The Instigator
DakotaKrafick
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
GenesisCreation
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

Each of the Ten Commandments is either unnecessary or incomplete.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 4 votes the winner is...
GenesisCreation
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/27/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,024 times Debate No: 21531
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (4)

 

DakotaKrafick

Pro

THE PROPOSITION

The full proposition that I will be defending is as follows: "Each of the Ten Commandments (as listed in the King James' Version of the Bible) is either unnecessary or incomplete for morally governing the lives of everyone." If my opponent can convince the audience that just one of the Ten Commandments is complete and necessary for every moral person to follow throughout each of their lives, he/she wins.

DEFINITIONS

Unnecessary: not needed.
Incomplete: lacking something necessary or important.
Morally: for the betterment or sustainment of well-being.
Everyone: every person who exists.

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain.
4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates.
5. Honour thy father and thy mother.
6. Thou shalt not kill.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8. Thou shalt not steal.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is thy neighbor's.

THE DEBATE STRUCTURE

Round one is reserved for acceptance only.

For round two, I will present my cases against each of the commandments, and then we'll naturally take it from there. The structure is fairly loose on this one.

I thank my future opponent and the viewers for making this debate possible, and am looking forward to it.

SIDE NOTE

Maikuru said he was disappointed that my opponent in the last one forfeited all of his rounds (as was I), so I'm remaking it for you. Let's finish it this time.
GenesisCreation

Con

I accept the debate challenge. Excellent topic. I'm looking forward to the discussion.
Debate Round No. 1
DakotaKrafick

Pro

Thank you, GenesisCreation, for accepting this debate.

1. Worshipping one particular deity over another in no clear way benefits to your well-being. You could be an atheist who worships no gods, or a pagan who worships them all; it is simply unrelated to physical and mental health.
And, of course, we can think of examples where this commandment is actually detrimental to well-being. For instance, if I had been born in certain places in the Middle East and worshipped Jesus instead of Allah, I could suffer horrible consequences such as execution.

Revised version: "You shall have freedom of religion, and you may worship whichever gods please you, or none at all."

2. This one also seems greatly irrelevant to physical and mental health. There is no clear connection at all between not creating a likeliness of things in the ocean and well-being. In fact, by this standard, Finding Nemo is quite sinful.

Revised version: "You shall have freedom of press, and you may make images of whatever you like, be them real or constructs of the imagine, to educate or entertain or anything in between or for no reason at all."

3. Screw this commandment and screw God. There. I feel no physical or mental harm from having typed that. In fact, I feel a little better.

Revised version: "You shall have freedom of speech to say whatever you want."

4. For those who do not know, the sabbath is from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday. This means no one at all is allowed to work during this time. It is prohibited for teachers to educate, for the police to respond to calls, and for doctors to perform surgery.
If you can't see why this is detrimental to our overall well-being, then I don't know how else to convince you.

Revised version: "You shall have freedom to work whenever you want to or need to. Do not neglect your duties just for the sake of neglecting them."

5. Now we're past the silly ones. This commandment seems to be a good one on the face of it, but what of a child who's been abused (physically and/or sexually) by his parents? Should this child still honor his/her abusers? No; almostanyone can have a child, from pedophiles to sociopaths. This does not automatically place them on a high pedestal to be honored.

Revised version: "You shall honor whomever you feel is deserving of your reverence, and if that means no one, then so be it."

6. This one appears to be solidly virtuous, yet is very much incomplete. I think we can all agree that killing people is generally not a good way to promote health. But what if someone attacks you or a loved one first? It should be within your right to defend yourself as necessary.
Ideally, you would be able to stop your attacker without killing him, but that is not always a viable option. What if a rapist breaks into the apartment of an eighty-year-old woman who happens to keep a loaded gun by her bedside? I don't know what kind of grandmothers you've encountered, but most of the ones I've met have been, at the very least, unable to expertly perform mixed martial arts in such a way as to demobilize an attacker.
Even more obviously, this ambiguous commandment completely rules out the very basic practice of hunting or killing for survival. Should we all follow this, we would have to mimic vultures and wait for our prey to die on its own.

