The Instigator
Solomon_Grim
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
bladerunner060
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Allowing same-sex marriage shows that religion is the best way to decide morals.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 3 votes the winner is...
bladerunner060
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/29/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,524 times Debate No: 33043
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

Solomon_Grim

Pro

In this debate, I will be debating that religion, mainly Christianity, is the best way to decide morals. I will be using the idea that same-sex marriage shows this. I don't really want to have a debate over the existence of God, but if the morals from the bible go above those that of society.
bladerunner060

Con

Thank you to my opponent for initiating this debate.

I will be arguing that religion is not necessarily the best way to decide morals. Considering Pro's resolution, I will be assuming he means to also include under the umbrella of "deciding morals" the writing of legislation to codify that which is unacceptable.

Pro, obviously, has the BoP, but in the interests of a spirited debate, and in the absence of rules to the contrary, I will give an opening statement.

"Religion" is a nebulous term. After all, there is not one religion in the world, but many. And while they agree on some points, they disagree on others. In such a conflict it is not reason, but rather revelation, which is used to decide "what is moral". Such revelation cannot be proven, and there will always be disagreement. Whose religion wins out in such a situation, if the criteria applied is only "religion"? Both sides meet that criteria.

In the case of Gay Marriage, a legislative question, we have competing moralities. There are some Christian denominations which accept gays, and some which do not. Anglicans, for example, allow for gay unions to be blessed.[1] The Community of Christ, or Reorganized Church Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS), "Conference delegates...[voted]...for the extension of the sacrament of marriage to same-sex couples in states were same-sex marriages are legal, covenant commitment services for same-sex couples in states were same-sex marriages are not legal, and extending eligibility of the priesthood call (sacrament of to all members regardless of sexual orientation or open same-sex relationship. The changes have yet to be approved by the First Presidency and Council of Twelve, with the likely timeframe to "develop, approve, and implement interim policies" being up to one year after the 2013 Conference. [2]

Obviously, however, many other denominations continue to condemn homosexuality wholly. There is a range of "moral" answers to the question, just within the umbrella of "Christian". [3]

Which of these competing views is correct? I'm sure Pro has an opinion, but upon what grounds is his opinion more valid than that of other Christian authorities?

It's worth reminding that only those gay people who wish to be married will become married.

Gay Marriage is a legislative issue. Even if Gay Marriage becomes legal, no one will be required to do it. No one will be required to perform it against their religion's teachings any more than they're currently required to perform interracial marriages if they feel it's against their religion. It should be noted, of course, that interracial marriage was generally condemned on religious grounds.

No one will be expected to accept gay marriage any more than they are expected to accept any other marriage of which they might disapprove. It is Catholic Doctrine, for example, that special dispensation must be granted to marry a person of another Christian Faith, and an even more special dispensation is required to marry someone who is not Christian at all. If that is not granted, the marriage is not considered valid by the Church, and is not sacramental. Why is that moral? And further, how would that be different than the Church not recognizing a gay couple?

This is not a debate about the existence of God, as Pro stated in his opening. This, in point of fact, weakens his case considerably, as most arguments against gay marriage rest quite nearly entirely on Divine Command theory. Because we will not be assuming that God exists or that he doesn't, or that God is an inherent moral authority, Pro must make his case in the absence of Divine Command Theory.

So upon what "moral grounds" would Pro prevent that? What harms are done by the allowance of equal treatment? How is it moral to deny marriage to homosexuals based purely on their homosexuality?

I look forward to Pro's case.

Thank you.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com...;
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Solomon_Grim

Pro

Thank you for accepting. I know what I put was very confusing due mainly to the fact I wasn't sure how I was going to do this debate. I am not arguing God's existence nor whether gay marriage is morally right. I am arguing that allowing gay marriage shows that religion has the surperior morals as I will show.

1. The acceptance of gays in secular culture has gone up greatly. Forty years ago, you would barely find someone who believed in gay marriage as being right. It is true that some religious groups allow it, but I won't get into that.

