Resolved: American government ought follow Biblical principles in making decisions for the country.
This round can be either for acceptance or for opening arguments. I chose to just use acceptance for this round.
I accept. Since my viewpoint will most likely be considered the extreme, I suppose I must accept the burden of proof. I have the feeling that I may be the underdog but I will argue objectively and confidently. Thank you for such a great debate topic.
Before continuing, I would like to define the following key terms:
Christianity: The religion basd on the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, or its beliefs and practices. Christianity is today the world's most widespread religion, mainly divided among the Roman Catholic, Protestant, or Eastern Orthodox Churches.
(The Oxford American College Dictionary)
Society: an enduring and cooperating social group whose members have developed organized patterns of relationships through interaction with one another; a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests. (The Merriam-Webster Dictionary)
With these definitions, we can place the following paramaters on the resolution of this debate:
Observation 1: The debates must analyze both the doctrine of Christianity itself based on its core protocol: The Bible. In addition, the debates must also analyze the general beliefs of the people practicing the protocol as well as their practice of Christianity and how it has affected society.
And now, to my argument:
Contention 1: Christianity's protocol is inherently flawed
As we must analyze Christianity at its protocol, this contention will show us how the main protocol for the religion in question is inherently flawed. The Bible is the central guide for the practice of the religion, and it is notoriously known to be promotional of immoral actions, contradictory in reasoning and idealisms, and possibly illegitimate with objective analysis on the documentation and traslations thereof. With such a flawed document, we realize that this such doctrine is not optimal or even suboptimal for society, but dangerous for the society.
Sub 1a: Christian doctrine promotes immoral actions
From condemnation of homosexuals to sexism to genocide, the Bible has been a staunch promoter of inherently immoral actions that are poisonous to the society. These actions have resulted in negative effects whether subtle or extreme, and there mere quality of the protocol being immoral shows that it prompts for an immoral society and ought not be considered a doctrine worthy of creating a social structure. Such immoral actions promoted in the Bible are shown below:
Biblical Promotion of Sexism
Colossians 3:18; 1 Corinthians 11:3; Genesis 3:16
Biblical Condemnation of Homosexuals
Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:23; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Romans 1:18-32
Biblical Condemnation of Other Religions
Deuteronomy 13:13-19; Deuteronomy 13:7-12
Sub 1b: The Bible may not be totally legitimate in documentation
In addition to the Biblical text being thousands of years old, translated countless times, and having a possibility of being misinterpreted through the entire course of its existence, but new research shows us that the Bible's authors may not have been qualified for interpretations because of their lack of connections to temples, as shown in the following article:
"Special Software Sheds Light on Who Really Wrote the Bible."--30 June 2011;
Contention 2: Christianity has been detrimental to society
Not only shall we look at the actual religious doctrine itself, but analyze the effect that Christianity has had on the society through history, and we will notice that Christianity has been a poison in not only text, but effects of the text.
Sub 1a: Christianity has inhibited science
Science is required in order for society to better itself by enhancing knowledge about the natural world. However, more often than once has Christianity prevented science from developing properly and quickly. The best examples could be the treatment of Galileo Galilei after his proposal on the idea of heliocentrism or the infamous Scopes Trial in Tennessee 1925.
Sub 1b: Christianity has prompted for bigotry and inequality
The teachings of Christianity have prompted general hatred against groups of people in the country, leading many minorities including gays, Muslims, atheists, and others to be subjected to inequality and hatred by the community. The examples are endless as to how Christianity has done this. An excellent example would be Rev. Jerry Falwell's comments after 9/11.
Contention 3: The good things from Christianity are irrelevant
When we analyze what Christianity really has done and what kind of idealism and doctrine it tries to place over society, we notice that Christianity is essentially attempting to make as many people in the society adhere to their doctrine. People are pretty much condemned if they deviate from the doctrine in any way, and because the good things aren't totally genuine if they're trying to better the all of society just to install this doctrine and condemn anyone if they deviate from it, we can argue that the good things from Christianity are pretty much irrelevant.
Contention 4: The use of Biblical principles as guidance through the rule of government is inherently immoral.
This action is an imposition of principles over the people of the country is an action of suppression over the minority because it takes the beliefs of a majority and imposes them over society, thus violating the personal rights of people.
