The Instigator
queenofmayhem
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
Mikal
Pro (for)
Winning
23 Points

The Bible is Law and Should Be Followed Accordingly

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 8 votes the winner is...
Mikal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/18/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,173 times Debate No: 49411
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (62)
Votes (8)

 

queenofmayhem

Con

I will be arguing against the following statement. Round one will be acceptance, round two and three arguments and rebuttals, and round four will be final rebuttals and conclusions.
I look forward to a great debate, good luck to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1
queenofmayhem

Con

I thank my adversary for accepting and I wish them best of luck in this debate. I will be making the claim that the Bible alone is not a fitting starting point for personal moral laws. Pro will be countering my claim and attempting to prove that the Bible provides an entirely credible foundation for a person's/group's set of moral laws.

I start by making my argument, in which I will divide it into the following key points.

1) Open to Multiple Interpretations
Even if the bible is accepted as the "infallible word of God" which may thus be used as the ultimate authoritative source for moral laws, it is nevertheless open to multiple interpretations. It is well-known that human language is inherently imprecise and it can really only be used as a subjective map of feelings, symbols, and personal experiences. Communication is thus highly dependent on context.

The social mores are dependent on historical context, local traditions, common experiences, etc. Given that the bible is a set of books that was compiled over thousands of years, the task of deciphering its contextual meaning and extrapolating it to the present time practically impossible. Evidence of this may be gleaned from the shear number of christian denominations and their conflicting and often contradictory moral precepts.

This is particularly telling among conservative christian groups that proclaim that the bible is their sole moral guide; nevertheless, these groups cannot seem to agree on an unequivocal set of biblical laws to live by.

2) The Bible is in fact fallible
It is plagued with contradictions, historical inaccuracies, multiple edits, theological incompatibilities, etc. There is a deep and reliable tradition of biblical scholarship that studies the bible and its historical transmission to us through ordinary, fallible human processes.

In particular, it is widely accepted by most scholars that only 7 of the epistles attributed to the apostle Paul were actually written by him. This is significant because the other six epistles sometimes deviate significantly from the teachings contained in Paul's authentic letters. For example, in the "pseudo-letter", 1 Timothy, the author says,

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." (1 Tim 2:12)

On the other hand, in the authentic letter to the Romans, Paul instructs the church to listen to the "minister" Phoebe:

"I recommend to you Phoebe our fellow believer, who is a minister of the assembly in Cenchrea, so that you will admit her into your company, the Lord's company, in a manner worthy of the people devoted to God, and stand by her in whatever matters she needs you to help in. For indeed she became a presiding officer over many, and over me also!" (Rom 16:1-2)

The contrast between these verses alone may be enough to establish that the bible is not reliable as an absolute source of moral law.

Sources

"The Authentic Letters of Paul", by Arthur J. Dewey, Roy W. Hoover, Lane C. McGaughy, and Daryl D. Schmidt

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://www.patheos.com...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://www.academia.edu...

New Testament sources:
The Source New Testament
New International Version
New American Standard
Mikal

Pro

Going to keep this pretty simple the first round. Basically the resolution is a syllogism.

[p1] The bible is law
[p2] Therefor it should be followed accordingly


Premise 1

Law - the whole body of such customs, practices, or rules[1]

A law despite what my adversary claims does not have to be infallible. Laws can be practices and traditions that are upheld by a community or group of people. The bible and the text within it is law to most Christians, Jews, and fundamentalist. I want to note that there is a fundamental difference between (a) law and (the) law. A law would mean this is a law to a certain group of people, (the) law could infer it is objective to all groups of people. The purpose and resolution of this debate is debating if it is (a) law.

I do not have to defend that is should be a law to everyone across the board, but that it is simply a law to a group of people. Which it is and which I have demonstrated. Most Christians also believe that if you do not follow the teachings of the lord, you will burn in hell. Which is punishment for now following the law (the word of God/ teachings of Christ) which are in short found in the bible.

So yes the bible is a law. Premise 1 can not be contested.