2. Religious groups have an ultimate source for morals usually in a book form. This means that religions will always have a set line that shouldn't be crossed. Secular doesnt have this, as shown with gays. Forty years ago, gays was considered in the wrong, but now they are not. This shows that society has movable morals. That means that anything could be allowed with enough time.

3. The bible speaks against gayness, drawing a very definite line that shouldn't be crossed. Society has changed its views radically in the last few years. Can you only imagine what will be allowed by society movable morality in the next few decades.

Religions= non movable lines of morality that shouldn't be crossed. Right is right and wrong is wrong.

Secular= movable lines of morality. Right is right and wrong can also be right. This leaves no room for wrong.
bladerunner060

Con

Thank you to my opponent for his response.

To rebut:

Pro is arguing that religion provides a better grounding for morality specifically through the lens of gay marriage. He points out that "Forty years ago, you would barely find someone who believed in gay marriage as being right". He says that like it is a good thing; I do not believe it was, and there are religious groups who agree.

Since "religion" as a whole does not agree with Pro (nor could it, as it encompasses a huge swath of opinions), is Pro arguing that religion is a better grounding, or that his religion is a better grounding? And upon what grounds?

Pro claims that "religions will always have a set line that shouldn't be crossed". I've already shown how that isn't the case; the examples I gave of religious groups that now accept gay marriage clearly changed their minds on the matter. Thus, religion is just as capable of having "movable morals". I remind Pro of the sheer number of laws in the Bible that call for the death penalty. Is he advocating as much for the death penalty to those who pick up sticks on the sabbath? Or a betrothed woman who doesn't shout loud enough when she's being raped?

And even taken at face value, morals having no basis in rationality or possibility of change only make sense if you accept premises of religion that not everyone accepts, such as the moral perfection of the lawgiver. If that isn't presumed, then what you potentially have are WRONG moral prescripts that are unchangeable. Is it Pro's position better to have wrong morals so long as they don't change?

Pro goes on to say that the bible speaks against homosexuality. He gives no grounds why that's a good thing, instead appealing to a "slippery slope" when he asks us to "imagine what will be allowed by society movable morality [sic] in the next few decades."

Pro has not established why an "immovable morality" is inherently better than a movable one. I would argue that, indeed, it is not. Arguments about the "immovable morality" of the bible were used to justify slavery, until society's "movable morals" let us see how wrong it was.

Pro closes with two false equivalencies:

"Religions= non movable lines of morality that shouldn't be crossed. Right is right and wrong is wrong."
As previously noted, I have showed this as both not inherently true, and not necessarily a good thing even if it is.

"Secular= movable lines of morality. Right is right and wrong can also be right. This leaves no room for wrong."
This is a straw man argument. Secular morality is not inherently nihilistic. Secular morality requires the application of reason to moral arguments.

Morality that never changes is only good if you already presuppose that it is perfect. Absent that presupposition, you run the risk of enshrining wrong morals forever, if you accept Pro's already-shown-to-be-fallacious argument that religious morality never changes.

Pro has given no reason for us to think that gay marriage is wrong, or that homosexuality is immoral, but he claims that society's acceptance of those things makes his view of religion better, because it hasn't changed. The same argument could be applied to slavery, to the murder of those of other faiths, and to acceptance of rape (as long as you try to marry the victim).

This is not intended as an attack on the bible, per se, but rather to point out that Pro's view on the immobility of morality is dramatically flawed. Morality should be based on reason, and when society realizes it has made a mistake, it is reason which should allow us to realize and fix it.

I look forward to my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 2
Solomon_Grim

Pro

1. Perhaps certain sects of Christianity accept gays, but this for not mean that Christianity as a whole accepts it. The bible clearly states that gayness is wrong.

2. I'm not quite arguing that gayness is wrong, since you will never agree with the bible and vice versa; but rather arguing that the movable morals are wrong.

3. You state that movable morals are better since they allow change if beliefs of right and wrong change. However, I feel differently. If a moral is movable, than anything can be allowed. If fifty one percent of America said that raping and killing was right, does that make it right? Non movable makes sure no corruption slips into the morality. Morality can't work when you put it right at the soles of your feet. For example:

Some groups are pushing to abortion being extended till three days after birth. Is this right? If we allow it, what than. People will always push for more, and with movable morals, how can you say no?