My standard for morality: The Universal Statement of Moral Obligations- John L. Perkins
Con is cheating. Con has outlined the rules for the debate in Round 2, after I accepted based on the title resolution.
The Title resolution has nothing to do with Christianity. The Title resolution concerns the Bible, not its followers, or the actions of its followers. Con has built a “bait and switch” argument. I will not discuss the actions of historical Christianity. It has nothing to do with the debate.
It would be similar for me to post a debate about the legitimacy of the constitution and then change the debate resolution to be against practitioners of constitutional law.
(Obviously, not all Americans practice constitutional law and most of those that do, fail to interpret the laws correctly. Very few Americans actually read and practice the law as it was intended. Shall I now argue that the Constitution is flawed because Americans are intrinsic outlaws?)
Con has taken a coward’s approach to this debate. I will only address the Biblical source objections in Con’s argument.
Refuting Argument 1: Biblical Promotion of Sexism
To make sure the argument is in context, I will actually supply a verse. My opponent has dodged his responsibility in this.
Colossians 3:18- Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them. Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord. (Colossians 3:18-20 ESV)
Con argues that “submission” is equal to slavery. Con ignores the second part of this verse: as is fitting in the Lord.”
Here is a full section, in context:
25Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up
As we can see, it is not slavery. It is a profound, deep, mysterious love that far exceeds the secular idea of the generalized “biochemical” emotional concept. The Biblical unpacking of love and marriage is described as intrinsically supernatural and overwhelmingly connecting.
Con may point out that Christians do not preach this or practice it. I would argue, that has nothing to do with the Bible. That is an indication of a broken Christian, not a broken Bible.
Answering argument 2: Condemnation of Homosexuals - Leviticus
Again, Con has run away from supplying the verse, stating his sources as “matter of fact”. As if his references explain themselves by some axiomatic magic. Here is a verse:
Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination
Con does not understand the language being presented in this statement. Take a look at the second half of this verse: “it is an abomination”.
1. anything abominable; anything greatly disliked or abhorred.
2. intense aversion or loathing;
3. a vile, shameful, or detestable
Did God say that having feelings of homosexuality is evil? No! The Bible calls the act of homosexual intercourse an abomination. Let’s unpack that.
Why would anyone find it detestable to join their genitalia with a rectum? The human rectum was not designed to function as a vagina. It is part of your intestine. You dispose of large amounts of foul smelling, nauseating, bacteria saturated waste from this part of your body. Your intestines have a special lining to protect the rest of your body from the substances that are inert to your bowels. Homosexual intercourse blatantly ignores secular scientific reasoning. It’s unhealthy, especially in those times. No antibiotics!
Secular medical source – Health warnings http://www.mayoclinic.com...
Interesting. Just how dirty is it "in there"? http://www.appliedozone.com...
Con’s Fox-news sources are invalid. The links are broken. They take you to the fox-news homepage. Provide better sources and I will address the “software” Con speaks of.
I have been so busy defending irrational accusations and character attacks on Christianity, that I am almost out of room to post my own arguments. Let’s take a look at some statistics. These numbers study a general moral decline after the Bible was taken out of the classroom:
A. Young People
1. For 15 years before 1963 pregnancies in girls ages 15 through 19 years had been no more than 15 per thousand After 1963 pregnancies increased 187% in the next 15 years.
2. For younger girls, ages 10 to 14 years, pregnancies since 1963 are up 553%.
3. Before 1963 sexually transmitted diseases among students were 400 per 100,000. Since 1963, they were up 226% in the next 12 years.
1. Before 1963 divorce rates had been declining for 15 years. After 1963 divorces increased 300% each year for the next 15 years.
2. Since 1963 unmarried people living together is up 353%
3. Since 1963 single parent families are up 140%.
4. Since 1963 single parent families with children are up 160%.
1. The educational standard of measure has been the SAT scores. SAT scores had been steady for many years before 1963. From 1963 they rapidly declined for 18 consecutive years, even though the same test has been used since 1941.
2. In 1974-75 the rate of decline of the SAT scores decreased, even though they continued to decline. That was when there was an explosion of private religious schools. There were only 1000 Christian schools in 1965. Between 1974 to 1984 they increased to 32,000.
a. That could have an impact if the private schools had higher SAT scores. In checking with the SAT Board it was found that indeed the SAT scores for private schools were nearly 100 points higher than public schools.
b. In fact the scores were at the point where the public schools had been before their decline started in 1963 when prayer and Bible reading/ instruction was removed from the schools.
c. The scores in the public schools were still declining.