Premise 2

It should be followed accordingly

Whomever believes this is a law should follow it accordingly. If Christians accept the bible as a moral authority or guideline by which they live, they by their own standards should obvious follow it.

ex - if you live in america, it is best not rape someone. You are abiding by the law of our culture

If you are a christian, you should abide by the laws of the bible and follow it accordingly.



Refutations

Open to multiple Interpretations

Irrelevant. Just because it is open to multiple interpretations does not mean that it is not a law. You can decipher this using hermentuics. There is a a purpose in which the author intended the bible to mean. Almost every book has this purpose.

Take a song for example

" And I fade away into the blackness"

Now when you break that down and try to decipher what it means, you can interprets it multiple ways. What you get out of it could be personal to you, but that does not change the fact that the author wrote that verse with an objective meaning. The same principle should be applied to almost anything you read. There is a purpose for which the author was writing, and you should read it with that in mind.


The bible is fallible.

Again Irrelevant. Half the bible is a metaphor so of course it is fallible. Again that does not change the fact that it is a law to most christian communities and that they all should follow it accordingly.


Conclusion

The bible by definition is a law, and if you believe you should follow Christ and the word of God , you should follow it accordingly. Even if it is metaphorical and people interpret it personally, that is their belief and therefore they should follow it because it is a law to them.

this was simple enough to refute the basic premise of which con is stating and also a way for me to meet my BOP. I would go much more in depth but I am tied up with a debate at the moment and had to keep it brief and on point.

back over to my adversary.




[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 2
queenofmayhem

Con

I thank my opponent for a short but carefully thought-out rebuttal. My opponent's reliance on the Merriam-Webster (MW) dictionary definition of "law" helps to focus the debate and it allows us to quickly get to the heart of the matter. To frame the debate in its fuller context, here is the full definition of "law" from MW:

"(1) : a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority (2) : the whole body of such customs, practices, or rules (3) : common law"

This definition relies on the notion that law is established by the consensus of a community. I agree with my opponent that personal interpretations may be useful for individuals. However, this is irrelevant to this debate because personal views do not necessarily establish laws that are accepted by the community at large. To see this more clearly, let's expand on the meaning of Common Law by referring to the Wikipedia article [1]:

"A common law legal system is a system of law characterized by case law which is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals ....it is a legal system that gives great potential precedential weight to common law, on the principle that it is unfair to treat similar facts differently on different occasions."

--Common Law emerged because Bible is inadequate as legal system--

In essence, our debate term, "law to be followed", refers to a system of laws that the community accepts and adheres to by consensus. This system is fortified by precedence and by reason and it is enforced by social institutions. With this in mind, we can see that the issue in this debate is whether the bible alone can be used as a legal system for the whole community.

The answer is no. Given that Common Law emerged within Christian communities, this demonstrates that these communities did not in fact rely on the bible as a legal system; rather, they relied on a consensus system based on reason and legal precedence.

--Bible Fallibility: relevant in establishing Bible's inadequacy as a community system for absolute religious laws--

It is also clear that the bible can be used neither as a legal system for civil law nor as a system for religious law [2]. Its irrelevance as a system for civil law is clear but its irrelevance as a system for religious law may be seen after both, its fallibility and its susceptibility to multiple interpretations are recognized. So, for the sake of completeness, and contrary to my opponent's claim, the fallibility of the bible is a relevant counter to the argument that the bible may serve a community as a complete, self-consistent system for religious law.

--Distinction between law and personal principles--

My opponent correctly draws a distinction between law and The Law. But he may be confusing these concepts with "personal principles". Now, the bible is indeed a source for individuals to draw personal principles by which they may try to live. However, individuals are free to filter and to interpret the bible selectively. This does not necessarily lead to general principles that the community at large may then adopt and codify into law.

Individuals' personal principles may factor into the process from which community laws emerge but that process is ultimately different from attempts to interpret the bible as a legal document. Indeed, the challenge for a community is to adopt laws that are uniformly applicable in a way that is as fair and equitable as possible for the entire community.

