The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Overkill
Con (against)
Winning
28 Points

from an official capacity, the catholic church has never contradicted itself

Do you like this debate?NoYes-7
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...
Overkill
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/21/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 916 times Debate No: 34965
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
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

also try not to be vague. so many claims of contradiction online are superficial. for example, "papal bull regarding jews", without getting into what exactly is contradicting what etc. if possible, find the quote or citation for what you are referring to.

also I have debated this topic many times in the past, if you would like you may review my profile to see all the points brought up by past debaters etc
Overkill

Con

I am here to debate the title argument, "From an official capacity, the Catholic Church has never contradicted itself" This should be the part where I provide my three keys, but I can't being as you've narrowed any chance of debate.

You, who have a win ratio of 9.41%, have consistently argued this debate in the past and continue to also argue that the bible is insignificantly contradictory.

You, in laying the confines of the debate, have honestly stated that any argument provided in past debates that have continued to beat down your argument is not allowed.

You, who continues to lose the same debates over and over again, stubborn to your losses, lay the confines to say "I have lost many times before, so I won't let you use any winning arguments."

Should I need any sourcing done here:
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

As much as I would love to stick to conduct, you, through the confines, have thrown conduct out the window. How many debates must it be before you give up?

As much as I would love to provide an argument here, you, through the confines, have barred me from almost any significant argument and left me to pick up the crumbs where they once stood and transform them into something usable.

I in no way mean to be malice (and I accept this debate), but I, right here, will now point out that I will be ignoring your rules for they are barring, narrowed and an evident plea to stop the never-ending cycle of losses that have plagued you. I apologize for all ad hominem.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

this is why i dont really lose the debates. i get people like you who have sheer stubborness alone, no substance. you did not bring up one single point, except to cite a bunch of old debates.
people have visceral responses to this and many other debates, so all they have to do is troll hard and automatically get points, without really even addessing anything of worth in terms of substance. much like you are doing now

as to my rankings, i get a lot of repeat offenders voting for me, folks who have debated me before, i have controversial debates, and i dont bother with grammar and formalities too much. i note that youve yet to win a debate, and have a percentage ranking that is significantly less than mine. i get lots of ties on complex issues with smart people, global warming, out sourcing etc etc, along with the occasional win in that regard, so it helps my ranking.

i didnt say you couldnt cite old arguments. just be ready to defend the point, specifically, not just data dumping.

my boundaries are reasonable. for example, that the popes sin don't mean anything if it doesn't have to do with a teaching, pesonal sins. even Peter denied Jesus three times, and other sins the apostles did. that doesn't mean we dont take their teachings to be infalllible, the bible etc. i could go on and one defending further my parameters of the debate.

i can somewhat see the "limbo" and "no salvation" point, but have my reasons for wanting to include them, and personal reasons i might not see them as bad as most people think. we should be able to find something else to talk about right?

that you added zero substance yet again for a debater just solidifies that, one, most people are clueless when it comes to the catholic church and teachings, and two, that there must not be any other official contradictions if no one can find any. might not be true, but it remains to be seen
Overkill

Con

I was using the first round for acceptance and opening statements.

The reason I beat the dead horse of ranking is because you've argued this so much that I've come to question why you bother with creating more. At which point, the topic has trailed to you and what your affinity is. If anything, I simply accepted this to purposely waste both of our time as a service to DDO members and get this debate off of the Challenge Period page.

I've seen you debate before and it's not worth it. You want arguments? Check the links in my original post. I will spend this round and next round purposely wasting this debate to get it over with. Anything I could say would be passed off or has already been said before.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

then your ultimate argument, like oh so many others, is a data dump.

id also question your understanding of the issues, cause almost all of those debates were the same old b**ching without substance that you are doin now, and didnt actually fulfill the criterias of contradiction. that you can't find even one example and debate it shows your lack of understanding, and superficiality.

if you wish to continue, just to waste time, go for it. but it cant be said it's anything to do with substance, since youve yet to touch substance with a ten foot pole.

all your tactics do is prove my points.
Overkill

Con

In all past debates and the confines of this one, any actual contradictions in the Catholic Church you have passed off and claimed invalid. You want to debate that the Catholic Church has never contradicted itself yet refuse to accept data on the subject of the very point on topic and have created a bias to the very foundation of debate. So according to the argument, as Con I must argue the contradictions, but I'm not allowed to state the contradictions and, you, who are supporting the CC, have set rules to refrain from using the bible, the foundation for all of the Church's teachings.

"i get people like you who have sheer stubborness alone, no substance."
"[...] cause almost all of those debates were the same old b**ching without substance that you are doin now,"

- I think that should be teaching you something by now.

If I need to sum up any argument you've had:
Instigator [YOU]: I am here to debate an evidently false viewpoint, as told by history and common sense. If you say anything, I'll pass it off and say you're wrong. Afterwards, I'll say that any source you have is invalid.

There is no way to argue with you, no reason to argue with you and I'd just like to ask that you stop. Why debate when all you seem to want is "hey, this is a debate where you have to agree with me to win." Why debate when it seems like anything we give you isn't enough and turns into a "that's not what I'm looking for" game?

Apparently you have a graduates degree and work in a legal occupation. With your level of debate, that is highly unlikely. If you want an argument, make a debate and stop trying to tell people what they can and can't use simply because you see something dangerous to your faith and try to say "oh no, no; invalid!"

