that seems to outweigh this.Con did a Good job of defending his stance.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.