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

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.