The Instigator
AndyHood
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Arcanas
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

Con reveals their hypocrisy when they say "homosexual practice is a sin because the bible says so"

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 7 votes the winner is...
Arcanas
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/7/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,179 times Debate No: 73050
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (155)
Votes (7)

 

AndyHood

Pro

Hypocrisy: pretence of having beliefs that one does not actually possess

Con, by agreeing to the debate, agrees to the following terms:

1. Con will be a Christian who agrees that "homosexual practice is a sin because the bible says so"
2. Con in accepting will agree to use the definition given of hypocrisy
3. Con agrees to answer direct questions honestly in the soonest available round
4. If Pro demonstrates hypocrisy in Con, Pro wins

The voters are requested to vote accordingly should Con break the rules.
Arcanas

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
AndyHood

Pro

Okay, so... thank you for accepting, let's game on!

If you believe "homosexual practice is a sin because the bible says so" then it logically follows that you consider the bible to be the say-so about sin (defined as transgression against a deity). It follows that you consider the bible in some way to be the Word of God. It follows that when you read such verses as we find in Deuteronomy, you agree with their moral pronouncements. Here's one such verse from Deuteronomy 22:23-24:

23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

Do you agree, Con?

Do you think that it is morally acceptable to stone engaged once-virgins to death because they did not scream "rape" when they slept with men who were not their betrothed?

For the record, I only have one direct question, as per the rules of the debate... I require Con to answer this question openly, honestly and immediately:

Do you think that it is morally acceptable to stone engaged once-virgins to death because they did not scream "rape" when they slept with men who were not their betrothed?
Arcanas

Con

"Okay, so... thank you for accepting, let's game on!"

Indeed. I hope we both benefit from the discussion. Thank you for creating the debate Pro.

"If you believe "homosexual practice is a sin because the bible says so" then it logically follows that you consider the bible to be the say-so about sin (defined as transgression against a deity). It follows that you consider the bible in some way to be the Word of God. It follows that when you read such verses as we find in Deuteronomy, you agree with their moral pronouncements. Here's one such verse from Deuteronomy 22:23-24:

23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death"the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man"s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

Do you agree, Con?"

Yep.

"Do you think that it is morally acceptable to stone engaged once-virgins to death because they did not scream "rape" when they slept with men who were not their betrothed?"

Yes I do.

I'm assuming my opponent will start his arguments about how I am a hypocrite in the next round.

Thank you for reading this debate so far! Good luck Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
AndyHood

Pro

Well,

No, I am not going to start the hypocrite accusation quite yet. You clearly believe that the bible is a book of pure moral pronouncements; you are therefore certainly not hypocritical (and I will have to concede the debate) if you really do believe that and follow it through to its logical conclusion.

But it would be hypcritical if you were to seem to have the position that the bible was the inerrant Word of God when you were discussing judgements of other people and that "belief" vanished or otherwise reduced when matters related more dircetly to yourself.

I'd like to press the issue of the stoning of adultresses, whilst also adding some further lines of enquiry, so here goes:

Do you think that we should today pass human laws that prescribe the stoning to death of fiancées for infidelity, assuming that they were virgins at the time said infidelity occurred? If not, why not, since I see no biblical justification for relaxing this Mosaic law?

If you believe that the bible is the Word of God, it also follows that you will have studied the book very closely... I mean, if I had a genuine belief that I could read a book written by a supernatural deity of infinite power who I had accepted as my master, I think that I'd be pretty driven to read and reread the bible.

Have you read the bible from cover to cover on more than one occasion?

I suppose that I'm going to be on solid ground here:

Do you believe that parents should beat their children with rods?

Do you believe that children who insult or hit their parents should be put to death?

Do you believe that when people go to war they should kill all enemy men and non-virgin women then take the virgins and children as slaves?

Have you ever eaten pig meat?


I could go on; but for now there's really no need. If I get honest answers to all of the questions so far, I think that I'll know where I stand... there's more than one way that I might proceed here, depending on the answers that I get.
Arcanas

Con

"Do you think that we should today pass human laws that prescribe the stoning to death of fianc"es for infidelity, assuming that they were virgins at the time said infidelity occurred? If not, why not, since I see no biblical justification for relaxing this Mosaic law?"

Yes.

"Have you read the bible from cover to cover on more than one occasion?"
Yes, I've read it multiple times.