Revised version: "You shall not kill another human, unless it is necessary for your survival."

7. Again, another one which, on the surface, appears virtuous, but is incomplete. What if, for instance, you lived in a foreign country and were forced into an arranged marriage with someone who you've never even met. This would make you and the one who you actually love victims to a terrible scenario. Would cheating on your stranger of a spouse for the one you actually love be the appalling act this commandment would have you believe it is? I assert not, and this should be obvious to any morally-driven human being.

Revised version: "You shall have freedom to sexually express yourself as you please with whoever is of age and consent."

8. Surely, this must be a perfect law, right? No one likes to have their stuff stolen, so therefore, no one should steal other people's stuff. Right?
Not quite. I shall call the problem faced by this commandment the Aladdin Dilemma, and anyone familiar with the film may understand why immediately.
Imagine you are homeless, and have been for awhile. You're hungry so you beg for change, but no one will give you even a nickel. There are no homeless shelters nor soup kitchens in the entire town. You could, perhaps, travel to a city that has one, but in which direction? Everyone is either unable or unwilling to point the way. You could dumpster dive for old scraps, but that might be even more harmful to your health than remaining hungry, considering the bacteria that certainly would have made the scraps their home by now.
Your only option, then, is to steal food so that you don't starve to death. Is this, though, morally right, even if it is necessary for your own survival? After all, you are taking away food from potential customers who would have bought it. And the grocery store you stole from would not gain profit.
It should be evident, though, that preventing your stomach from devouring itself does, indeed, have more benefit than harm. The potential customers who would have bought whatever you stole will not suffer nearly as much, as they can simply buy something else. Equally, the owners of the grocery store may take a small financial hit, but they will not suffer nearly as much as you would have by letting yourself starve to death.
Now let's look at another dilemma presented by this commandment: what if someone broke into your home, stole all the money in your secret hiding place (say, six-hundred dollars), and made off with it without leaving any evidence for the police to prosecute him. You, however, knew the robber personally and knew that he had done this. He even admits it to you in conversation.
I assert that, without any other option (as the police are unable to help you), it is not morally wrong to steal back the money that was rightfully yours to begin with.

Revised version: "You shall not steal something that should not belong to you, unless it is necessary for your survival."

9. To "not bear false witness" is a particularly vague phrase (much of the reason why this commandment is incomplete). Many people interpret it to mean "not lie". However, we can think of a thousand or more examples where lying gives only benefit to any parties involved. Little white lies, such as "No, that doesn't make you look fat" or "Your baby sure is cute", are obvious examples.
A more serious example could be when an atheist nurse is care-taking a very religious and elderly patient who begins to doubt her faith. "Do you think there's a Heaven," she asks on her deathbed. It is not morally wrong to lie in this situation, as it only makes the patient feel better in her final moments with no negative repercussions to well-being at all.

Revised version: "You shall not lie, unless lying does more good than harm."

10. This commandment may be as silly as the first four. It states that if your neighbor has nice things, you shouldn't yearn to have them. I must say, I'm relieved the United States doesn't get its legal inspiration from the commandments, for capitalism would surely crumble quickly under a law such as this.
Furthermore, this commandment condemns thought crime, something which harms utterly no one.

Revised version: "You shall have freedom of thought and desire, and the freedom to strive to get the things you desire, if it so pleases you."

In conclusion, I have shown that each and every one of the Ten Commandments is either incomplete or unnecessary for morally guiding the lives of everyone. Unless my opponent can show why just one of my revised versions is not better than the original, your vote should go to Pro.
GenesisCreation

Con

Definitions:

tru·ism[troo-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
a self-evident, obvious truth.

ax·i·om[ak-see-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1. a self-evident truth that requires no proof.
2. a universally accepted principle or rule.
3. Logic, Mathematics . a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the
consequences that follow from it.




I will argue that the ten commandments are axiomatic principles; practical truisms for everyday life.
The only measure of proof should be found in practical applications. Since the first four commandment
require faith in God, we must focus on generally neutral commandments to measure a benefit.
(After all, we cannot measure the benefit of obedient worship if the subjects do not practice religion.)
Since I only need to convince the voter that one of these commandments proves beneficial, I will focus on the last six.
5. Honour thy father and thy mother.

