The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TheSlenderMan
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

catholic church has never contradicted itself

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 4 votes the winner is...
TheSlenderMan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/5/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 932 times Debate No: 32131
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

in this debate, i am not counting the issues of limbo, or "no salvation outside the catholic church".

you would think if the catholic church were not true, that it would have contradicted itself at some point in two thousand years.

the only things that count are statements that are authoritative, things that could be considerted "infallible". the pope, intentionally, teaches, the church, on faith and morals. that is the criteria. it includes many councils and other statements by popes.

note:

-this does not include moral corruption, only official teaching. that means you can't use bad priest, even peodofile priests. it means you can't use the inquisistion where millions were killed by catholics. can't use the sins of past popes. it has to be actual teachings of the church, as said, councils and statements by popes. etc. impeccable v infallble, there's a difference.
-since we are comparing official statements, id rather not use the bible either. it's usually too open to interpretation to begin with. we are examining the church's consistency on its own anyway... and you'd think even beyond the bible, it'd have contradicted itself within two thousand years.
-also there's a differnce between widespread belief and doctrine. that so many believed the earth was made in six days, that the earth was flat, that man wasn't from apes etc... only shows they are human. it'd make sense at first impression. this isn't doctrine. you have to cite a quote or citation.
-there's a difference between practice and doctrine too... preistly celibacy is practice, reading the mass in latin is a practice... etc
TheSlenderMan

Con

I will accept the challenge.

You did not state what each round was for so I'm not sure if I should just accept the challenge on the first round or post an argument. So I will go ahead and post a little something.

Now, I want to point out that you said you would rather not use the bible so I will not use the bible persay, but you must realize that the religious book of a religion that is being debated on is a HUGE factor.

I will start with this: The Pope says he follows God. He contradicts God. He contradicts himself.

That is the biggest contradiction that the Pope could have. Again, you would rather not use the religious book that this religion is based on so this will be a very difficult debate for both sides...especially with the argument I just presented.

Also, I have used a source that is infallible. If you do not recognize God as infallible then please tell me (though if you did not then I'm not sure what we are debating about).
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

your main problem is you just presented vague challenges with no specificity. your argument basically boils down to "he contradicts God. he contradicts himself"

props for he contradicts himself, the point of the debate. but how?

and you say contradicts God, but how? if you are using the bible, you are violating the rules. it's almost surely a matter of interpretation too if you are saying he contradicts it, as ive seen nothing blatant contradicting the bible. but of course it'd help if you acutally went into specifics.
TheSlenderMan

Con

As I said in my intro, I was just stating something little as I was not sure the structure you wanted to follow.

"You did not state what each round was for so I'm not sure if I should just accept the challenge on the first round or post an argument. So I will go ahead and post a little something."
This should have told you that I was not going to be breaking anything down...I just wanted to state something to get this thing rolling (again, because you gave no specification on structure).

As I have said, it will be VERY hard to debate religion if we do not use the basis for that religion...which is the whole point for that religion. The fact you don't want to use it and then go on to exclude other huge aspects of Catholicism ("in this debate, I am not counting the issues of limbo, or no salvation outside the catholic church".) tells me you are trying to defend your position by taking out the basis for any argument to be made.

"you would think if the catholic church were not true, that it would have contradicted itself at some point in two thousand years."
I gave you a contradiction but you were clever enough beforehand to make me unable to back it up without breaking the rules. My big question to you would be, are you seeking truth or just trying to do anything to protect what you believe?

John Paul II contradicted the fact that only Catholics can be saved (NOTE: I AM NOT USING THIS AS AN ARGUMENT AS IT IS NOT ALLOWED). You basically say, "the Catholic church has not contradicted itself so I challenge someone to say otherwise...but you can't use this certain contradiction against me." That defeats the WHOLE purpose of the debate. Again, I'm not using this as an argument against you...I'm just pointing this out to show you why you can't pick and choose things like that in a debate.

I give you an argument that shows contradiction and then you say, "back it up." And then basically tell me if I do back it up, I'd be breaking the rules. How is that any good for a debate?

I thought one who held to the bible was one who seeks truth? Yet it seems you try to run from it and mold it into whatever you want it to be.

I am diverting from the topic, I apologize. But I feel those were very valid points to make.

I have stated my argument: The Pope says he follows God. He contradicts God. He contradicts himself.

That is what I hold to and all I will say since if I try and back it up I will forfeit.

Seeing how Pro is not allowing me to expound on this makes it clear he is only out to win and his goal is not to come to a reasonable conclusion through rational debate.

(also, if you claim I broke the rules by commenting about John Paul II when I was using it to show you the fallacy in how you debate, not in the topic itself, it will go to prove you are only out to try to win a debate)

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

your argument is basically nothing, then. it seems like you took the debate just to bicker with me about the rules.

i don't now what your points are, but go ahead and expand on them by any means possible. "The Pope says he follows God. He contradicts God. He contradicts himself."
it will just show first that you took the debate knowing you will be using the bible and other things not allowed. and that it's a matter of interpretation if you use the bible probably anyway.

also it's not the end of the world if I say don't use the bible. as I said, youd think if it was not true the catholic church, that itd have contradicted itself. even beyond limbo and "no salvation outside...". there are tons of material, writings an councils. probably a big issue with con is he is not at all knowledgeable or qualified to take the debate as he just has a laymans knowledgeability of church teaching.

the only point id see you being able to bicker about is the limbo and no salvation points... but I just want to see if there's anything else out there so don't want to limit it to that. and there are some grace points that I find plausible on those anyways.
all my points about widespread belief, practice etc are not cop outs. they are reasonable arguments... if you want to argue use official teaching, what matters. I could get into why its all that matters, just like how peter denied jesus three times, the apostles were sinful etc yet we still read the bible etc... but this should all go without saying. and is beyond the scope of the debate.
TheSlenderMan

Con

the only point id see you being able to bicker about is the limbo and no salvation points... but I just want to see if there's anything else out there so don't want to limit it to that."