If you give society the ability to decide what is right and what is wrong, how can you tell someone something is wrong any more? If we allow gay marriage, what comes after that? Animal marriage to people? Are we going to say no to that?

Religion does give direct instructions on right and wrong, clear morals, whether people have changed their mind or not. Set morals make sure things go good and right.

Secular gives open morals that make it impossible to say that anything is wrong. This makes it so everything we do can be justified.
bladerunner060

Con

Thanks to my opponent for his response.

"1. Perhaps certain sects of Christianity accept gays, but this for not mean that Christianity as a whole accepts it. The bible clearly states that gayness is wrong."

This does not address the fact that some Christian sects, which use the same book as the basis for their morality, have changed their morals. It's quite common. In fact, were Pro to list his specific sect, it's quite likely I could find occasions in which they changed their position on a moral issue.

"2. I'm not quite arguing that gayness is wrong, since you will never agree with the bible and vice versa; but rather arguing that the movable morals are wrong."

But of course, this is central to the question at hand. Because if being gay isn't wrong, then those who hold on to their rigid morality are the ones who are "wrong", and who have no hope of ever being right while holding onto that rigidity.

"3. You state that movable morals are better since they allow change if beliefs of right and wrong change. However, I feel differently. If a moral is movable, than anything can be allowed."

This is, of course, flatly untrue. It's a slippery slope fallacy. That a specific moral decision is movable in light of more thinking on the subject is movable does not mean that "anything can be allowed".

"If fifty one percent of America said that raping and killing was right, does that make it right?"

Secular morality does not equal "morality by majority" any more than religious morality does.
This point is an irrelevant one. The irony of someone who started his round with "Perhaps certain sects of Christianity accept gays, but this for not mean that Christianity as a whole accepts it." appealing to the idea that secular morality somehow equals"If fifty one percent of America said that raping and killing was right, does that make it right?" is, hopefully, not lost on the readers.

"Non movable makes sure no corruption slips into the morality."

It does no such thing. What it ensures is that no change to the morality occur. This can be good, if people would otherwise call the immoral moral, or it could be bad, if people would otherwise realize something they had made a mistake. That is all it assures.

In reference to Pro's actual motion, rigidty has already been rebutted as untrue.

"Some groups are pushing to abortion being extended till three days after birth."

Citation and context needed. As far as I know, the only two people actually advocating that are two philosophers, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, who advocated it in a single paper in an ethics journal. [1]

The bible also treats infants who have been born but are less than a month old as worth less than older children. (That's Numbers 3:15 and Leviticus 27:6, if you want the specifics). It also calls for the execution in some circumstances of pregnant women, despite the "innocence" of their fetuses (Gen 38:24), which would seem to indicate a certain callousness regarding pregnancy.

The philosophers that are the ones being referred to by Pro, as far as I can tell, are drawing their line of distinction at what determines a "person". I think having such a debate is actually quite useful in determining where the line of morality in regards to abortion is. Such debates call into question our assumptions on the matter, and help give us perspective in order to make the correct moral choice.

Working from at text can lead to questioning, too, but it becomes a matter of questioning the text instead of questioning what's right.

For instance, in Exodus, there's a passage that says "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life." 21:2-24. Now, since at that time a premature birth was almost certain to kill the child, it seems clear that the "mischief" was to the woman, which would indicate to me that beating a woman until she miscarries was a fineable offense, unless the woman died, in which case it was murder.

" Is this right? If we allow it, what than. People will always push for more, and with movable morals, how can you say no?"

You can say no by the application of your reason to the matter. Secular morals are not equal to nihilism, either.

"If you give society the ability to decide what is right and what is wrong, how can you tell someone something is wrong any more? If we allow gay marriage, what comes after that? Animal marriage to people? Are we going to say no to that?"