A generally sensible commandment. We can see this benefit,
if we are a parent. It would be generally beneficial for our quality of life,
to have children who respect us and listen to our guidance.

6. Thou shall not kill.

Again, a generally sensible commandment. We can see this
benefit, if we desire not to be murdered.

7. Thou shall not commit adultery.

This commandment is a little bit more flexible today than it
was 50 years ago. However, monogamy is still a commonly held virtue and thus
this commandment is beneficial for members of society that invest time, money
and emotion into a committed relationship.

8. Thou shall not steal.

This commandment proves beneficial if we desire to keep our
valuable possessions.

9. Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

This commandment proves virtuous if you don't want to be
accused of crimes that you did not commit. There is real benefit in not
spending extended periods of time in a prison for crimes you are innocent of.

10. Thou shall not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shall
not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor
his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is thy neighbor's.

This commandment proves beneficial if you want to keep your
neighbor out of your wife. Some folk find it deeply offensive when a neighbor
is making a romantic advance on their spouse.

All of these six commandments are axiomatic. The benefits are self-evident. While the real proof is deeply personal,
I cannot put the voter's feelings down as a reference. Therefore, I will provide references of people who
advanced the general truth behind these commandments.
References:

Honor thy mother and thy father:
http://www.focusas.com...

This link gives insight into the lives of children who did not listen to their parents and ran away
from home. The statistics will show that run-away teens are prone to drug addiction and prostitution.

Thou shall not kill / Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's wife:
http://www.chicagotribune.com...;
This source covers two truisms. It is generally undesirableto deal with the emotional pain of a murdered spouse.
It is just as traumatic to the victim, when she was raped by a man who coveted her.

Thou shall not commit adultery:

http://collegemhc.academia.edu...

This source compares infidelity to the pain of death. It is a research article concerning the healing process
after adultery has taken place. The mere existence of this article gives credence to the destructive nature of
infidelity, where monogamy was the intent.

Thou shall not steal:
http://www.ncvc.org...;
This source is a statistical outline concerning the economic, emotional and societal impact of robbery. These statistics clearly
point out a victim group. We can safely rest in the self-evident truth, that theft is undesirable.

Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor:

This article outlines the negative fallout of being falsely accused of crime. We se evidence of persons being
jailed for murder, assault and sex crimes when they are innocent. The primary evidence used against these
victims was "false testimony".

Conclusion:

The entire argument is based on a person's desire not to be a victim. My opponent has argued on a basis
of unchained freedom to do what-ever his heart desires. My argument focus on the polar opposite. What
happens when you fall victim to persons who live unrestricted by moral guidelines?
My opponent may claim:" We can have morality outside of the ten commandments!"

Sure. That's not the argument though and that doesn't erase the ten commandments. They still
exist and they are well within the guidelines of axiomatic morality.

It would appear that my opponent has a problem with the source, rather than the substance.
Unfortunately, that's not an objective component of this debate.
I will post rebuttal next round, since this round was primarily for opening arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
DakotaKrafick

Pro

Thanks for your response, Genesis Creation.

"I will post rebuttal next round, since this round was primarily for opening arguments."
I remind my opponent that I stated this in the introduction: "For round two, I will present my cases against each of the commandments, and then we'll naturally take it from there. The structure is fairly loose on this one." I was actually hoping that my opponent would begin his refutations as soon as possible, since now it seems a round had been wasted. However, I am probably to blame for not having created a more rigid structure for this debate. I digress.

I must also remind my opponent that the proposition is this: "Each of the Ten Commandments (as listed in the King James' Version of the Bible) is either unnecessary or incomplete for morally governing the lives of everyone" and "everyone" is defined as "every person who exists". You must not only prove that one of the commandments is "generally" good, but that it is "always" good; not that one of them is satisfactory, but totally infallible.

My opponent says we can generally see the benefits of the last six commandments, but in no way even hints to have having read anything I typed in objection to them. Therefore, I will keep this brief and await my opponent's actual refutations.

