The Instigator
HermanGomez95
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
JMan1424
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Should we replace the Constitution with the Bible as the official document for US Law?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
HermanGomez95
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/26/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 537 times Debate No: 78155
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

HermanGomez95

Con


Thanks to my opponent for bringing this topic up in the opinion sections of DDO.


If he were to accept, here is the following structure for this debate.


Round 1:


Me: Challenge Period (Waives arguments)


Opponent: Acceptance, Definitions, and Opening Statements.



Round 2:


Me: Opening statements and rebuttals


Opponent: Arguments and Rebuttals



Round 3:


Me: Arguments and Rebuttals


Opponent: Arguments and Rebuttals



Round 4:


Me: Arguments and Rebuttals


Opponent: Closing statements



Round 5:


Me: Closing Arguments


Opponent: (Waives round.)



I hope my opponent accepts so that we may begin this debate. Let’s keep this civil, but impassioned!


JMan1424

Pro

Thanks for inviting me to this debate and I do agree to the terms.
Debate Round No. 1
HermanGomez95

Con

Thanks to my opponent for accepting this debate.

The way it will work (having tweaked the system somewhat)

Since my opponent is for replacing the Constitution with the Bible as the official document for US Law, he has accepted the BoP, meaning he must prove why he is right.

Therefore, I shall waive this round so that my opponent can go first.

In effect, the remaining round structures are as follows:

Round 2:

Me: Waives arguments

Opponent: Opening Statements.

Round 3:

Me: Opening statements and rebuttals

Opponent: Arguments and Rebuttals

Round 4:

Me: Arguments and Rebuttals

Opponent: Final Rebuttals and Closing statements (No new arguments)

Round 5:

Me: Final Rebuttals and Closing Statements (No new arguments)

Opponent: (Waives round.)


With that in mind, let my opponent give his opening arguments…

JMan1424

Pro

Please forgive me for taking so long to respond, but yes I do gladly accept your terms and will do my utmost to follow them. Once again I'd like to say thank you for being willing to invite me to this debate and may the best argument win.

The first thing I'd like to bring up in my case is the history of our blessed country. The US was originally founded on Biblical Christian values and laws and even today we see these laws in our Judicial System and Law enforcement agencies. I don't hate the Constitution at all, I just think it would be in our Nations best interests if we returned to the source of morals that established us.

I'd also like to clarify that this would in no way destroy freedom of Religion considering Christianity has probably respected and treated other religions with the greatest amount of peace and love. I know my views seem strange to most but if we want to stay a Christian nation that welcomes people of all cultures, races, and religions than the Bible could honestly help out a lot.

Thanks for listening to me and I'll turn it back over to you.
Debate Round No. 2
HermanGomez95

Con

Thanks to my opponent for his interesting and, indeed, enlightening opening arguments. I wish him all the best of luck in this debate.


Now onto my debate.


Not only am I vehemently against replacing the Constitution with the Bible as the official document for US Law, but I firmly believe any true American should be as well.


My reasoning can be examined in three points.


1.) BIBLICAL VIEWPOINTS HAVE BEEN WRONG.While the Constitution and the country may have been originally formed under Biblical viewpoints, it underwent many changes correcting mistaken information our founding fathers may have made based on information the Bible provided them. The greatest example of this one can think of is the Bible’s misogynistic viewpoint of women. If we were to govern our nation based on the Bible, any chance of total gender equality would disappear because the Bible expresses that women are submissive to their husbands.


2.) IT WOULD DISCOURAGE DIVERSITY.The Bible frowns upon several facets that make America the great melting pot it is today, the biggest facet being homosexuality. If one were to follow the Bible in totality, homosexuals would again be ostracized, with their activities most likely becoming illegal once more. Any progress made in marriage equality would also disappear because the Bible is against it. Beyond homosexuality, the Bible also discourages divorce. This would lead to a multitude of problems for people in abusive marriages. There are more examples of this, but, for the sake of characters, I will move onto my next point.


3.) DICTATORSHIP WOULD FOLLOW. If a nation were governed under one religious document, a multitude of freedoms would be destroyed including that of religion and speech. Anyone not conforming to the Bible would be arrested, and the whole so American society would collapse based on the fact that minorities would suddenly fall victim to the prejudicial, discriminatory, and pompous nature the Bible has created over the years.


To make a long story short, I agree that the Bible is a good life lesion book. However, it’s message isn’t, nor should it be, for everyone. If a government were to operate with it as it’s law, society would fall victim to endless horrors and atrocities. This is why we should only use it’s teaching to make ourselves better, but not our country.


Thanks, again, to Pro for accepting this debate. I look forward to the next round.