3. Of the nation's top academic scholars, three times as many come from private religious schools, which operate on one-third the funds as do the public schools.
D. The Nation
1. Since 1963 violent crime has increased 544%.
3. Illegal drugs have become an enormous & uncontrollable problem.
2. The nation has been deprived of an estimated 30 million citizens through legal abortions just since 1973.
I thank my opponent for making his response, and I will move on to the iteration of my own rebuttal.
Resolution/Observation Rebuttal: It's very evident from even the very beginning of my opponent's rebuttal that he is twisted in his logic. He's saying that because of my discussion on the actions of Christianity in my second and third contentions, I'm deviating from the original resolution, even though that I provide an observation and definition in the beginning of my debate explaining that we must look at the actions of Christianity based on their protocol and clearly define Christianity as the teachings of Jesus Christ (outlined, I assume in the Bible). There really wouldn't be much to debate if we don't focus on what kind of effects would come out of installing Biblical principles in society. My opponent does the very same thing when he talks about the effects of talking the Bible out of classrooms and whatnot, so if he's trying to make an attack against me for analyzing the actions of religion based on Biblical principles, he's just as much in the wrong as I am for doing the exact same thing by analyzing what would happen if these Biblical principles were not installed. Based on this, I'm not violating any of the rules (which I have not established) by discussing the effects of Biblical principles. Rather, I'm making this debate more tangible, and everything still applies.
My Opponent's approach: At the point, then, where my opponent decides to ignore my second and third contentions and focus on my first one, the judges can extend my second and third contentions across the flow.
Sub-point 1a Defense: My opponent responds in no way to the Biblical clause Gensis 3:16, which stated the punishment not only for Eve but for all women, and this clause from the Bible upholds the idea that husbands are to rule over their wives. Extend this piece of evidence because my opponent made no argument against it. As for the evidence that my opponent has placed in response to my sub-point, the only thing that he really proves is that the Christian God argues for husband to love his wife. It doesn't deny the idea that women are supposed to be submissive to their husbands. My opponent obviously has no understanding of what "submissive" means because the submission of a person onto another is to take a subordinate position. At the end of the day, the woman is submitting to her husband, and at that point, it is clear that the woman is meant according to the word of the Bible to be under him.
Sub-point 1b Defense: Had my opponent responded to the Romans 1:18-32 evidence, he would've understood that the Bible clearly states that homosexuals are not to enter into the kingdom of heaven, for one thing. Extend this evidence. Furthermore, my opponent limits homosexual intercourse to anal sex, even though not all homosexuals engage in anal sex or even sexual intercourse for that matter, and homosexuals are not the only people who engage in anal sex. Oral sex can be unhealthy as well, and heterosexuals and homosexuals alike also engage in this. The main thing, then, that we have to focus on is the actual action of two men deciding to engage in homosexual intercourse of some sort rather than how they wish to achieve it, and this is not something that my opponent touches on at all.
Sub-point 1c Defense: I apologize for the broken link. I will provide a full citation at the end of my rebuttal.
Argument A, B, and C response: I have to point out the main two flaws in my opponent's argument. First, there's the evident fact that my opponent's statistics show a correlation of some sort, but not a causation. He basically states that pregnancies have gone up, divorce is higher, violent crime has increased, and education is poorer. He fails to explain how any of it was a result of not enforcing Christianity. For example, he makes the argument that education is failing right after the removal of the Bible, even though there is counterevidence to show that it wasn't the removal of religion from schools, like the Gwinnett School of Mathemetics, Science, and Technology in Lawrenceville, GA, which never fails to have soaring SAT scores even though Christianity is not a focus therein. Rather, a secular focus on education is the pinnacle. Was the decline because of the fact that Christianity was removed from classrooms, or was it because the Bible is so strong in reading level that it enforced the minds of youth when it came to reading? If Christianity, based on the implications of my opponent's case, is supposed to reduce these numbers, then why has violent crime increased even though we've had administrations of American presidents such as Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush who placed an emphasis on religion in their political actions? With his statistics, my opponent answers one question and leaves 50 others unanswered. He can't just slap on a statistic and call it proof. He needs to prove that it's proof too, basically, by providing the causation rather than ignoring lurking variables.
