Why Catholicism Was Wrong

In the Medieval times, the Roman Catholic Church played a great role in the development of England and had much more power than the Church of today does. In Medieval England, the Roman Catholic Church dominated everyday life and controlled everyone whether it is knights, peasants or kings. The Church was one of the most influential institutions in all of Medieval England and played a large role in education and religion. The Church's power was so great that they could order and control knights and sends them to battle whenever they wished to. The Church also had the power to influence the decision of Kings and could stop or pass laws which benefited them in the long run, adding to this, the Church had most of the wealth in Europe as the

Throughout high school, I harbored a deep admiration for debate and dreamed of joining the team. Its quintessence of ideals in rational argument, tolerance for conflicting points of view, and rigorous self-examination appealed strongly to me. Yet simple things, like pronouncing a word wrong or having an accent, were enough to hold me back. Thus, I passed through my high school years unnoticed.

As a child, I grew up going to Catholic School, from Kindergarten, until eighth grade. My mother thought private school was best for my brother and I, as there’s a misconception that since you’re paying a tuition, the education is better. My mother was also Catholic at the time, so she was more comfortable with us growing up being taught religion, which should inevitably cause us to be Christians and believe in God. Years went by of me being educated on religion, and by the age of twelve, I felt guilty that I couldn’t process or accept the idea of there being a God. I came to this reality due to the fact that I didn’t feel the connection to God that our teachers taught us we should have; I didn’t feel loved by an alternate being, I felt alone, and I didn’t grasp how such a thing could be possible.

In the article For Argument’s Sake; Why Do We Feel Compelled to Fight About Everything? The author brings to light an important understanding of why we as a society argue about everything and why it is necessary in the persuasion process. The most effective way to get a problem solved is to create an argument debate. (Tannen, Deborah) It is often a natural reaction to become defensive when another person threatens our belief system, Tannen refers to this process as the “knee-jerk nature”. When a person finds their standing being opposed, one will fight back with debate therefore causing and extreme case of representing each side. (Tannen, Deborah)

In the essay “Arguing on the Internet” the author tells of his inexperience in political debate, and how it shaped his future. (Poza, 2005) His story starts out by telling the readers, about the first time he posted a comment on the internet about gun control. Poza, was simply sharing his personal thoughts on the subject and what he got in return was profanity, disgust and the desire to persuade others by debating effectively. Poza shares some of his thoughts on learning to debate with others.

“God works in mysterious ways, it’s best not to question things” is a phrase my parents have permanently engraved into my mind, for every time I would ask questions concerning the unknown, that was the response I would receive as a child. Growing up as a hispanic, I was raised to be a Catholic young lady who should devote her love, trust and admiration to the one and only God in which everyone looks up to. But what happens to someone who disagrees with what the Catholic religion has to offer? Why should I devote my love, life and trust into someone or something that can’t be confirmed to exist? These questions were the cause of the developing internal conflict within me once I began to mature. Was I ready to stray away from the

Growing up I was always told religion was false and that I was above my friends who were Christians because I believed in science. My mom was raised by Catholics, but when she graduated High School, she vowed to never be religious again. My father enjoyed feeling more elite over the “religious plebeians” that worked for him. I remember having an argument with Victoria Henderson in 3rd grade because I believed in The Big Bang and she was a creationist. Everyone took Victoria’s side, and I learned it was better to just not talk about religion. In high school, I began reaching out of my comfort zone, and also questioning what my parents had ingrained on me as a person. My first religious experience was dating a boy named Luis who was Catholic, as my mother was raised. He was only allowed to date Catholic girls, so I

When I was debating in high school, I learned how to argue from many different perspectives and how to make a particular argument more effective than another. Although I'm no longer in debate (B.S.U. needs a debate team), I have been so affected by the activity I now believe if I listen intently and discerningly to the arguments for and against a particular position that I can determine which position is the most logical and prudent. It is this arrogant and fatuous tendency which I possess that is whispering in my ear right now. It is telling me to enter the universe of discourse and to use my sapient mind to find the "superior style." Not being one who ignores his impulses, I will obey. I

In my first tournament, out of 100 debaters, I placed 4th. With two weeks of preparation, I managed to powerfully and persuasively relay my viewpoints while eclipsing three-fourths of my competition. I realized that not only did I enjoy debating, but I found my niche.