Yes, we are going to say no to that, because animals cannot consent. This is an invalid and ridiculous argument. Show me a sentient talking dog, however, who expresses a desire to marry a human which is reciprocated, and you'll find me agreeing that should be allowed. In the meantime, Pro's bigotry is showing. I'd remind him that the bible was once used to justify prohibitions on interracial dating, as well, with similar ridiculous arguments on if that was going to be allowed.

"Religion does give direct instructions on right and wrong, clear morals, whether people have changed their mind or not."

Clearly, that is not the case, neither within specifically Pro's own faith (presumably Christianity), and religion in general. There are Christian faiths which disagree with his assessment of gay marriage, to specifically address the motion, which belies the "direct instructions...clear morals". Further, Muslims have a completely different instruction on right and wrong as, say, Jews. Or Hindus. Or Buddhists.

" Set morals make sure things go good and right."

No, they do not. This has already been rebutted multiple times.

But the problem here is that Pro is advocating a different point than the one he presented initially: that "religion is the best way to decide morals". Religion is a nebulous term, with many possible answers to any question. Pro seems to be trying to "say without saying" that, rather than "religion is the best way to decide morals", that "his religion is the best way to decide morals."

His "set morals" condone slavery and consider women to be worth less than men. The rules are "set" unless you think it's god asking you to break them, in which case anything is permissible, including murdering your own child. (Although, of course, you're supposed to kill your child if they disobey you anyway).

"Secular gives open morals that make it impossible to say that anything is wrong. This makes it so everything we do can be justified."

Not any more so than "new interpretations" of the bible, or "new gospels". In fact, quite less. By applying reason rather than revelation, we can think through what the best course of action is, by agreeing on certain axioms. We can reach these same moral decisions the same way we reach realizations about rules of logic, or about laws of physics. We can refine them, and make them closer to what's "really" right, by reasoning through them. If we rely on revelation, instead, literally anything can become moral, as soon as there's another revelation. Of course, some will agree with the new revelation, and some won't, and we'll have another "new" religion that is "clear" only to those who believe it.

I look forward to my opponent's response.

[1] http://www.slate.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Solomon_Grim

Pro

1. I'm staying with my original idea. The bible gives very precise laws on right and wrong. If someone goes against that law, his perspective may have changed, but not the religion itself. Secular laws can be changed when perspectives change, the bible stays the same no matter the current perspective of the people.

2. Perhaps your right, but I do not want to have a debate on the correctness of gayness since it will end religious.

3. Everything can be allowed with enough time. If you look through time, you will find that things tend to escalate quickly. In the French Revolution, what started as internal oppression ended up as the reign of terror. When laws are movable in history, you find people usually go slightly crazy. Because with movable laws, and enough time and pushing, anything will be allowed. Hitler did immediately put Jews in camps, he had to wait a while as the laws were twisted around.

4. As I have said before, the bible has laws set down, secular morals are not set down. They are changed by people the majority of people vote in. So your statement is wrong. The majority of people believe in abortion, so it is coming to be allowed since the majority wants it.

5. Set laws make sure no opinions can affect the outcome.

6. The bible verses you mention doesn't count those younger than a month as it is the grace month to make sure they live. If they count those children and several of them die, their numbers would not be exact. Numbers don't even count females. Are you implying that the bible doesn't count females as humans? Also, you assume that premature birth equals death, but this is not so. The baby could easily be alive and not be affected. You assume the worse side, showing biased ideas. Also, you find bad people usually have bad kids. That is why children was killed with their mother.

7. You say "we" will say no to this. Who is this we? You have the ones who support it, those who don't care, those who will stay out of it, those who don't believe in it but will side with them since it is freedom, and those who go against it. So who is the "we"? Are you thinking that everyone will magically come together against this idea. Please remember we as humanity stood by as the Jews were killed in Germany. Yes there was a "we" who stood against it, but that didnt work. You said it, also, as if everyone will side with you. What if you find that you are the only one that believes it shouldn't be allowed, what then?

8. The bible does not approve of slavery as we know now. It a much better back than, so you are taking it out of context. The bible doesn't considered woman worse than men, just more support depended. Which many people will agree with nowadays too.