Yet in the beginning of the debate you state, "you would think if the catholic church were not true, that it would have contradicted itself at some point in two thousand years."

In the beginning you held to the view that the Catholic church was true because it had not contradicted itself. Now you say that it's possible to point out contradictions using the points you wanted to exclude. What's the point we are debating again?

Wasn't this about showing contradiction to show the Catholic church is not true? Now you want to change the point of the debate and say, "I just want to see if there's anything else out there so don't want to limit it to that."

If that was the point to the debate to begin with then I would agree with you about not using the points you excluded. But that was not the point of the debate.

It's like saying, "If energy drinks helped keep you awake you'd think it would have things in it to help keep you awake...show me what it has? But you can't use the argument of caffeine etc etc." Then later in the debate saying, "Oh I wasn't trying to say that energy drinks don't help you keep awake...I just wanted to see if there was anything else besides those ingredients/chemicals." You changed the whole point of the debate in order to have an excuse for excluding things that prove you wrong.

If the point of the debate was that there were other things besides these things that contradict the Catholic church then this would be fine. I don't think you actually know what you want to debate about.

"you'd think if it was not true the catholic church, that it have contradicted itself. even beyond limbo and "no salvation outside."
An infallible thing only has to contradict once to show it's not infallible.

Ok, here's something

The Fifth Lateran Council defines Usury as:
"For that is the real meaning of usury: when, from its use, a thing which produces nothing is applied to the acquiring of gain and profit without any work, any expense or any risk". This would have included money (such as interest). The Catholic church now says it does not involve money.
To be fair, they say the view has not changed....it is money that has changed. Now, that seemed fishy. Sounds like another way the church can benefit from money. "Hey, it's ok now...money has changed. It's all good." Hmm.

Though there are times when they say it is usury like when a rich person takes advantage of a poor person. But wait...that of course is wrong...but how does that all of a sudden label it usury? From how the Fifth Lateran Council defined usury...how does being rich or poor change anything?

There's one example.

If you would have stated clearly what you wanted at the start of the debate we could have got this thing rolling but from your wording it seemed the point of the debate was to prove the catholic church untrue (without using what you knew could disprove it of course).

Next time state the point you actually want to debate about. Don't change the point at the end of the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by TheSlenderMan 3 years ago
TheSlenderMan
Dairygirl, you have posted this debate many times. You have lost it many times. In one such debate the bible was allowed. You remember what happened? You lost. You are now posting this debate again saying the bible is off limits. It seems fair to say this is solid proof that you are out to win at any cost. If one debate doesn't work out, you restructure the rules until people are unable to argue against you.

I'm sure if I gave solid proof to you using your critera you would then turn around, post the debate yet again as you have many times before and then not allow that proof to be used.

Vote Con
Posted by TheSlenderMan 3 years ago
TheSlenderMan
I agree Camp. It's basically like saying, "prove candy is unhealthy...but you can't use the argument of sugar, high fructose corn syrup, etc etc". It's no way to conduct a debate.
Posted by campbellp10 3 years ago
campbellp10
Hahahaha. "The Catholic Church has never contradicted itself. Except for here, here and here, but those don't count!" What a joke.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by campbellp10 3 years ago
campbellp10
dairygirl4u2cTheSlenderManTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro loses on conduct for basically burning ALL of the ground of this debate. Especially on the topic of the Bible. Although there is much interpretation involved in scripture, the Catholic Church has its own interpretation of scripture that they claim to be correct, therefore it should be allowed. However, by accepting the debate Con implies consent to these rules. As such, I would have liked to see Con actually do some more research and find contradictions on Catholic doctrine (there are many). Overall, this made for a pretty crappy debate and part of that is on Pro for limiting the ground and part is on Con for not doing his best despite the rules. Had Con just run with the rules and found actual contradictions, I would have likely deferred to voting Con's arguments given the restraints. However, since this didn't happen, all we are left with is this wonky Pope argument. No points awarded besides conduct.
Vote Placed by Misterscruffles 3 years ago
Misterscruffles
dairygirl4u2cTheSlenderManTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to con, as pro attempted to stack the terms of the debate in order to achieve an assured victory. S/G to con, as pro stated most sentences with lowercase. Argument to con, as pro never tried to demonstrate her position "catholic church has never contradicted itself", instead assuming that her opponent had BOP, and that arguing against his position by stating that it was not within the rules of the debate.
Vote Placed by likespeace 3 years ago
likespeace
dairygirl4u2cTheSlenderManTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Pro's terms were heavily stacked--he asserts the Catholic church never contradicted itself but rules out the bible, two major issues, and restricts all official speach except that deemed infallible. Kinda silly! Conduct to Con. Arguments: Con provided no supporting evidence for the arguments he made in rounds one and two. The first time he presented an argument that followed the rules he agreed to by joining the debate was the final round, and that was too late to present new arguments/evidence. However, also notable is that Pro held the burden of proof. She also did not present an argument or general evidence in support of her claim. Her "If there were a contradiction, it should be easy to show" doesn't hold up, especially due to her extensive rules. Con wins, by default.
Vote Placed by yuiru 3 years ago
yuiru
dairygirl4u2cTheSlenderManTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: What a miraculously poorly constructed debate that digresses from the original claims to a meta-debate. Conduct and arguments to con for pro's special pleading in the rules and debate.