"Do you believe that parents should beat their children with rods?"
It's used to give discipline to children. I believe it should get the job done without inflicting inappropriate or unnecessary damage to the child"s body.
"Do you believe that children who insult or hit their parents should be put to death?"

If they meet the conditions the Bible mentions then yes of course they should be stoned to death.

"Do you believe that when people go to war they should kill all enemy men and non-virgin women then take the virgins and children as slaves?"

Of course. They should save every virgin for themselves.

"Have you ever eaten pig meat?"

Not to my knowledge. Unless someone put pig meat into my food without me knowing, I don't believe I have.

Am I a hypocrite?
Debate Round No. 3
AndyHood

Pro

I don't know yet if you are a hypocrite, but I've got time...

Do you believe in God?
Do you fear God?
Do you believe, before God, that the answers you have given (and will give) here are honest? Answering this question with a lie would be taking God's name in vain.

I have to point out that I know many Christians and I don't know more than one or two who would be happy to make such controversial statements.

Also, I have a suspicion that I am dealing with an atheist who is trying to win the debate by saying whatever silly thing is necessary so to do... but I guess, if it comes to that, I'll have to trust the voters to make up their own mind in the light of rule 3:

3. Con agrees to answer direct questions honestly in the soonest available round

I'd also point out that even without that rule Con would lose on the grounds of demonstrating hypocrisy of the first order by making up all of the answers to the questions.




A few more questions, then, just for fun:

Ephesians 5:22, "Wives, submit to you husbands as to the Lord"

Do you think that wives should be as subservient to their husbands as you seem to be being to the Lord?

Do you think that this subservience should include not making moral judgements for themselves but accepting their husband's instruction on what they should consider right and wrong?


1 Peter 2:18: "Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel."

Do you think that slaves should submit to their masters, even when those masters beat them unfairly?

Do you think that the only loophole for this is if they die within two days as a direct result of a beating they received from their masters and then get resuscitated? Or do you think that this loophole is not explicitly sanctioned so that they should go back to complete subservience?
Arcanas

Con

"Do you believe in God?"

Yes,
"Do you fear God?"

I've experienced times in my life when I was afraid of God

"Do you believe, before God, that the answers you have given (and will give) here are honest? Answering this question with a lie would be taking God's name in vain."

I have been answering all of the questions posed towards me in this debate truthfully, yes.

"I have to point out that I know many Christians and I don't know more than one or two who would be happy to make such controversial statements"

I'm not sure how this is relevant to the debate.

"Also, I have a suspicion that I am dealing with an atheist who is trying to win the debate by saying whatever silly thing is necessary so to do... but I guess, if it comes to that, I'll have to trust the voters to make up their own mind in the light of rule"

Voters cannot vote for you based off of the belief that I am lying. You have the burden of proof in this debate to show that one who says, "Gay marriage is wrong because the bible says so", is hypocritical. Voters do not vote affirmative on this debate until Pro actually proves that I am a hypocrite. Again, he has no valid reasons to think that I'm lying.

"Do you think that wives should be as subservient to their husbands as you seem to be being to the Lord?"

Yes
"Do you think that this subservience should include not making moral judgements for themselves but accepting their husband's instruction on what they should consider right and wrong?"

They should both follow the Bible's moral code.

"Do you think that slaves should submit to their masters, even when those masters beat them unfairly?"

Yes. I fully agree with what the bible verse. What do you mean by beating them unfairly?

"Do you think that the only loophole for this is if they die within two days as a direct result of a beating they received from their masters and then get resuscitated?"

It's totally legit to beat them as long as they don't die after a day or two but if they do then yes that's viable.

It's the second to last round and my opponent has yet to show any good reason to think that I'm a hypocrite. Even if he does provide evidence next round, it's extremely poor conduct. Waiting to post the main argument of a case until the last round is a dishonest way to debate as it gives your opponent little chance to respond to them.
Debate Round No. 4
AndyHood

Pro

I ask you, gentle voter, to consider two facts:

Fact 1

When I asked Con this question:

Do you think that we should today pass human laws that prescribe the stoning to death of fiancées for infidelity, assuming that they were virgins at the time said infidelity occurred?

Con answered:

Yes.

Fact 2

In Round 1 I laid out clear rules:

3.
Con agrees to answer direct questions honestly in the soonest available round
The voters are requested to vote accordingly should Con break the rules.

I leave it up to the gentle voter to decide how likely it is that Con honestly believes that we should pass laws bringing back stoning to death for infidelity in virgin fiancees.