My opponent continues to argue on the basis of her definitions that she attempted to set forth in round two. As I've stated before, she is cheating. I won't address any points made outside the context of the agreed upon title resolution. No matter how hard she stomps her foot, no matter how loud she screams at Christians; this debate about the Bible, not about the Christians who follow it. She has already lied by this statement alone: Pro claims that "....I'm deviating from the original resolution, even though that I provide an observation and definition in the beginning of my debate explaining that we must look at the actions of Christianity based on their protocol and clearly define Christianity as the teachings of Jesus Christ (outlined, I assume in the Bible).
I ask the voter to please scroll up and find this observation and definition statement before I accepted the debate. Con is cheating. She added to the rules and changed the resolution focus from "Bible" to "Christian".
Con argues that the Bible teaches female "submission of a person onto another is to take a subordinate position."
Imagine a man and a woman, sleeping in their bed. They are awoken suddenly by the sound of a window breaking in their living room. The man turns to his wife and whispers:" Baby, wake up. Someone is breaking into our house. Go downstairs and check it out." The man now sits in his bed, clutching his blanket in fear, while his wife goes downstairs to face the intruder.
Let me ask this question to the voter. What do we call a man, who send his wife into danger, while he sits shaking in his bed?
The correct answer is:"We would call him a lot of things. One thing we would not call him is 'a man.'" Society expects men to be protective of their women. The role of a good husband is to be the Shepard of his household. We already practice the very concept that the Bible is unfolding in it's pages. Men are the head of the traditional household. If I am lying, then the husband in this scenario is rightfully sending his wife to face the intruder.
Con argues that the Bible condemns homosexuals. The Bible defines homosexuals as men who lay with other men, or women who sleep with other women. It does not condemn a person for feeling gay or for identifying with a gay lifestyle. It condemns the adulterous act of sex with another person of the same gender. I challenge Con to find a Bible verse that states:" God hates people who are drawn to homosexuality." The Bible clearly states, that God opposes "those who practice such things."
Galatians 5 19Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20idolatry, sorcery,
enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, 21envy,d drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Romans1: 26For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural
relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the
due penalty for their error. 28And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what
ought not to be done. 29They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of
envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.
Con makes the claim that the removal of the Bible from the classroom has been beneficial. Sources please.
In the mean time, here is sources that claim the exact opposite. The Bible is quite beneficial in the classroom.
Homeschools - http://www.christianpost.com...
Many Christian families educate their children at home because it affords more family time, inspires respect for parents, offers flexible hours for vacations and allows for religion and Biblical studies.
A National Home Education Research Institute study found that home learners consistently scored higher than public school students in social development - especially girls and older children.
Because families have commit themselves to homeschooling for a few decades, many college graduates should be productive adults, research shows.
Resolution Argument: Judges, I have explained to you that if there were no behaviors or actions coming from the text of the Bible, there wouldn't be a debate today because there would be no conflict in the first place. At the point where I am describing the actions of Christians and Christianity in the context of their impetus by Biblical principles, and providing an analysis at a moral level of implementing such measures in society, I am still adhering to the resolution because I am still addressing the Biblical principles by explaining how they have an effect in society. It's evident that my opponent not only has poor understanding of my case but also is contradictory to his own standards considering that he talks about how we need to focus on the Bible but places statistics on how administering the Bible has had an effect on society--meaning that he's analyzing the effects of institutionalizing Christianity and the protocol thereof, the same thing that I am doing with my other contentions outside of Contention 1.
Sexism Argument: My opponent has made absolutely no argument against anything I said in the previous rebuttal about the sexism in the Bible, so it should be extended. If anything, my opponent has supplemented everything I have said by stating that the role of good husbands is to be shepherds and that men are heads of households, inherently subordinating the women of the household. Since my opponent wants to bring scenarios into this, I'll pull one up as well: A woman decides that she wants a job and become part of the labor force doing a career that she has always loved, but her husband tells her that her place is to stay at home, cook dinner, and keep the house clean instead. Under my opponent's scenario, the woman would have to comply with that because the man is the head of the household, supported not only by what he said but what God himself stated in the Biblical clauses that I have reported. In his scenario, just because the man goes downstairs to face the robber doesn't mean that he's the head of the household or anything. It means he's brave, strong, and willing to defend his family, of course, but his action in no way subordinates the woman. His scenario is very non sequitur in the idea that my opponent is trying to equate being brave to being the head of the household. If the woman at some level has a standing of parity in the control of the household and has a right to be autonomous, the fact that the man is being brave just means that he's upholding his duty as one of the leaders of the household and being brave for his family. If my opponent is telling the truth, it means that the man is the better leader and head of the house because he's bigger and stronger.
