The Instigator
Pollywog
Pro (for)
Winning
35 Points
The Contender
wolfman4711
Con (against)
Losing
28 Points

The Bible Is Immoral: Rape Was Considered A Minor Crime

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 13 votes the winner is...
Pollywog
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/16/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,854 times Debate No: 31369
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (48)
Votes (13)

 

Pollywog

Pro

(Deuteronomy 22:28-29) "If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."
wolfman4711

Con

First off in ancient and modern society marriage is a big deal. If a man raped a woman in modern society he would spend a few years in prison. If a man raped a women in ancient society he would have to spend his whole life with someone he most likely does not know. He would also have to pay a decently high price to her father 50 silver coins was a lot of money!

I would put sources and expand my argument but I got two more rounds... "Sigh"
Debate Round No. 1
Pollywog

Pro

Seriously? It isn't even the woman who get the 50 pieces of silver. It's her father!! This is clearly immoral and shows that the Bible isn't quite the moral compass that contemporary Christians make it out to be.
wolfman4711

Con

1.My opponent fails to refute my argument about having to spend his whole life trapped with someone he doesn't even know.
2. Yes the money was given to the father because of two reasons: A. She was a young woman who probably couldn't even spend all that money. B. because back then women were in superior to men and much more moral. So her dad got the money because he no longer had a clean virgin daughter.
3. Because you disagree with a punishment in the bible for a crime does not mean the whole thing is immoral. Plus you have not proven why it was immoral, and it might be hard to understand in modern civilization. back 5,000 years ago the world was a different place. So on short you can not say the whole bible is immoral when they gave her a decent punishment for a time like that.

http://ww.huffingtonpost.com... b 1097800.html
Debate Round No. 2
Pollywog

Pro

1) Having to spend her entire life with a complete stranger was also punishment for her, as well.
2) If she suffered the crime, why shouldn't she receive the money?
3) Trust me, anyone who thinks that the Bible is a moral compass, simply put, hasn't read the damn Bible!!
wolfman4711

Con

1. Now back then if you had sex with someone you would pretty much have to marry them. It was just a way to assures morals. 2. Already explained... Women couldn't even use currency back then unless they were giving it to the church. Women near to no rights back then. So even doing that is a lot more then other cultures. 3. " trust me anyone who uses the bible as a moral compass has not read the bible" there is just so many things wrong in that statement. First off if they were using as a moral compass they have to know what's written in it. Second there are known to be plenty of people who have read the whole bible and followed it, I'm one of them. I would put a source to prove it but that's elementary. Third you have said nothing other then the punishment for rape of a small child to prove that the bible is immoral. If you are going to make a wild claim like that at least have something to back it up.

SUMMARY

my opponent has not proof that the bible is immoral or the punishment for the rape of a young women is immoral either. She has used mild language, and brought simple, false arguments. I have brought real arguments and actually used a source. I think I have out done my opponent in every category but you the audience is the judge. I would like to thank my opponent for this debate and the easy win. Vote con!
Debate Round No. 3
48 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Solomon_Grim 4 years ago
Solomon_Grim
God does not support slavery as we have it. Back then, slavery was volunteer. If you were low on cash, then you can opt to be a slave, which got paid. If slavery did not exist back then, hundreds of people would have starved to death due to no money. Learn your history before you start talking.

God is also not sexist. The bible does not condone sexism whatsoever.

As I have said in another debate, he is speaking of priests who have ran the entire nation into the ground and he is stressing how badly he will shame them.

Also, the flood. What problem do you have with it. The entire planet was in the wrong, god gives punishment. Crime, and then punishment. This is the basis of the legal system, what complaint do you have.
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
Agnostic is as bogus a word as atheist, both completely unnecessary traps. There is no word for a non astrologer or non alchemist. Just because the bible is infecting millions of people worldwide, means nothing :)

21st Century Intellectual Honesty simply says "I don't know everything, and the reason for everything is Not an even 50/50 bet or coin toss. Its a statistical improbability the reason for all the stars and galaxies is zeus, horus, or in anyway concerned with your sex life. Zeus, is a statistical improbability, divine sex monitors are a statistical improbability, horus and the long list of statistical improbabilities is endless"

I don't need to know every answer in the universe or how it all started to know that the reason for everything had an old man build an ark instead of just making each creature again after his temper tantrum flood.