Although there have been abortive attempts in history to live "according to the bible", the reality eventually sets in that the bible cannot be used as a legal manual. Upon closer examination, even conservative Christian communities that claim to live exactly according to the bible really do not live that way. For instance, few of these communities would insist today that women should either cover their heads or shave them in disgrace [3]:

"For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head." (1 Cor 11:6)

Quite simply, most Christians today do not share my opponent's view that the bible is law and that they should thus live accordingly.

--Hermeneutics does not produce objective interpretations--

Hermeneutics is a field of study [4] that has developed precisely because the interpretation of historical texts is difficult and highly subjective. Therefore, one of the goals of hermeneutics is to attempt to decipher meaning by studying, among other things, the social milieu, opinions, and views of the author. This is a very difficult task. Biblical hermeneutics is doubly difficult because it is dealing with a compilation of books that spans across thousands of years, different religions, theologies, cultures, etc.

Nevertheless, my opponent claims that "Just because it (the bible) is open to multiple interpretations does not mean that it is not law. You can decipher this using hermeneutics." Decipher what? The law? Surely, my opponent isn't suggesting that biblical hermeneutics can decipher objective meaning and a consistent set of laws from the bible! If so, he's mistaken.

If it were possible to decipher objective meaning this way then bible hermeneutics would not be a live field of study. It would likely be finished and we would all unanimously agree that the true meaning and purpose of the bible is objectively clear to all of us. In fact, this is not so. Every major Christian denomination offers its own version of biblical hermeneutics to its seminarians and each version of biblical hermeneutics is hotly debated. Non-sectarian biblical scholars have also developed their own research-based set of hermeneutics [5].

My opponent's appeal to hermeneutics actually strengthens my case. The fact that biblical hermeneutics is a vibrant, diverse, and hotly debated field of study shows that the bible cannot be utilized as a consensus source of uniformly consistent laws that can be implemented fairly and equitably across a diverse set of cases.

My opponent's apparent confusion on this point may stem from a misguided notion that song, poetry, and the bible are produced with objective meanings in mind. This may be why, when he referred to the song, "And fade away into the blackness", he said,

""...the author wrote that verse with an objective meaning in mind. The same principle should be applied to almost anything you read."

My opponent's principle that almost everything is written with an objective meaning in mind is basically a novice attempt at hermeneutics; however, most poets and writers deal in a world of subjective ideas. This is one reason that principles of hermeneutics are not so simple to discover; unfortunately, the field of hermeneutics is considerably more nuanced. A general appeal to hermeneutics certainly does not lend any support to my opponent's thesis that the contents of the bible are law and can therefore be uncovered by hermeneutics.

Let's keep our dictionary definition of law in mind here. Formulating laws is a community activity and it is not confined to the realm of arcane academics.

--Summary--

The bible does not serve as a reliable system of laws. It certainly cannot serve as an objective source of universal Laws because it is fallible and it is open to multiple interpretations. Historically, the church looked to the Holy Spirit for guidance and it has traditionally distrusted or minimized teachings based on justification by works [6].

A system of Common Law developed in Europe and has served as a foundation of our system of laws to this day. Lip service aside, even conservative Christian groups don't strictly follow the bible as law.

Bottom line: Today, the bible is primarily a book for spiritual inspiration and guidance. It is not suited as a system of laws that may be enforced by our social institutions [6]. The bible is not law in our modern sense of the word.

[1] Common Law, http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] Legal Systems, http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] Bible, New International Version
[4] Hermeneutics, http://plato.stanford.edu...
[5] The Complete Gospels: Annotated Scholars Version, edited by Robert J. Miller; The Five Gospels: What Did Jesus Really Say?, by Robert W. Funk
[6] I have written a more detailed description of this but I had to cut it out due to space limitations. I may present it in a future round.
Mikal

Pro

I was going to spend an entire round refuting my adversaries contentions, but then decided not to waste the time. Almost everything she argued was not apart of the resolution that we are discussing. Thus it would be a waste of my time and character limits refuting all of them. I am going show how and why below.

The first thing we need to address is what a law is. There are a variety of different types of laws and what type of law is not specified in the resolution. Even if we refer back to round 1 my adversary simply claims, she will be arguing against the "following statement". She says "following" but there was nothing to preceded this, so it is quite clear that she meant that she would argue the title of the debate and the resolution at hand. Which is

"The bible is law and should be followed accordingly "


P1) The bible is law

Types of law/ By Law

My adversary states this.