Go for it, Con, use this last round to convince the World that you really do want to bring back public stoning. If the voters doubt that you do, you'll lose the debate.

By the way, some sort of argument that you've won the debate because I haven't shown hypocrisy like I claimed I could, even if you've lied, really won't wash. I only claimed to be able to reveal hypocrisy if I was dealing with honesty... we'd have to redo the debate with somebody who was prepared to be honest to establish the resolution properly, if you have in fact lied. Sorry for the suggestion that you've lied if, in fact, you've been scrupulously honest.

Oh, one final round of questions (obviously I've no chance to speak to your answers):

Do you think that answering "yes" to "Do you believe, before God, that the answers you have given (and will give) here are honest?" means that a lie would be equivalent to taking God's name in vain? I mean, swearing something before God that is not true seems to me to be a sin that would be aborrhent to God. Do you agree?

What denomination of Christian are you?

Do you believe that every word in the bible is the literal truth (the original, before translation)?

Do you believe in talking snakes?

Do you believe that the Noah's Ark story happened literally as it is depicted in the Bible (despite scientific evidence to the contrary)?

Do you believe that one of every type of living animal today, including kangaroos, was on the Ark?

Do you believe that Jonah spent time in a big fish's belly?

Do you believe that dinosaurs coexisted with humans, like in the Flintstones?

Do you swear to God that all of your answers have been truthful?

I'll leave it up to the voters to decide whether Con has followed the rules of the debate or whether they deserve to lose for breaking the rules.

I don't claim to have shown any hypocrisy, except that of Con claiming to believe that they are being honest when, in fact, they are not. I wish this debate had gone diffeerently!
Arcanas

Con

"I leave it up to the gentle voter to decide how likely it is that Con honestly believes that we should pass laws bringing back stoning to death for infidelity in virgin fiancees"

As Domr has written in the comments, what is the point of having this debate, if at the end of it all, we are asked by Pro to just assume that Con has been lying about his answers?

"Oh, one final round of questions (obviously I've no chance to speak to your answers)"

I'll still answer them. :)

"Do you think that answering "yes" to "Do you believe, before God, that the answers you have given (and will give) here are honest?" means that a lie would be equivalent to taking God's name in vain? I mean, swearing something before God that is not true seems to me to be a sin that would be aborrhent to God. Do you agree"

I don't think the Bible says anything about lying while using God's name actually, so it's not really a sin...

"What denomination of Christian are you?"

"Do you believe that every word in the bible is the literal truth"

I think the bible is true yes, but there are some metaphors used in verses.
"Do you believe in talking snakes?"
You mean Satan? Yes.

"Do you believe that the Noah's Ark story happened literally as it is depicted in the Bible (despite scientific evidence to the contrary)?"
What evidence is there that suggests the contrary? I believe it, as most reasonable scientists do.

"Do you believe that one of every type of living animal today, including kangaroos, was on the Ark?"
Again, I believe the Noah's Ark story completely.

"Do you believe that Jonah spent time in a big fish's belly?"
Yes.
"Do you believe that dinosaurs coexisted with humans, like in the Flintstones?"

Like in the flinstones? Of course not.

"Do you swear to God that all of your answers have been truthful?"
Yes.

"I'll leave it up to the voters to decide whether Con has followed the rules of the debate or whether they deserve to lose for breaking the rules. I don't claim to have shown any hypocrisy, except that of Con claiming to believe that they are being honest when, in fact, they are not"

It's an incredibly dishonest and rude debate tactic to attempt to convince voters that even though you gave no evidence, you proved that I am a hypocrite. Pro needed to meet his burden of proof, not just ask for a free win. Again, the voters need to decide if Pro *proved* that I am a hypocrite. Even if you think he spread doubt, that itself is not enough to me this large BOP.

"I wish this debate had gone diffeerently!"

As do I.

Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 5
155 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by AndyHood 1 year ago
AndyHood
I suppose your position on condom use in Africa is the one expressed by the Catholic Church? You therefore think that a man putting a piece of rubber on his old John Thomas and visiting a prostitute is a far graver sin than a billion-strong church allowing preachers in the pulpit to say things like "wearing a condom makes you MORE likely to contract AIDS", thus contributing to countless millions of innocent men, women and children suffering horribly and dying! This sort of thing makes my blood boil. Drivel on about afterlives in your own head, if you must (not inculcating your children with fear of hell), but for the sake of humanity be careful what effect some of your ideas are having in the real World.
Posted by AndyHood 1 year ago
AndyHood
@Arcaneass

Sure, we get it. You are a model Catholic who believes the "doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture" held by the Catholic Church, as expressed by the Second Vatican Council, that "the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation."