Big kids are Not young enough to know everything. Just because I cant explain why the laws of physics are so precise, doesn't automatically mean jesus is my savior, or that the reason for everything is concerned with my sex life :)

Only religious minded clowns or otherwise ignorant bigots deny equal human rights in 2013 :)

Believe whatever religious lunacy or superstition you want, just treat it more like ur genitalia and keep it to yourself, don't whip it out in public, dont use it for show and tell or any other time at school, and dont shove it down kids throats :)

If you do treat your lunacy and superstitious "Elvis is alive" or "the reason for the sub atomic world is concerned with my sex life" beliefs private, you will silence the torment you suffer from us pesky thinkin' folk, with all our fancy evidence and stuff :).

Give it a try, convince the christian nation, to stop infesting our government, poisoning our schools, denying human rights, hurting people and telling lies and see how quiet it gets :)
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
teen wolf, there is no crying in baseball. I'm sure you knew that already. Walk It Off :)

Todays gay marriage debate, is yesterdays slave debate, seating arraingment on the bus and separate drinking fountains nonsense.

All have religious lunacy at their root :)

The destructive nature of religion because of its inherent divisiveness, is also a mental poison that causes an atrophy to free thought.

Free thought leads to new understandings of the universe and life. Restricting scientific free thought in school and government is only possible when the arrogance of religion sticks its nose where it doesn't belong.

Therefore, supporting religion is supporting its inherent weaknesses, and thus, draining Mankind with a ball and chain we drag on our way to a higher standard :)

The religious elite have used their filthy beliefs from thousands of years ago to promote slavery, racism and a homophobic attitude. This is all done while the religious loud mouth champions are hiding behind a shield of humility that protects them from criticism :)

Kicking that shield aside and exposing the soft intellect behind it, is just the splashing glass of ice water needed to wake up the world to the childish, disgusting, destructive, divisive, immoral, and unnecessary nature of religion, especially in the 21st Century :)

Lets get back to this Higgs Boson and let kissing girls get married in a court of law, and go night night with your holy binky America :)
Posted by wolfman4711 4 years ago
wolfman4711
Why u trying to act happy, and like u and Justin Agree with each other. Unlike you he doesn't bash other people's beliefs.
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
SAD 7:44--Its easier to justify sexism and racism by referencing the bible than it is to justify virtue in those pages of filth :)

Infections 1:14--Far too many humans have no understanding of the delusion they are a part of when they worship a homophobic jewish zombie or horse flying extremely misogynistic virgin promiser :)

CaptainObvious 1:18--In the 21st Century, Cumulative evolution via Non random natural selection over billions of years, is as questionable as H2O :)

GAMEOVER 7:7--If all knowledge of religion and science was unknown, way back when Homo Habilis was making tools 2.3 million years ago, without ever finding a single piece of religious doctrine or even a thought of a god idea, we would still discover the science. Thats because science is Not about beliefs, its all about understandings. We understand the earth rotates, believing it or not will not change the outcome. Water is 2 parts Hydrogen and 1 part oxygen, saying "well thats just Not how I see water", makes you look idiotic. The same goes for cumultive evolution by natural selection. Saying, "well thats just Not how I see life", does Not automatically mean the reason for everything walks on water, creates the sub atomic world and DNA, uses dirt for man, and his rib to make a woman.

Intriguing 3:4--Development of the Laws of Thermodynamics actually began thousands of years ago :)

CaptainObvious 12:51--The more amazing the scientific discovery, the less likely the reason for that discovery made an appearance in the middle east thousands of years ago, to let us know he is in any way, especially concerned with what humans are doing naked, then after laying down the rules, uses human sacrifice to demonstrate virtue :)

Evolution 7:44--Everything is fine, janitor chalkboard problem solvers are all over it. They have been all over cumulative evolution by natural selection for over 150 yrs now. Its moon landing true and rib woman is false :)
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
justin is right. Without a slave supporting sexist who throws temper tantrum floods and has a fecal fetish, there is no morality ;)

Malachi 2:2-3
New International Version (NIV)
2 If you do not listen, and if you do not resolve to honor my name," says the Lord Almighty, "I will send a curse on you, and I will curse your blessings. Yes, I have already cursed them, because you have not resolved to honor me.

3 "Because of you I will rebuke your descendants[a]; I will smear on your faces the dung from your festival sacrifices, and you will be carried off with it.