9. I actually agree that many new bibles are awful. Usually just people trying to make money, however, this doesn't make the original bad.

10. Reason. A group of people reasonly decided to attempt genocide with Jews. We reasoned to drop an atom bomb, killing millions. Every evil thing has been thoroughly thought out and planned. Reason doesn't work for deciding morals.
bladerunner060

Con

I thank Pro for his response, and for his use of numbers. It's helpful since I need to be careful of character count.

1. I'm staying with my original idea. The bible gives very precise laws on right and wrong. If someone goes against that law, his perspective may have changed, but not the religion itself. Secular laws can be changed when perspectives change, the bible stays the same no matter the current perspective of the people.

The bible has changed over the years. Ignoring for the moment the issue of translations, and focusing solely on content, but it was also selected over centuries.[1]

2

Here Pro seems, at least to me, to be conceding his case. The case is that "gay marriage shows that religion is the best way to decide morals". If gay marriage isn't wrong, then it is the religions who seek to prohibit it who are wrong. And if that's the case, then Pro's argument is completely invalidated, because then for certain "gay marriage would not show that religion is the best way to decide morals".

3. Everything can be allowed with enough time...


I'll get to the "Hitler" point in a bit further down. But as to the French Revolution: Robespierre attempted to institute a new state religion, "the Cult of the Supreme Being". This religious cult helped Robespierre usher in a new series of executions. Here, religion clearly was not "the best way to decide morals".

4. As I have said before, the bible has laws set down, secular morals are not set down. They are changed by people the majority of people vote in...

As has been noted to Pro before, secular morality DOES NOT EQUAL morality by majority. He can't simply blithely assert a false equivalence.

So your statement is wrong. The majority of people believe in abortion, so it is coming to be allowed since the majority wants it.

There's a host of things wrong with this statement. In the first place, abortion is actually more restricted than it has been in years. Due to "religious" arguments which should have no place in the United States, there are several states which have managed to kill abortion provision entirely. In the second place, abortion was allowed due to a Supreme Court ruling which had nothing to do with "the majority", except perhaps "the majority" of the court. In the third place, if Pro would like to establish that abortion is wrong he is free to do so. But until then, this entire "fault" is a red herring.

5. Set laws make sure no opinions can affect the outcome.

As has been previously noted to Pro, and proven with unrebutted points, religion does not provide "set laws" necessarily. Due to its very nature there can be fluctuation: revelation can happen to anyone, should God will it. Further, the number of atrocities that can be laid at the feet of religion do not, in of themselves, make religion necessarily "bad", but it certainly shows that religion does not "make sure no opinions affect the outcome".

6. The bible verses you mention doesn't count those younger than a month as it is the grace month to make sure they live...

My point was that they were counted less. And it is a point you have now conceded. Anything else is your INTERPRETATION of the text. Which is not "set". If someone wanted to use that passage to justify infants being worth less than a person, they could; you'd be stuck arguing "what does this text say" instead of "what's acutally right?"

...Also, you assume that premature birth equals death, but this is not so. The baby could easily be alive...

Modern medicine is able to keep a prematurely born infant alive if it's around 20 weeks. No less. That's about 4.5 months, or half the pregnancy. Obviously, prior to the invention of things like actual medicines and incubators, the window was much narrower. Does Pro really think that, 2000 years ago, in the middle of a street or city, where there were no hospitals, a prematurely born infant stood a significant chance of living? It's just not true. The mortality rate for non prematurely born infants was astronomical.

You assume the worse side, showing biased ideas. Also, you find bad people usually have bad kids. That is why children was killed with their mother.


Pro rounds out point 6 with two ridiculous arguments. He claims I "assume the worse side, showing biased ideas". Pro has put forth no actual argument for this other than his unfounded assertion that ancient peoples were able to deal appropriately with premature birth; it can be dismissed for want of evidence. As to his second point, that's ridiculous. If we take, for the sake of argument, fetuses as actual CHILDREN, rather than fetuses, then it was being recommended that the children be BURNED ALIVE because the mother had done wrong, and Pro's defense is that "bad people usually have bad kids"? That doesn't address the fact that the infant was clearly not worth saving in the opinion of the bible; Pro is advocating for abortion for criminals, negating its "wrongness".

