Roman Catholicism is in Opposition to the Bible

Pro continues to beat the dead horse and ridicule me. Do you want to know some other things that are in opposition to the bible? Buddhism, Hinduism, Wicca, Scientologist, etc. The debate sets Catholicism in the same categories, that is why I accepted the debate. As I have stated several times… The only good news on this front is this is the last round so I won’t have to continue listening to it.Ok as my arguement stand unchallenged I will bring them together now. To prove that Catholicism opposes the bible Pro must prove (Con1)that Catholicism has somehow acted against or resisted the bible. My counter to this is that Catholicism has increased the bibles influence across the global. This is a clear sign that Catholicism has not worked against the bible, and Pro has not refuted the claim Catholicism has spread the bible and therefore lost the debate.Pro core argument is that contradiction equal opposition to the bible to prove this Pro must both prove (Con2) it is possible to not contradict the bible, and if he can prove that point he must also prove that (Con3) contradicting the bible is a form of opposition to it.(Con2) It is impossible not to contradict the bible has not been refuted or disagreed with in any way, and therefore contradictions do not equate to going against the bible. To further explain why this is true, I will use an example with darts. Imagine a dart board with several darts in it but none have hit the center. Can you prove that it’s possible to hit the center if no one has ever done it? That is the position Pro is in, and he has failed to prove that it is possible to follow the bible without contradicting it. (getting a bullseye) Just like the people trying to get the bullseye but missing are not opposing the bullseye, Catholicism isn’t opposing the bible. The point being attempting to achieve something but failing can NOT be opposing it unless you can prove that it's possible to achieve it in the first place. (you can hit the bulleye, but you missed on purpose to oppose the bullseye)(Con3) Pro weakling refutes this claim. But to prove that contradicting is a form of opposition he must show that it is opposite of the bible. So, for this example I want you to think of a court jester. If the jester argues with himself are you really opposing the jester by arguing with the jester? When you engage in the same activity (even if that activity seems negative) as someone, you are not opposing them, we are emulating and working with them. We are actually on their side, even if that side looks negative from the outside. Pro has not disputed this claim or refuted the point, therefore contradictions can be seen as a form of emulation, not a form of opposition. As Pro has not proven that contradiction are a form of opposition I will not continue to refute his contradiction as I have in previous rounds. I will however say that I am glad he is finally using links… at the end of the debate, and ask that anyone voting on sources taking that into consideration. While I am at it Pro has not conducted himself in a civil manner. There is a misunderstand in what the debate is over. I accepted it and have debated his points on his topics up till this round. Pro on the other hand does not address my points in a serious manner and ridicules them. So rather than accepting that there is a semantic issue and moving on Pro continues to spend time belaboring it. I have taken this debate seriously, and yet Pro states I have not. I have done research, and yet Pro states I have not. All of this is evident in my responses which are long, in depth rounds with good sources to support my arguements. Has Pro done that? No. Did I make a mistake? Yes. Did he make a mistake? Yes. Yet rather than just accepting it as a mistake and moving Pro draws more attention to it and portrays it ten times worse than it really is. I still stand that I am debating my side of the debate as the title lists it, and that I have NOT broken any of the rules set forth in the debate. Pro did NOT want this to be a “fun” endeavor, and I’m not at ALL happy with his conduct. But then again Pro is a theist and I guess they all just seem to skip the parts about loving your neighbor in the bible. (there you I actually showed some negative attitude it return)In conclusion, my arguments are articulate, well thought out, and a valid defense of Roman Catholicism not being in Opposition to the Bible. I have proven that not only does the catholic church not opposing the bible, they are assisting it. I have shown that it is not possible to be perfect in that regard, and that those imperfections are in fact emulating the bible which is the most sincere form of flattery. The catholic religion is based off the bible, and comprises around 50% of the theists that following the teachings of the new and old testament. The idea that the catholic church opposes the bible is completely unfounded as shown by me in this debate. In closing, I hope that you enjoyed this debate more than I did. (the bar isn't that high)