Time to rub some poop on faces

Love,
The morality master :)
Posted by justin.graves 4 years ago
justin.graves
Who are we to question the morality of God? Without God there is no morality.
Posted by Solomon_Grim 4 years ago
Solomon_Grim
Well, it seems to be kjv is the best. Most others are translated from kjv or bible written several years after the bible was penned. It had many errors.
Posted by Citrakayah 4 years ago
Citrakayah
Assuming certain translations (namely the KJV are more valid than others, of course).
Posted by Solomon_Grim 4 years ago
Solomon_Grim
I hate that you are losing man. The verse she gives is wrong.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
Pollywogwolfman4711Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: A simple argument was presented: 1) rape is immoral 2) the consequences of rape should reflect this 3) the consequences of being raped, as laid out in the bible, would reasonably be considered an immoral life of sexual slavery for the victim. Therefore, immorality exists in the bible. This was the argument presented, it follows and is obvious. There was no need to "refute" the rebuttal that the rapist was being punished as well... Since this was not relevant to the debate, except as a way to suggest that sexual slavery was awful for the enslaver. Conduct points are for faggots...so I awarded this accordingly. (I would argue that this term should not be considered an insult, but the logic would take too long to explain.) Such tackiness is more appropriate on Facebook, and not here.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
Pollywogwolfman4711Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: see comment
Vote Placed by Citrakayah 4 years ago
Citrakayah
Pollywogwolfman4711Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: 1. I don't see the resolution as Pro arguing that the entire Bible is immoral, merely that part of it is, and therefore it can't be taken to be flawless. As far as her (?) argument that it was immoral, I regard Con's rebuttal as insufficient. He doesn't really argue why it's just or moral for her to be punished for being rape. Given that this so goes against most ethical systems, I expect a reason why. 2. S&G to Pro because Con missed capitalization in his summary. 3. Con's link didn't work. 4. See comments and my wall for why she gets conduct.
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
Pollywogwolfman4711Tied
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: God told me to counter tyler, and since I can't argue against his word I guess I have no choice.
Vote Placed by Skepsikyma 4 years ago
Skepsikyma
Pollywogwolfman4711Tied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter vote bomb by tyler.schillim.
Vote Placed by tyler.schillim 4 years ago
tyler.schillim
Pollywogwolfman4711Tied
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: The bible is the truth and the whole truth. If you so much as doubt it, then you are in trouble. That is what all is to be said, you cannot argue against the word of God!
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
Pollywogwolfman4711Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro noted women are forced to spend the rest of their lives with a rapist. Intuitively, most would see this as a bad outcome for the woman. Her argument is very short but is sourced from the bible and shifts the burden onto Con to defend it. Con makes three defenses: (1) 'Back then, if you slept with a guy, you had to marry him.' That restates her punishment, but not why punishing her is good. (2) 'It was a good way to assure morals.' That's a bare assertion that punishing her is moral. (3) 'Back then the world was a different place.' Con does not explain how the world was different such that this was a good outcome for the woman. He has not provided any sources supporting this, or academic credentials to draw such analsys himself. In Con's favor, I agreed with him that the rapist did not pay an insignificant price. The outcome for the woman is what was problematic for me. Sources: Pro's points are sourced. Con's one citation was a broken link. Conduct: To pro for Con's "faggot" insult
Vote Placed by philochristos 4 years ago
philochristos
Pollywogwolfman4711Tied
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: Pro's strongest argument was, "This is clearly immoral," which is not much of an argument. However, it does have quite a bit of intuitive appeal, and Con didn't do much to undermine that intuitive appeal. He countered with the observation that the poor chap would have to spend the rest of his life with a girl he doesn't even know. But that's nonsense. Surely after even one year of living with her, he'd know her very well. Besides, as Pro pointed out, the poor lady would have to suffer the same fate ON TOP OF being raped, which seems far worse since she was the victim to begin with. Con's strongest argument was that Pro had not proven that it was immoral. However, due to the intuitive nature of morality, I think he needed to do better than that. He needed to give a justification that had at least as much intuitive appeal as our prima facie recognition that forcing a woman to marry her rapist is immoral. I would've responded differently.
Vote Placed by Apeiron 4 years ago
Apeiron
Pollywogwolfman4711Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources-Con because he provided more. Convincing Arguments-Con because he not only gave some semblance of context, but Pro never refuted this, "Because you disagree with a punishment in the bible for a crime does not mean the whole thing is immoral." Con is correct in this quote in that Pro had a very large BoP which wasn't met. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/moral-argument
Vote Placed by xXCryptoXx 4 years ago
xXCryptoXx
Pollywogwolfman4711Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had no support for her arguments and only said baseless insertions.