5. Honor thy mother and father

Again, this may be a good rule of thumb for many (or even most) situations. But it is wicked to expect a victim of child abuse to honor his/her abuser(s).

6. Thou shall not kill

This commandment does not read "Thou shall not murder" but "Thou shall not kill". Therefore, it necessarily includes all acts of self-defense and even the killing of animals for food.

7. Thou shall not commit adultery.

Generally, people in modern cultures do appreciate this commandment. However, my scenario of an arranged marriage remains unchallenged.

8. Thou shall not steal.

It's true. Nobody likes to have their stuff stolen. But which is worse, a supermarket losing four or five sandwiches or a family starving to death? My opponent also does not address the idea of stealing things which were stolen from you in the first place.

9. Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

Yes, lying in a court of law could potentially send an innocent person to prison (though testimonies are hardly considered substantiated evidence by themselves); conversely, though, it is conceivable that lying in a court of law could potentially allow an innocent person who was being unjustly tried go free. For example, if your innocent wife was on trial for homicide, you could fabricate an alibi saying she was with you at the time of the murder to avoid her being sent to prison. Such a thing is, of course, legally wrong, but is it morally wrong?

10. Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's stuff.


My opponent says this commandment proves beneficial if you want to keep your neighbor away from your things. Perhaps, then, the commandment should read "Thou shall not try to take your neighbor's stuff that doesn't belong to you" instead of "Thou shall not think about taking your neighbor's stuff that doesn't belong to you".

My opponent goes on to make two unsubstantiated claims about me:
1. "My opponent has argued on a basis of unchained freedom to do what-ever his heart desires."

I am not trying to argue that it is morally right to do whatever you please; I am simply arguing that none of the ten commandments provides complete and necessary guidance for everyone. Where, Con, did I say that people should have unchained freedom to do whatever his/her heart desires?

2. "It would appear that my opponent has a problem with the source, rather than the substance."

This is another baseless and irrelevant objection. The fact that these ten commandments came out of the Bible is totally inconsequential to the debate at hand. The problem, by the way, that I have with these commandments is not where they came from, but what they claim to be moral tenets for lives of everyone.

Over to you, Con.
GenesisCreation

Con

Pro said: You must not only prove that one of the commandments is "generally" good, but that it is "always" good; not that one of them is satisfactory, but totally infallible.

Rebuttal: I agreed to no such strawman debate. I agreed to your loosely defined resolution. " If my opponent can convince the audience that just one of the Ten Commandments is complete and necessary for every moral person to follow throughout each of their lives, he/she wins."

Each of the commandments are complete. Their current incarnation is the finished, final draft.

Each of these commandments is necessary for every moral person. However, that's not my full burden of proof. I just need to convince the voter that one of these is necessary for every moral person. To clear up any further confusion, your definition of moral is illiterate.



mor·al [mawr-uhl, mor-] Show IPA





adjective

1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.



2. expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.



3. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.



4. capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.



5. conforming to the rules of right conduct ( opposed to immoral): a moral man.





However, I will gladly use your definition of moral.

- Unless you wish to be murdered, the commandment which demands that we do not kill will "sustain your well-
being
."

- Unless you want your possessions stolen, it is moral not to steal because it sustains your well-being.
- Unless you want random strangers to have sex with your wife, the commandment which dictates that we "shall
not covet" another man's wife is highly beneficial to the sustainment or betterment of our well-being.



Further Rebuttals:

Pro said: it is wicked to expect a victim of child abuse to honor his/her abuser(s).

Answer: Honor does not mean to "suffer abuse". If parents cease to act honorably, then child is allowed to seek help. The commandment is axiomatic. It does not say:"Honor your parents, even if they beat you bloody and use you as an ashtray."

Pro said:This commandment does not read "Thou shall not murder" but "Thou shall not kill".

Answer: Actually it does say, thou shall not murder. "
The Hebrew word (ratsach) and the Greek Word (phonenō) which are used in the Sixth Commandment both clearly mean "murder.""[1]

Pro said: "my scenario of an arranged marriage remains unchallenged."