You evidently do not understand the Church yourself and do not understand whatsoever how debate works. Surely the topic has changed, but the topic wasn't up for debate in the first place as a result of your own introduction. Now the argument is what your problem is, why you continue to push a lost cause and why you continue to take debate, snap it in half and go "agree with me because I am right" without a first thought as to what you might be wrong about.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Overkill 3 years ago
Overkill
What is "substance?" Semantic satiation has turned that word into a meaningless utterance because you have used it so much without giving it any definition.
Posted by Legitdebater 3 years ago
Legitdebater
Well said overkill, well said.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 3 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
con won the debate without an iota of substance mentioned. yet there are plenty of people who are least try to argue papal writings and teachings etc..... they understand the parameters of the debate. that con could win this debate with no substance, then, shows that this is mostly a popularity contest, and the votes are rigged against me just for trying to debate a topic people don't like
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 3 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
the inquisition wasnt officially taught to the church. no "noncatholic should die" was taught by the pope. etc.
the parameters of the debate are really just stopping people from committing logical errors. "the pope molested a boy!". yes popes can commit sins, just like Peter denied Jesus three times, and all the apostles did sinful things.... yet we still read the bible as infallible. look for official teaching, something that actually matters. it shouldn't be that hard.
people shouldnt be winning this debate simply by taking it, saying they dont like they rules, and/or simply pointing out extrememly irrelevant stuff like a priest molested a boy somewhere. they win out of spite to me and my controversial topic, nothing to do with substance
Posted by gordonjames 3 years ago
gordonjames
You mentioned "you can't use the inquisistion where millions were killed by catholics."

A good estimate of the death toll of the inquisition(s) would be 3000 to 5000.
A terrible thing, but not millions.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Garc"a C"rcel estimates that the total number processed by the Inquisition throughout its history was approximately 150,000; applying the percentages of executions that appeared in the trials of 1560"1700"about 2%"the approximate total would be about 3,000 put to death.
Britannica estimates 2000

here are some other estimates from http://necrometrics.com...
Spanish Inquisition (1478-1834) [make link]
Cited in Will Durant, The Reformation (1957):
Juan Antonio Llorente, General Secretary of the Inquisition from 1789 to 1801, estimated that 31,912 were executed, 1480-1808.
In contrast to the high estimate cited above, Durant tosses his support to the following low estimates:
Hernando de Pulgar, secretary to Queen Isabella, estimated 2,000 burned before 1490.
An unnamed "Catholic historian" estimated 2,000 burned, 1480-1504, and 2,000 burned, 1504-1758.
Flexner, Pessimist's Guide to History: 8,800 deaths by burning, 1478-1496
Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (1910): 8,800 burnt in 18 years of Torquemada. (acc2 Buckle and Friedl"nder)
Motley, Rise of the Dutch Republic: 10,220 burnt in 18 years of Torquemada
Britannica: 2,000
Posted by Overkill 3 years ago
Overkill
So according to the argument, as Con I must argue the contradictions, but I'm not allowed to state the contradictions and, you, who are supporting the CC, have set rules to refrain from using the bible.

wat
Posted by Truthfilled 3 years ago
Truthfilled
This is by far one of the most ridiculous debates I have ever heard. You want to debate that the Catholic Church has never contradicted itself yet refuse to except data on the subject of the very point on topic. Refuse to allow actions of church personal and church reactions to such actions on said topic to be used in the debate itself. This debate is bias to the tools of the debate itself and is thereby invalid.
Posted by elvroin_vonn_trazem 3 years ago
elvroin_vonn_trazem
There do exist one or two places that I'm aware of, in which the Catholic Church has made certain changes in its position. First is the claim that the Earth is the Center of Creation. Galileo found evidence that the claim was flawed. The Church could not accept the data at that time, but did in fact issue a formal apology recently, basically admitting it was wrong.

The second thing has to do with the notion that God controls all everyday events. Then the lightning rod was invented, and it became possible for a simple piece of metal to deflect "God's wrath" from any building properly protected. After experiencing hard evidence that that notion was wrong (like when a lot of gunpowder got stored in a church that got struck by lightning, and the explosion killed a few thousand people), the Catholic Church stopped making this particular claim ("God controls all everyday events"), at least with respect to lightning!
Posted by The_Chaos_Heart 3 years ago
The_Chaos_Heart
"in this debate, i am not counting the issues of limbo, or "no salvation outside the catholic church"."

In other words, well-known contradictions you will not accept as evidence in a debate about contradictions?

How lovely. What glorious beams of intellectual honesty you radiate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Revolution 3 years ago
Revolution
dairygirl4u2cOverkillTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made no arguments and swore at con, con made no new arguments, but instead cited old ones that were and remain valid.
Vote Placed by Risen 3 years ago
Risen
dairygirl4u2cOverkillTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with the two people below me! Con did an amazing job showing that pro was a troll who wanted to keep debating the same thing until they won.
Vote Placed by voxprojectus 3 years ago
voxprojectus
dairygirl4u2cOverkillTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Seriously? Ban this troll.
Vote Placed by gordonjames 3 years ago
gordonjames
dairygirl4u2cOverkillTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: First impulse was to vote on conduct. Clearly defining the debate to official statements from the Catholic church is a good idea. It would be good if pro and con stuck to these official documents. The Catholic Encyclopedia would be a good source (The text received a nihil obstat from an official censor, Remy Lafort, on November 1, 1908 and an imprimatur from John Murphy Farley, Archbishop of New York)