Homosexuals argument: First and foremost, my opponent once again fails to respond to my previous rebuttal, so extend everything I said previously across the flow. Furthermore, we move on to what he quotes from Romans 1:26,: "26For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural
relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error." What this is saying is not only that men were engaging with other men sexually and this was wrong, but God also stated that men were going away from their "natural course" of being attracted to other women, in addition to explaining that their interactions were a result of the error, meaning that God not only condemns the actual act of homosexuality in the context of sexual relations, but he also identifies homosexuality as an error. Thus, God indeed is condeming the attraction of members of the same sex. I explained in my contentions how this affects society, only furthering my argument as to why government ought not follow these guidelines.
Sources checking: My opponent once again misunderstands my case. I never stated anywhere that removing the Bible from the classroom has been beneficial. What I am saying is that my opponent is trying to imply that removing the Bible has caused education to decline but provides no credible reason as to why this correlation has a causation. I referenced the Gwinnett School of Mathematics, Science, and Technology in Lawrenceville, GA considering that it has some of Georgia's highest SAT scores with the average being around 1900, and the main pinnacle of this school is mathematics and science rather than religion. He talks about private schools with religious focus but doesn't explain why the fact that they have the Bible inside makes the education better. It could be that the Bible has a strong reading level and teaches people to read faster (which is what happened in colonial America with reading of the Bible in schools in order to improve reading ability), or it could be that the Bible somehow upholds greater education. It could be either. My opponent sure doesn't provide any links to the causation nor any large point to any of his evidence.
Evidence on Homeschooling: The part that is credible from this is the study that the newsletter reports. It shows us that homeschooling is better for children and improves self-esteem and whatnot. The study in no way tries to make the link that this better quality of education comes from Biblical values. This is what the newsletter has reported, not the evidence itself. What my opponent has quoted in the beginning was not part of the quoted material directly from the study. This is another non sequitur argument, if not just making up conclusions. The study shows us only that homeschooling is better while the writer of the article argues that Biblical principles had something to do with this. My opponent is making the link between the two as if the study concluded this, which is totally faulty.
Making up for the broken link:
"Special Software Sheds Light on Who Really Wrote the Bible | Fox News." Fox News. 30 June 2011. Web. 08 Feb. 2012. <http://www.foxnews.com...;.
Neonix forfeited this round.
Judges, my opponent has clearly forfeited the previous round, so not only can you extend my previous rebuttals across the flow, but you can also give to me the conduct point for being able to be punctual in every single around. Since this is the final round of the debate and there are rebuttals from the PRO, I will gladly explain to you why I should be the victor in this debate:
Resolution/Contentions 2, 3, & 4: I clearly have won the resolution level because I explained to you exactly why we need to look at the effects that come out of practicing Biblical principles in government: because this is what constitutes the actual debate, and not only do I explain this, but my opponent clearly implicitly agrees with this when he also analyzes the effects of having Bibles and Biblical principles in the public sector. With this said, my opponent makes no arguments to any of my other contentions other than the first one, which explain the effects of having such Biblical principles being functioned by the hand of government, and at this point, I have upheld my burden better than my opponent has.
Sexism argument: My opponent argues at first that the Bible is not sexist in any way with his quotations from the Bible but then moves on to defend the position that the man is the natural, traditional head of the household, so there's some contradiction in my opponent's case, and what he says upholds everything that I have been saying about how the Bible subordinates women because he's saying that men are just the head rather than having the man and woman be equal to one another in the household. He also makes no arguments whatsoever against my evidence giving Biblical quotations where the woman is dictated by God to be under the man, and for these reasons, you can conclude that the Bible subordinates women.
