The Roman Catholic Church has Become Weak

Here is my response to a few of Con's points. There will be no new evidence provided because this is Round 4. "The question is that whether losing political power today constitutes a weakening image of the church, to which I say, no. "The debate resolution can speak for itself: "The Roman Catholic Church has Become Weak. " There is nothing about political weakness in particular. See round two where I provided the definitions of the term weak as well. As Pro I have provided how the church has become weak in several different ways. "By doing so, he became blind and biased in this debate that instead of attacking a wider scope, he focused just on limited part of the debate. His argument can be summed up with this statement: The church does not have political powers unlike in the middle ages, so I win. But this not the case. "Con is asserting a farcical statement late in the debate. In round two , I provided three forms of weakness to show the Catholic Church has become weak. I showed how according to the strictest definition of the term, "weak ," the Roman Catholic Church has become the embodiment of it. The most common definition of the term "weak" applies to "physical prowess. " Con has intentionally ignored two out of three of those weaknesses which included physical and spiritual weakness. Instead he has focused on responding to the political weakness. As Pro, I have acknowledged all of his claims and responded in turn. So it is not I who is blind and biased. "In round 2, I have proven that the Church has survived in the changing time where others failed, its growing population is ever increasing which results to increase in influence, and that it still have political influence today. All these things point to one thing: The church has not weakened. "Survival has nothing to do with strength. I refuted this point in Round 2 when I discussed legitimacy. This is the final round so let us summon the points I have presented to confirm the resolution that has been proposed.1. This debate is inherently a comparative debate about the Roman Catholic Church's past compared to the present circumstances. We are debating the strength of the Roman Catholic Church. Con has yielded to provide any evidence on how the Roman Catholic Church is stronger than in the past. Instead, Con has provided us with the evidence in a dramatic rise in membership. I refuted this point in the third round.2. All three forms of weakness that I discussed in the second round stand. The three forms of weakness included physical weakness, political weakness, and spiritual weakness. Con has failed to refute them, nevertheless acknowledge them. Two out of three of them weren't even discussed thoroughly. One of the two, spiritual weakness was glazed over by Con which was spiritual weakness in round two. But Con provided no contrary evidence to my second round claim of how the Catholic Church conforms their beliefs according to the wishes of others. Therefore, all three points of weakness stand as is. See Round Two.3. The Roman Catholic Church's survival has nothing to do with strength or weakness. See Round Three.4. A larger membership in the Roman Catholic Church has not brought about more strength. The Roman Catholic Church is incapable of calling a Crusade. It does not matter if they excommunicate someone from the Church. See Rounds Two and Three.