He also conveniently drops the point about how the bible says to execute rape victims if they don't cry out enough (Deuteronomy 22:23-24).

7. You say "we" will say no to this. Who is this we? ...

I used Pro's "we", and now he hopes to use it against me. Should I have thrown his use back in his face in this manner? It does nothing to further his point, unless he was trying again to conflate secular morality with morality by majority again.

Are you thinking that everyone will magically come together against this idea. Please remember we as humanity stood by as the Jews were killed in Germany. Yes there was a "we" who stood against it, but that didnt work.


For Pro's reference, since he obviously has a poor grasp of history, Germany was able to be convinced to kill the Jews so easily because of religion. The SS, in fact, had "Gott Mitt Uns" (God with us) inscribed on their belt buckles, and Hitler played on centures of Christian bigotry towards to Jews. It hardly makes his case that "religion" is better.

Pro continues to conflate secular morality with morality by majority. His repetition of the assertion doesn't make it so.

8. The bible does not approve of slavery as we know now. It a much better back than, so you are taking it out of context. The bible doesn't considered woman worse than men, just more support depended. Which many people will agree with nowadays too.


A few points here...1, YES IT DID. Pro obviously doesn't know enough about his own book. I presume he's thinking of the laws that were in the bible regarding JEWISH slaves. THAT slavery was far more like indentured servitude than slavery as conceived in the modern era. I urge him to go back and actually read his book:

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you....You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)


9

My opponent seems to miss the point here. Just as the bible is believed to be divinely inspired, so too is the Book of Mormon. And whatever the "next" revelation will be.

10

My opponent first goes back to the Nazis (who were, again, religious), then makes an unclear claim about dropping a bomb during wartime. Then he says "Every evil thing has been thoroughly thought out and planned", and concludes that "Reason doesn't work for deciding morals." That is no argument. That evil things were "thought out" does not mean they were morally justified. Religious things have been "thought up". And there have been millions of people killed in the name of religion, by Pro's argument religion "doesn't work for deciding morals".

Over to Pro.

[1] -- http://www.biblica.com...
Debate Round No. 4
Solomon_Grim

Pro

The Hebrew bible has not changed that much. Some translations are bad, but kjv is still good. I know you say that it has been changed, but as far as we can see is changed is that king James added a few points of no witchcraft. If you look, the bible has no contradictions, so obviously it hasn't been changed that much.

2. It is wrong, I just can't prove it to you. It is religion based. Plus, this is also about movable morals vs. set morals.

3. Now was it a religion? The cult of the supreme being was based mainly around the de-christianization act of the time and was meant to make people act mainly more rational and secular. They often times had defacing of churches along with destroying religious icons. So this "religion" was based around secular means, gave no direct rules other than follow the secular government, and worshipped knowledge. It was an extension of the government.

4. If the majority of people don't decide the morals, whom are you implying does. Is there a dictatorship over morality?

Also, just to be clear. Supreme Court votes in abortion. Supreme Court is part of the government. The majority vote in members of the government. The government represent our beliefs, the majority who vote them in. How does this not equal majority is beyond me.

And are you implying that abortion has been worse than the five million we have killed already.

5. I would like to start off by saying that there have been many people use science to cause atrocities also. Religion is the not the main problem. Also, look at the many great things done by religion. What help has atheism given.

6. I find this quite a bit of hypocrisy. You first start by saying how you can't go with your own interpretations, and then go on to show why your interpretation as the best. It does not say they die. It doesn't even say when premature comes into play. The baby could be perfectly fine. You are assuming that 1. The baby is premature to a degree of unhealthiness. 2. That the baby dies due to one and. 3. This law implies to those who do kill the baby. That is your interpretation. We can't say that this includes those who did end up killing the baby.

Oh wait, yes we can. Next verse-
And if mischief does follow, you shall take a life for a life. Baby dies, then the guy dies.