Homosexuality argument: My opponent tries to assert that the Bible tackles only the action of men engaging in sexual acts with men, but then when looking at the quotations from the Bible he provides, I explained to you how God was actually condemning the actual passion of being attracted to other men, meaning that his evidence actually supports my case, and I explained how these teachings are detrimental to society as well.
My opponent's evidence: Let's take my opponent's case from the top. First, my opponent provides a bunch of statistics about how the Bible has been really good for education and whatnot without providing the causation and explanation thereof, and his only attempt to try to justify this point is where he provides this article explaining the results of a homeschooling study, then providing its own conclusion that the Bible somehow helped out in this. Basically, the article is manipulating the conclusions of the study, so when it comes to that level, his evidence is totally invalid. This is not even to speak of the other statistics he provides about rising crime rates and whatnot and links this in no way to the establishment of Biblical principles. He says that I was trying to argue that the Bible has been detrimental to education. He was obviously not paying attention to my case at all. What I was trying to get at is the point that my opponent has no causation in his evidence and there's counterevidence to say otherwise, such as the Gwinnett School of Mathematics, Science, and Technology. When it comes to looking at the entirety of my opponent's evidence, it is clear that the judges should look in my favor.
Basic reasons for CON vote: My opponent has dropped almost the entirety of my case, most of his evidence and statements support what I am saying about the Bible, and the rest of his evidence is completely flawed and invalid. The CON has consistantly supported the burden of the case while still adhering to the resolution, attacked every single one of the PRO's points, has not forfeited even one round of this debate, and showed you how all of his opponent's evidence supports the CON. Thus, I urge the CON vote.
Thank you judges for taking the time to review this case carefully, and thanks to my opponent for this debate.
My deepest apologies to my opponent. I have been busy with other obligation, which stole my attention. I did not notice that the timer ran out.
I would have it no other way, than to have the judges grant the opponent the point of conduct. I would however, like to point out that the debate was ill-formatted from the beginning. I find it to be a gross offense against the rules for my opponent to establish guidelines during the second round of the debate and proceed to base arguments on those rules, rarely touching the argument resolved in round one.
I cannot debate the moral actions of Christians. The Christian body (as a whole) is utterly corrupted and just as depraved as the secular counterpart. My argument is based on the total merit of the Bible. This is obviously a losing argument, since it's merit relies on the existence of God, which was not a consideration laid forth in the rules. I henceforth assumed a defensive stance against the claims of the opponent.
No matter how the opponent words her outrage, my defense of her accusations against the Bible have been met with unapologetic push-back. Take notice:
My Opponent called the Bible sexist, but failed to prove that sexism is immoral. Therefore, the authority of the Bible was not challenged, but simply defined or labeled. My opponent failed to demerit the Bible's authority in this aspect.
My Opponent claimed to have won the resolution by making analysis of the outcome of Biblical principles in government. How is this? I see no sources or proof. My opponent is slinging around rumors without cause. She has failed to prove her own resolution. (Which is sad, since she altered the resolution in round two to gain advantage).
My opponent wasted a large portion of her attacks on homosexuality. I would like to point out to the judges, this was an unclever tactic. The act of homosexual behavior or the biblical definition of homosexuality does not vary from secular standards. My opponent wasted breath and proved nothing by her argument. The resolution concerns the Bible, not the gay agenda.
My opponent attacks my sources concerning the benefit of the Bible in the classroom, yet her sources lacked entirely. Every link she posted was broken and all other references where unofficial, lacking a source entirely. Take for example, her sources about the school in Gwinnet, Ga. Where is her evidence? My opponent uses rumors, not sources.
Con said:"The CON has consistently supported the burden of the case while still adhering to the resolution,"...
Ladies and Gentlemen of the voting public, Con has accepted the burden of proof. I was sure that it would be mine to carry, but she has graciously accepted to prove the Bible lacking in moral standing. Since this is the case, let me provide you with the sources she has used to make her case.
I hope this source helps the reader make sense of her rhetoric. In a final note, I would like to comment on my opponents above references quote. Adhering to a burden of proof that was furnished ex post facto is cheating. Not a single measure of tolerance should be shown for this kind of debating.
I have no illusions of winning the debate. Despite my opponents poor conduct concerning the 'bait and switch' resolution, I still would insist on granting her the point of conduct. I sincerely apologize for missing a round.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||6||0|
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||2|