And you follow it up: you don't just pay lip service to the idea, you are pro child slavery and the stoning of children to death. Well done you; you have convinced me that you have some extremely morally questionable ideas.
Posted by Arcanas 1 year ago
Arcanas
AKA: Went to profile ne switched from pro to con because I meant to put it at Con in the first place.
Posted by PericIes 1 year ago
PericIes
"...changed the view on abortion." - Arcanas
Posted by Arcanas 1 year ago
Arcanas
Doesn't matter... I already said that I misclicked on it and changed the view on abortion. It went from pro to con. Not "Before a certain date" to "Only in the case of rape" etc. Pay closer attention lol.
Posted by PericIes 1 year ago
PericIes
"Views" is plural. This can refer to multiple views of and in support of abortion. For example, when a fetus becomes a person, whether it is moral or immoral, etc. You do know that someone can form an opinion on more than one aspect of a particular thing, yes?
Posted by Arcanas 1 year ago
Arcanas
"Views"

Views is plural bro. This suggests that I changed both, while an already clarified that's not the case.
Posted by PericIes 1 year ago
PericIes
I said "changed views." This can refer to views on abortion specifically, or at least your representation of them. Don't try semantics if you're not good at them. :P
Posted by Arcanas 1 year ago
Arcanas
Also Pericles lied another time. I said the the abortion view was a missclick, but I do support gay marriage. Also I didn't even change the gay marriage view. Saying that I changed both and fully believe in both is simply not true, don't be dishonest.
Posted by Arcanas 1 year ago
Arcanas
@Pericles: Acutally I responded to you then went to bed... I'm typing responce now lol.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Unitomic 1 year ago
Unitomic
AndyHoodArcanasTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Simply put, Pro needs to show the Con is somehow a hypocrite. In no way did he do it. It doesn't matter how moral Con is (or isn't), or if what he believes is right. What matters here is if he's a hypocrite for believing it. Since Pro fails to show that, he loses arguments. This was the only point I was going to get, however, I have decided to give Con Conduct, since it is in no way acceptable to say he is lying about his personal beliefs simply because they hurt your case.
Vote Placed by Sidewalker 1 year ago
Sidewalker
AndyHoodArcanasTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: It was an odd challenge so my opinions before and after were tied and unchanged. I give the conduct edge to Con as Con followed the rules and Pro called him a liar. Both had acceptable spelling and grammar and neither used any sources other than the bible, tied. Con made the more convincing argument and Pro did not show him to be a hypocrite, simply calling Con a liar certainly does nothing to make Pro's case. Con simply refused to do anything hypocritical and won hands down. The challenge was ill conceived, appears Pro assumed he could rally anti-theistic sentiment to vote for him whether or not he actually proved his case, good to see that was a bad assumption, too often voters do vote their agenda rather than the facts of the debate.
Vote Placed by Skynet 1 year ago
Skynet
AndyHoodArcanasTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: The Atheist Inquisition by AndyHood is off to a poor start. (You need to make sure the jury is rigged first) On a side note, I find it hypocritical for Pro to put Con on trial for transgressing against morals Pro detests. Logically, Pro should praise Con, not condemn, if he thought he was a hypocrite. "These laws aren't just, and you don't follow them. Shame on you!"
Vote Placed by Bennett91 1 year ago
Bennett91
AndyHoodArcanasTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm confused where the punch line is. Pro pointed out some pretty immoral passages in the bible and Con agreed. By simply agreeing (as a christian), Con avoided hypocrisy. Sure Pro thought this was a lie, but how do we prove this? If a person where to live by the barbaric rules of the bible they wouldn't be a hypocrite, just a barbarian.
Vote Placed by Purple_Potato 1 year ago
Purple_Potato
AndyHoodArcanasTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to offer any proof of Con's hypocrisy, and therefore lost the debate. Smartly played by Con.
Vote Placed by Domr 1 year ago
Domr
AndyHoodArcanasTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro never showed any hypocrisy by Con, and then asked readers if we should "believe" what Con says. Every debate like this would be moot, if readers assume one person is lying. Pro loses conduct for this.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
AndyHoodArcanasTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro never offered any evidence to support his claims. He simply implied Con was lying. At no time did Pro "reveal hypocrisy".