It is ending the bad family line. That's kinda how Israel lasted for forty years. If you just punish those who did the crime, than the family will become corrupted.

Oh, and when it says that she did not cry, do you really think they mean literally. It means that it did not burden her heart for what she did.

7. You just changed everything you said. I gave example of a law being brought up about cross animal other intercourse and you answered by saying that WE would not allow that. You are implying majority and that you have superior morals.

And I am very aware of hitler's propaganda with religion. Once again, this is someone using religion, not it itself. The bible goes against it, and since someone did it doesn't make it right.

8. I will read it more when you do. The people who was treated as slaves were war criminals. Nothing more or less.

9. There are many copies of a good thing. Atheism is just as bad as religion. You held onto Darwinism, and now neodarwinism, and you will to whatever comes next.

10. Once again, who are you to decide what is morally justified. Also, the nazis weren't a religious group. Some may have been, but not all. Nazis used science just as much as religion in their efforts. Also, many people have died under atheists. School shootings in the past year was done by atheists. The columbine shooting was done by a member wearing a natural selection is my god shirt. Many dictators have done as bad as religious people. By your logic, that means that religion and science are both bad.
bladerunner060

Con

Thank you to Pro. This is the final round. I'll do my rebuttals and, if I have space, make my closing statement.

1. First off, I gave evidence showing it has changed. Pro's only response is bare assertion of the negative. Second, whether it has contradictions has naught to do with whether it has been changed. That Pro thinks the KJV is "still good", or that the changes are "of no witchcraft" shows a fundamental lack of understanding on his subject. It is rife with what can be charitably called translation...differences.[1] And, further, it actually does have quite a few contradictions.[2]

2. This debate is about whether Gay marriage shows religion is the best way to decide morals. It is not necessarily about "movable morals vs. set morals", that's shifting the goal post. Religious morals, as I've already established, are quite movable, and some secular moralities have remained quite unchanged. If Pro can't prove that religion has a better answer to the gay marriage question, then Pro has not supported his assertion.

3. Pro's response to 3 shows he does not know about the French Revolution; he conflates the "Cult of Reason" with the "Cult of the Divine Being". Robespierre's Cult was established expressly against what Robespierre didn't like about the "Cult of Reason", such as the rejection of divinity.[3]

4. Pro here repeats his points from earlier. Who decides the laws of physics? Are they put to a vote? How about the laws of logic? How about the rules of proper and safe food preparation? We can apply our reason to these things and, accepting axioms, reach conclusions. It's funny that Pro brings up a dictator of morality; Pro is arguing that he wants a dictatorship over morality; that dictator, to Pro, should be God.

As to the Supreme Court:

Supreme Court justices are not elected officials. They are appointed for life terms. They are approved by the Executive and Legislative branches, regardless of who's in power in either. In fact, the Supreme Court has ruled against the "majority" on numerous occasions, basing their decisions on Constitutional Law, rather than the preferences of the majority. That's their job.

Pro then makes a completely unsupported, nonsensical assertion about abortion that I will disregard for want of substance.

5. Pro's burden here is to establish his case. Calling the two frameworks equal does not establish his case. As to "great things done by religion", Pro gives no examples, so I cannot rebut, I can only dismiss the argument of religion's necessity for these "great things" for want of evidence.

6. I find this quite a bit of hypocrisy...

A charge of hypocrisy from Pro? Perhaps he should reread what I wrote, instead of what he wanted me to write. The point I was making was simply that the text can be interpreted multiple ways, thus completely negating his argument that it was "set". This doesn't mean the interpretation I presented is necessarily right, it just means that Pro has given no reason that it's not equally valid, thus giving two completely different answers to the same question, and showing that Pro's claim that the morals are "set" to be untrue.

I would have tried harder to refrain from snark, had Pro not levied a "hypocrite" charge. But now I think it's well warranted.

Perhaps Pro should invest in a dictionary, along with some history books?

Oh wait, yes we can. Next verse-
And if mischief does follow, you shall take a life for a life. Baby dies, then the guy dies.