Answer:
Not really. Arranged marriage has nothing to do with adultery. Adultery is sex outside of marriage. Whether a woman is enslaved into an arranged marriage has no bearing on adulterous behavior.

Pro Said::My opponent also does not address the idea of stealing things which were stolen from you in the first place.
Answer: That's not the definition of stealing. That's reclamation.


Pro said:"lying in a court of law could potentially allow an innocent person who was being unjustly tried go free."

Answer: If you need to lie for someone who is under high suspicion of crime, you will actually damage their case if you are found to be lying. The benefit does not outweigh the consequence. You chance her being falsely imprisoned based solely on your moral deficit. It harms her character before the jury to fabricate false witnesses.

I find this scenario silly.

Arguments extended to next round.



Reference:
http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org... [1]

Debate Round No. 3
DakotaKrafick

Pro

Arguing the conditions of the debate...gotta love it.

"I agreed to no such strawman debate."


Actually, you did. Perhaps there was a misunderstanding in the way I said you have to prove one of them is "always good" or "infallible", but that is indeed your burden of proof in this debate.

You must prove one of the commandments is complete and necessary (which is what I meant by "infallible") for morally guiding the lives of everyone (not just most people, which is what I meant by "always good"). This is what was clearly articulated in the first round of the debate.

"Each of the commandments are complete. Their current incarnation is the finished, final draft."

Yes, I understand that they are the final drafts, but you're using a different definition of "complete" than I posed in the instigation. Complete, for the purposes of this debate's proposition, is "not lacking anything important". I'm not going to argue semantics by saying "Each of the ten commandments is incomplete because it fails to include the other nine" so I expect you to respectfully do the same.

"To clear up any further confusion, your definition of moral is illiterate."

Thanks, but it's the only definition relevant to the debate, since it's the one I used in the instigation.

"However, I will gladly use your definition of moral."

Good, because you already did by accepting this debate.

Refutations

5. Honor thy abusers
"If parents cease to act honorably, then child is allowed to seek help."

In that case, then the commandment is lacking something important (incomplete). It should read "Honor thy mother and father, unless they cease to act honorably".

6. Thou shall be a pacifist wimp
"Actually it does say, thou shall not murder. "The Hebrew word (ratsach) and the Greek Word (phonenō) which are used in the Sixth Commandment both clearly mean "murder.""[1]"

Completely irrelevant. If you look at he proposition again (the one you agreed to debate), you will see that it says "The Ten Commandments (as listed in the King James' Version of the Bible) [...]" We are not debating any other texts but the ones I provided.

7. Thou shall be forced to sex only your arranged marriage spouse
"Not really. Arranged marriage has nothing to do with adultery. Adultery is sex outside of marriage. Whether a woman is enslaved into an arranged marriage has no bearing on adulterous behavior."

Yes, I know that, Con. My hypothetical scenario depicts the problem this commandments faces when met with an arranged marriage. That is, the two people involved (who could very well be strangers) can only have sex with each other and not whoever they may actually love.

8. Thou shall not be a klepto
"That's not the definition of stealing. That's reclamation."

Yes, and that's not a rectangle; it's a square. In many cases, reclamation can also be stealing. And my opponent still has not addressed the starving family scenario.

9. Thou shall not lie
"I find this scenario silly."

You are free to do so, but it is still a very real scenario. In fact, just the other day, one of my friends was struck in the side of the face after leaving work by another co-worker. When the police arrived, everyone was claiming to have seen nothing. Would it have been morally wrong for me to lie and say that I saw it (when I actually didn't) so that justice could be served to the attacker?

10. Thou shall not think what you want

My opponent doesn't address this one. Arguments extended.

Conclusion

My opponent has failed to explain why just one of these commandments is complete and necessary for morally guiding the lives of everyone (as well as failing to understand the conditions of the debate). He, in no way, has explained why any of my revised versions of the commandments is not better than the real versions.

Therefore, vote Pro or vote for the downfall of human ethics itself.
GenesisCreation

Con

Pro has declared that I have the burden of proof for each commandment, despite his very own words proclaiming the opposite:"If my opponent can convince the audience that just one of the Ten Commandments is complete and necessary for every moral person to follow throughout each of their lives, he/she wins."