JMan1424

Pro

I truly do understand your concern about my ideas and I would like to go a little more in depth. I mean I personally would hate it if the Quran was established as our rule book and sharia Law was imposed( No offense to any Muslims).

The first thing I'd like to know is how the Bible could possibly be considered Masogynistic? I'll wait for a reply on this one.

Second, I realize that Homosexuality would be in jeopardy, because it is indeed true that Christianity teaches it to be a sin. But on the other hand there would be no murdering of gays it would merely be illegal to have gay marriage.

Third I don't see how it could possibly become a dictatorship. If a cruel merciless dictator took charge then it would not be based on the Bible which clearly prohibits everything an evil leader would do. Most likely corruption would break out and people would try to bend the rules to their own selfish desires.

Sorry if my answer is very short and sloppy, but I'd really like to know how the Bible is possibly sexist
Debate Round No. 3
HermanGomez95

Con

Thanks to my opponent for his questions regarding my argument.

I’ll address each of his questions here:

The first thing I'd like to know is how the Bible could possibly be considered Masogynistic? My reasoning behind calling the Bible misogynistic falls under the fact that multitudes of verses teach us to treat women as inferior. Examples of this are:

1 Corinthians 11:3 – “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Genesis 3:16 – “Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over the.”

1 Corinthians 11:7 – 9 – “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.”

Matthew 5:31-32 – “It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.”

If the Bible views women as inferior to men, or as submissive to men, it is committing textbook misogyny.

But on the other hand there would be no murdering of gays it would merely be illegal to have gay marriage. Your reasoning here is questionable. Firstly, murder is illegal currently, and yet it still happens. Secondly, it would be an insult to take away what millions of people have worked long and hard to accomplish, just because one book discourages it in a few passages. If gay marriage were to become illegal, adultery, divorce, lying, and infertility would also have to be outlawed to comply with the Bible’s teaching.

If a cruel merciless dictator took charge then it would not be based on the Bible which clearly prohibits everything an evil leader would do. Most likely corruption would break out and people would try to bend the rules to their own selfish desires. Firstly, this situation is most speculation. It would require that our nation still fall under presidential law. However, any president could easily bend the rules of the law to fit the Bible, thereby taking away many potential freedoms of our nation. While it may not be dictatorship in it’s purest form, it certainly sounds as such.


I hope I addressed my opponent’s questions appropriately. I look forward to his response.

JMan1424

Pro

I'll try not to get into an all out theology war, but let me address a couple of things you said.

First off, the definition of misogyny is the hatred of women by men. I wish to show that the Bible shows no such contempt or even hatred towards women. The first verse you brought up was 1Corinthians 11:3. We need to first realize that the Bible is pretty clear that Men and Women are both created equal in the image of God. Galatians 3:28 states that there is neither Jew nor Greek, Bond nor free, Male nor Female for we are all one in Christ. Scripture is clear that we're all equal, but that doesn't mean we don't have different roles. God said that men would be in authority over women and would work to love and care for their wives and children, while the Wives would care for their husbands and nurture their kids. This form of society has worked well for thousands of years and it gave honor to both men and women. It works similar to how we Christians view God. Scripture states that God the Father and God the Son are equal and both given honor and Worship and yet they have different roles. Just as Christ submitted to his Father and did his Will by spilling his blood on the cross, so are women following in the steps of the Savior by submitting to their husbands. And just as Christ was exalted after this, so will the women.

The next verse you brought up was Genesis 3:16 where Eve is punished by saying her husband will rule over her and she will painfully bear children. But what we also see is that God also punished the Man. He said "Cursed is the Ground for you sake, in sorrow you shall eat of it all the days of your life. Thorns and thistles it will bring forth and you shall eat of the herbs of the field all the days of your life. In the sweat of your face shall you eat bread for your whole life. For you are dust and dust shall you return." Now we see that both Man and Woman were punished for their Rebellion, after all we are equal. But the Sin nature itself came through Adam since he was in authority over his wife and he was held responsible.

1 Corinthians 11:7-9 goes back to 11:3 I suppose so it's just my recap.

Mathew 5:31-32- It seems you forget that the man sinned by causing his wife to commit adultery, and also the man who marries her is guilty of adultery as well.

Well I understand your concern about homosexuality, but if a government of men says it's wrong, but the God says it's wrong then I'll stick with God.( If you want we can have a debate of whether Christianity is true or not)
In the Old Testament we were under the Law, but now we are under Grace. The law is to tell us what sin is but we are saved by Grace.

I will admit that soon enough you'd have a non Christian leader get in their and get rid of the Bible, but this happens to every document including the Constitution does it not.