As previously noted, THAT'S YOUR INTERPRETATION. You can't seem to defend that interpretation except by stamping your foot and asserting it.

...It is ending the bad family line. That's kinda how Israel lasted for forty years. If you just punish those who did the crime, than the family will become corrupted.

So abortion is okay in the case of criminals. Check.

Therefore, there are circumstances where abortion is okay. Gotcha.

It's worth noting that the Bible doesn't condemn the children of criminals as a general rule for crimes. But it does condemn the unborn. Which would rather imply that even the writers of the bible saw the difference.

Oh, and when it says that she did not cry, do you really think they mean literally. It means that it did not burden her heart for what she did.

I assume he's referencing my point about giving the death penalty to rape victims. Well, that's just absurd. First "for what she did"? Get raped? Since Pro obviously hasn't read his bible, let's expand that Deuteronomy verse I mentioned earlier:

"If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife."

Pro did not support his case on this interpretation except by assertion. I would hope posting the text is sufficient to put the lie to his claim.

7. You just changed everything you said...

No. I was using your own phrase. You're the one who said "we", I simply repeated using the framework you set up. You said that "If you give society the ability to decide what is right and what is wrong, how can you tell someone something is wrong any more? If we allow gay marriage, what comes after that? Animal marriage to people? Are we going to say no to that?"

I said that, since those are completely different, "we" wouldn't. The rationality used to justify one is not valid when used for another. You attempted a slippery slope argument based on your own unsupported equivalence between secular morality and nihilism.

And I am very aware of hitler's propaganda with religion. Once again, this is someone using religion, not it itself. The bible goes against it, and since someone did it doesn't make it right.

Where, precisely, does the bible "go against it"? Pro has given us no grounds to think that. There is genocide aplenty in the good book. But Pro's case is that religion is the best way to decide morals. Clearly here, religion as they had it was NOT the best way to decide morals.

8. I will read it more when you do. The people who was treated as slaves were war criminals. Nothing more or less.

No, they weren't. They were purchased from foreigners. It says it, explicitly.

9. This is a nonsense, irrelevant point.

10. Pro's final point is another nonsensical one, where he claims the Nazis weren't religious, then claims that "school shootings in the past year was done by atheists". He gives no link whatsoever to prove this; I know of no evidence for this. He then says that "by [my] logic, religion and science are both bad".

It is Pro's Burden to Prove his case. It is not my job to prove anything except that Pro has not supported the motion that: "Allowing same-sex marriage shows that religion is the best way to decide morals."

It seems I'm out of space. Thank you to my opponent for this debate.

To the voters: I urge a vote for Con, as Pro has clearly not established his case. I believe, in fact, that he's not exactly sure what his case is. Is it for "religion", "Christianity", "Pro's Christianity", or "Inflexible morality"? I hope Pro refines his thinking and learns his history, and comes back with a coherent case which he can support. As to the motion on the floor, as written, I shall close by quoting Steven Weinberg:

"With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion."

[1] -- http://www.contenderministries.org...
[2] -- http://www.evilbible.com...
[3] -- http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by TomCruise 4 years ago
TomCruise
Solomon_Grimbladerunner060Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: This is my first vote, I'll give my reasons for it soon
Vote Placed by danielawesome12 4 years ago
danielawesome12
Solomon_Grimbladerunner060Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Convincing- Pro completely choked in the 3rd round. I can't take his argument seriously after that. Spelling and grammar- He should have used for. "Some groups are pushing to abortion being extended till three days after birth." Conduct- Con seemed much nicer and open to debate. He even said thank you at the beginning of each round, while Pro did only once, and seemed frustrated during the debate. Sources- Con use no sources while Con used several.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
Solomon_Grimbladerunner060Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides did great, however in the third round I came to accept that pro was arguing the resolution as a slippery slope fallacy; did you know most pornstars started with just holding hands? We've got to draw the line somewhere. Whereas pro in round 1 clarified that not only do different religions have different moral spectrums, but even within Christianity marriage might not be allowed for consenting straight people! Sources I have bias against some of con's choices, yet he was the only side to put that work in.