I have never understood the thrill associated with playing the "devil's advocate." For a while, I thought that it was simply because I liked to be stubborn around my family, but later I realized that I found great joy in arguing and debating. Whether it be with my family discussing certain political topics or with my friends discussing the validity of a certain sports player, I have always found myself wanting to argue. Furthermore, I love to listen to my opponents and sift through their words looking for an opportunity to exploit the most subtle fault or fallacy hidden in their rhetoric. As a participant in multiple forms of debate, I have grasped the basic concepts of debating and the ability to point out flaws, paradoxes, and other fallacies

Before debate, I was siloed in my thinking: LeBron is better than Kobe, Fruit Loops were tastier than Fruity Pebbles, and Drake was already better than Kanye. Back then I was not necessarily an opinionated person, yet I was staunch in my ways. Although I only joined debate because my all my friends were in it, the forum gave me a space to form my own opinions and understand societal issues more clearly. Interacting within the debate community has allowed me to interface with people from different backgrounds and with unique opinions over the status quo; the educational benefits from debate have allowed me to grow from a close-minded, narrow thinking adolescent into a young adult who understands structural obstacles that disadvantaged members of society combat, and how I can use my space to empower real change.

In the “Help will always be there” evidence it is evident that debaters will always help other debaters. This also references the evidence in which people in debate feel superior for the reason that they feel that helping others makes them better than those who don’t. This also applies to those who run affirmatives in which they discuss social issues that affect minorities, since they feel the need to help those in pain, however most claim to be a part of that minority. Nevertheless, the debate community is full of people who believe that they are actually creating change when they debate. This is evident in the piece of evidence called “Differing Views of Debate.” Both teams were willing to risk the round to chance seeing that they felt like the debate space is a place for education and community and that a discussion of issues would be more productive in creating change. However, no one else is the room to hear this discussion and thus the ideas and messages conveyed during the discussion wouldn’t likely move far past the room. On the other hand, as indicated in the evidence “Why we do debate,” there is a whole heap to learn by doing debate. The author of this comment clearly shows the valuable skills one learns from doing debate such as, greater political knowledge, better speaking skills, greater philosophical knowledge, and research skills. These can all shape the student to

I really enjoyed reading your discussion post about your perspective when regarding being vindictive in politics. You make an intriguing suggestion about how slinging mud in American politics all started with former president Bill Clinton. His counter parts started talking about his scandal that involved Monica Lewinsky. Could you imagine social media during this ordeal. The memes would have been ridiculous. However, I digress! With the current presidential debate between Republican nominee Donald Trump and Democratic nominee Senator Hillary Clinton, have had their fair share of mud slinging. In my humble opinion, I find these debates to be hysterical and intriguing. It seems as if, both parties have made this voting year a bit personal.

My father loved to debate when I was an adolescent, and I emulated this at a young age. Unfortunately, he was more interested in winning rather than making a cohesive argument. At the end of every argument or disagreement, he had to be the victor. Eventually, I was able to hold my opinions against him. But this is how I devolve into this trap, I learned how to defend my already formed position, but not necessarily taking the time to flush out the details, or seek alternatives. I was taught and eventually saw it as a weakness to dawn a new opinion in the middle of the moment. I developed my method of defending myself over time growing after every confrontation. My vernacular grew as I senesce. This only increased my confidence incrementally.

During elementary school I decided I wanted to move in with my father who did attend church religiously every Sunday morning. Catholic mass was awful and difficult to understand. My father put my brothers and I through communion and made us participate in church bible study to further understand the religion. As I got older my views on Catholicism had gotten worse, I started hating going to church. When the nuns called my age group to have children’s church my father forced me to go, they took us to a room that had no windows and was always cold. The nuns made us read the old testament in the King James Bible version and I always had a hard time reading and understanding it because of the way it was written. This experience made me hate and