This quote is the opening paragraph of the resolution. I accepted my burden of proof within the confines of the resolution. My burden was to provide evidence for one commandment. I far exceeded my burden by tackling six. Pro is complaining about this in an attempt to attack my character, not my evidence. (Since he did not supply any sources or evidence of his own, at all.)

 

Pro said: You must prove one of the commandments is complete and necessary (which is what I meant by "infallible")

If my opponent failed to properly define the rules for this debate, that's his problem. I followed the resolution. I have committed no offense against my opponent. In fact, he admits to carelessly compiling this debate. He said :"The structure is fairly loose on this one." I'm not sure if this was done out of hubris or apathy, but it only served to backfire.

This is a debate, not a forum. You've drawn a serious opponent. I'd advise a little more clarity and a little less condescension for your next debate.


Pro said that
"Complete" means," for the purposes of this debate's proposition, is "not lacking anything important". "

Excellent. That is synonymous with my definition of complete. Final draft, finished product, no more revision added.


Pro said
: "It should read "Honor thy mother and father, unless they cease to act honorably"."

No, it shouldn't. The focus of this commandment is not the legalism. The focus is the word "honor". That's axiomatic. We don't need to add your amendment, because the word "honor" is in direct opposition to the principles of "abusive parents".


Pro argued
that the commandment states" thou shall no kill", rather than "thou shall not murder". I provided proof that he was wrong. To which he claimed: "Completely irrelevant."

False, good sir. It is completely relevant. That proof decimated Pro's argument in it's entirety. In fact, he had nothing more to say about it, aside from red-faced, angry objections.


Pro said
: "hypothetical scenario depicts the problem this commandments faces when met with an arranged marriage."

That's the best argument Pro could provide. If a woman was forced to marry a man, it would be moral for her to cheat on him. Perhaps Pro doesn't understand morality. If this scenario was real, would it not be moral for the wife to abstain from sex with another person, so that she could confront her husband in divorce court without having charges of infidelity brought up against her?

In addition, he made his radical assumption without providing statistical evidence that arranged marriages lead to adultery, or that arranged marriages are unhappy marriages. My argument stands unchallenged. Adultery is immoral in every conceivable situation.


Pro said
: In many cases, reclamation can also be stealing. And my opponent still has not addressed the starving family scenario.

No, reclamation is never stealing. If it's truly your property, it's not theft to reclaim it. As for the starving family, you also haven't addressed it. I see no single source that claims stealing food is better than visiting the local food-shelf or (drum roll) your local church, who are honor bound to feed the hungry, the poor, clothe the naked..etc.

My argument stands unchallenged aside from more angry protest.


Pro gave a scenario about his friend being attacked. He asked if it would be immoral to bear false witness, in order to bring in the offender on rigtfull charges.

Again, yes it's immoral. I have already answered this with a solid counter-argument. If the attacker is able to furnish proof that you have lied (proving you where absent from viewing the attack), then he has damaged the credibility of the victim. He will also be able to hold you in contempt of court, criminally charging you with false testimony. That's a felony. Your scenario remains silly.

My argument stands unchallenged by any real objections.


Pro claims
: Thou shall not think what you want. My opponent doesn't address this one.

I hate to sound condescending, but what are you talking about? Is this supposed to be a reference to "coveting your neighbors wife"? I addressed it in previous rounds and my argument stands unchallenged by anything of source or merit.

Pro's only objection is, that he should be free to desire and acquire anything he wants, unrestricted by method. I clearly showed a victim group in this scenario and proving it immoral to live according to this doctrine of "absolute freedom". His only rebuttal can be summarized as:" Yea, but I still want to do what ever I want, so you're wrong."

 

 

Conclusion:

My opponent made a lot of noise and used zero sources.

Each of his objections were answered with counter-argument and supporting evidence. I provided proof that his morality creates a victim group in every instance. My burden of proof stands fulfilled by the mere fact that they stand unchallenged by any argument of substance, source or merit.

I thank the voter for reading this debate material, and I thank my opponent for a truly entertaining debate. I have enjoyed this debate topic immensely.

Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MikeyMike 4 years ago
MikeyMike
Dakota, I will debate that with you.

Justify-to declare innocent or guiltless; absolve; acquit.
Posted by DakotaKrafick 4 years ago
DakotaKrafick
Want to debate that statement, ChristianOnly?
Posted by ChristianOnly 4 years ago
ChristianOnly
@Instigator being homeless does not justifie stealing from others.
Posted by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
I will try to give this a read-through and vote soon.
Posted by DakotaKrafick 4 years ago
DakotaKrafick
"Pro has declared that I have the burden of proof for each commandment, despite his very own words proclaiming the opposite"

I really don't understand the confusion here. I don't remember ever saying you had the burden of proof of more than one commandment.
Posted by TeaForTheParty 4 years ago
TeaForTheParty
God's laws make perfect sense to those who accept and submit themselves to Him ;) We are not obedient to His laws to become saved, but obedient to His laws because we are saved. Yes, people have a choice to become Chirstian, but when it comes down to it, who on earth would choose Hell over Heaven? I don't know... These people who give little regard to their eternity are gonna stand before God in the end and say, "Hey, wait, I didn't choose to go to Hell!" Maybe not, but ignorance is not an excuse and even though God is extremely merciful, not everyone is going to Heaven. I'm not risking it :) Good debate btw! Both sides give well thought-out arguments. I've enjoyed reading it.
Posted by DakotaKrafick 4 years ago
DakotaKrafick
Thanks for the sermon. I think I'll stick to beliefs that actually makes sense.
Posted by johnwagner 4 years ago
johnwagner
It is God who will tell us how necessary the Ten Commandments are:

ROMANS 3: 19
Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.

God spelled the Law out for us so there can never be an excuse for what He demands of us.

A perfectly just God uses His standards to judge mankind. Can anyone keep His law perfectly? No, but they are NECESSARY to show us how we all fall short and deserve His punishment for breaking His laws. But is does not end there. God is a loving God as much as He is a just God. He came to this earth as the God/man, Jesus Christ, to keep the law perfectly in our behalf. He also took all of the punishment upon Himself - the punishment that we deserve for breaking His laws and credited it to us as having paid for our own sins. This is how God satisfies His justice. Take Him at His word.
Posted by DakotaKrafick 4 years ago
DakotaKrafick
I apologize, Genesis Creation, and the viewers for having to resort to memory, or my first round, or some other method in order to discern which commandments I'm talking about in the list. Upon completion of my second round, my remaining character limit was virtually zero.
Posted by larztheloser 4 years ago
larztheloser
I like to restrict myself to one God-related debate at a time, otherwise I would immediately take this.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by vmpire321 4 years ago
vmpire321
DakotaKrafickGenesisCreationTied
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: Nvm.
Vote Placed by Doulos1202 4 years ago
Doulos1202
DakotaKrafickGenesisCreationTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con held BOP per Pro's requests in round 1. Awesome arguments presented by Con. Pro clearly stated in round one that if Con is able to convince the audience that just one of the ten commandments is complete then he/she wins. Con argued successfully in round 3.
Vote Placed by SuburbiaSurvivor 4 years ago
SuburbiaSurvivor
DakotaKrafickGenesisCreationTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: In the last round, Con engaged in a few insults "Red-faced, angry objections" isn't entirely necessary. Other then that, Con clearly refuted all of Pro's objections. I think Con could've elaborated on the definition of "honor". But other then that, Pro had to rely on shaky examples. Not to mention Pro failed to realize that the ten commandments were originally written in Hebrew. Thus the Hebrew translation is really what he's attacking.
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 4 years ago
ConservativePolitico
DakotaKrafickGenesisCreationTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to show how EACH (meaning every one) commandment was unnecessary or incomplete. Con successfully refuted at least one of the commandments. Pros arguments concerning adultery were extremely weak when he said love had to do with sex when the commandment has nothing to do with love but instead marriage. it was in such instances of these that I felt Pros arguments to be extremely weak. Also, Pro used NO sources while Con sourced his definitions and certain info.