Thanks and I'll turn it over to you.
Debate Round No. 4
HermanGomez95

Con


Thanks to my opponent for a well formed response to my assertions.


Since this is the last round, I’ll provide no new arguments, only a final closing statement.


America was formed as a free nation. This includes the freedom to distance ourselves from religion. Therefore, if we replace constitutional law with Biblical law, it would ostracize anyone who does not agree with Biblical law. I express my concerns as a homosexual man who grew up in a religious house, went to a religious school, and felt entirely ostracized. If I felt ostracized in one aspect of society, I can only imagine how painful it would be if the whole of society would encourage my persecution. I also express my concerns as a supporter of equality for women in America. The Bible may not express it’s hate for women, but it does view that their roles in society is solely for catering the needs of men. This cannot happen. Lastly, I express my concerns as an American who believes in diversity in culture, beliefs, and race. While race may not be overtly affected by a Biblical constitution, the other two would be nearly abolished.


My opponent wishes to have a Biblical constitution because he feels government under such law has worked before. Yet, he fails to provide sufficient documentation of said assertion. In fact, he fails entirely to reason his assertions to potential voters. Therefore, I urge you to consider my opponent’s lack of evidence and vote Con!



I hope my opponent enjoyed this debate as much as I did, and I hope he understands that I am not attacking him, only debating with passion and fervency.


I would now like to remind him that he agreed to the terms, therefore he must not post any responses to my final statements, he may not post any arguments, he can only post a simple conclusive statement such as “Vote Pro.”


Thanks, once more, to Pro for a very fun debate!


JMan1424

Pro

Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Hayd 1 year ago
Hayd
The only point on which Pro challenges Con on is sexism in the Bible and Dictatorship. Since Con failed to provide any evidence, Pro could have challenged every single one of Con"s arguments and they all would have been negated. But since Pro fails to challenge Con, Con"s arguments retain validity. Pro then says that there would be no "murdering of gays". This argument is false as the Bible says, "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB). Pro then challenges Con"s claim on dictatorship, negating it.

At the end of R3 Con is slightly ahead and Pro didn"t provide any arguments and didn"t "completely" negate all of Con"s arguments.

Con comes back on R4 and cites evidence of sexism upholding his first argument as valid, and then falls short again at the end of his response citing no more quotes to back up his homosexual argument and dictatorship argument.

Pro comes in and attempts to negate Con"s Biblical quotations by showing that none of them showed any "hate" towards women as the definition entails. They merely show "to rule over thee" not any hate.

So now in the end Pro has basically negated all of Con"s arguments, yet not provided any of his own. It seems like a tie but Con"s homosexuality argument won through as Pro had a confusing rebuttal on it by just saying that he"ll "stick with God" on the subject and failing to negate the argument. This debate was extremely close and both debaters did a wonderful job, yet Con won out in the end. If Pro would have posted his own arguments, the debate would have gone a lot differently, same as if Con would have provided Bible quotations for his opening arguments. I urge both debaters to stay on DDO and continue to have success in debating.
Posted by Hayd 1 year ago
Hayd
Con"s opening arguments are on balance OK leaning to weak. Con"s first argument, "Biblical Viewpoints have Been Wrong" was the strongest of the three yet lacked actual quotations from the Bible that would have given the argument validity and made it extremely strong. In Con"s second argument, it is basically an extension of the first where he touches upon homosexuality. The problem with this is that homosexuality is still a controversial topic and Con assumes the position that Pro gay marriage is right, almost as intuition. Also Con would have made this argument much stronger by quoting the Bible in saying that being gay is an "abomination" and that we should kill gays, because it does say so. This would have been a very strong argument, but Con fails to realize this are merely comes to "ostracize".Con"s 3rd argument is extremely weak as it assumes for some reason that "anyone not conforming to the Bible would be arrested." Con doesn"t back up this wild assertion at all. Con also claims that society will collapse because "minorities would suddenly fall victim to the prejudicial, discriminatory, and pompous nature the Bible has created over the years" yet Con fails to give examples on how the Bible has created prejudicial, discriminatory, and pompous attacks upon minorities. If Con would have quoted the Bible much more as support for his claims, his arguments would be somewhat strong, yet they fall short.
Posted by crushboy79 1 year ago
crushboy79
Whee what fun
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Blazzered 1 year ago
Blazzered
HermanGomez95JMan1424Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I feel Con did a better job at refuting and defending his arguments. Both sides used the same source, the bible. Both had respectable conduct and good grammar.
Vote Placed by Hayd 1 year ago
Hayd
HermanGomez95JMan1424Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in Comments.