" However, this is irrelevant to this debate because personal views do not necessarily establish laws that are accepted by the community at large. To see this more clearly, let's expand on the meaning of Common Law by referring to the Wikipedia article "

This is entirely false and was not specified nor stated in the resolution.

There are laws that govern a community, a company, or even a church. There are regulations when you move into certain homes that require you to uphold home owner associations, there are laws that you have to follow when you become a member of some churches, and there a laws you have to follow when you get a job. Each act independently of each other. I do not have to argue this strictly from a federal perspective. I am simply showing that the bible is a law or (law) to most Christians.


(a) Personal views can determine what is law. When a variety of people believe something is wrong or right, it is generally accepted as a law or implemented as law. We can clearly see this when we compare cultures. Take a look at gay marriage. A majority of America has this practice banned, while a majority of Europe accepts it. So what people believe personally does impact how a law is enforced

(b) I do not have to defend nor argue that the bible should be a law in America or any other place, but simply show that it is a law for a certain group of people or even persons.


She then states this

" In essence, our debate term, "law to be followed", refers to a system of laws that the community accepts and adheres to by consensus."

She is strictly citing this from a federal perspective. Again take a home owner associations. They have laws that interact independently of stuff that is federal. Not all laws have to be from an across the board perspective. Even in churches you have certain guidelines , laws, and rules that you are expected to follow or you could be asked to leave. Again this is acting independently of something that is federal.

Take chick-fil-a, they can fire you from smoking outside of work and even try to limit your legal activities outside of work at the cost of your job. They use to make you sign a waver when you were hired that stated you would uphold yourself to a certain manner, and what that manner happened to be was at their discretion.

" Getting fired for smoking is one thing, but what about smelling like smoke? It happened to a Minnesota woman. Six weeks after beginning a job as a receptionist, she says her supervisor told her, "We don't want you smelling like smoke when you come here," according to the local ABC affiliate. If employees believe tobacco — even the smell of it — is creating an occupation-related hazard, they can restrict legal activities outside of work. "[1]


There could be a law among fraternity members. Such as if you do not attend a meeting you can be kicked out. This varies by fraternity and sorority. [2]

Even churches have rules and laws that you have to follow. [3]

Most commonly these are referred to as by laws.

By-Law - a rule adopted by an organization chiefly for the government of its members and the regulation of its affairs.

The thing to note is that this is the law of that community, such as a church or Christians. So in the Christian community the bible is in fact a law and rule that is followed despite what con claims.



Most of her other contentions are irrelevant at this point, because she is trying to push that is should not be a law rather than the fact that it is a law. Stating that something should or should not be a law, does not aid her case. I can claim that gay marriage being illegal should not be a law, but it is. She is simply stating because of interpretation issues, that the bible should have no place as a law which is not the focus of this debate.

The fact remains that following the bible is often a by-law of certain church associations and christian communities. Thus fulfilling the first premise in this syllogism.

Almost all of my adversaries contentions are about the fact whether it should be law, not the fact that it is a law. There is no point to refute them. We can clearly see the bible is a law among church members and religious organizations. Members are often kicked out for now following the laws of that organization as well, which are generally the teachings in the bible.

P2) It should be followed accordingly

This follows from premise 1 but there is nothing much to argue from this one. If the bible is a law(which it is), and you are a member of the community and joined willingly that says they abide by that law, you should follow it ( or find a new community).

This is almost self explanatory.


Conclussion

My adversary has not even argued the resolution at hand and is trying to argue things that are not applicable to this debate.

Such as

(a) The bible should be a federal law or law that governs America, States, and other such places
(b) the bible is a federal law (ibid)
(c) The bible should not be a law

None of this is applicable. The only argument she has presented is that it is not a federal law. A law does not necessarily have to be federal for it to be a law, it just has to be accepted and followed by a certain group of people. Which the bible is.

She has not met her BOP and is trying to debate off topic.





[1] http://news.discovery.com...
[2] http://www.sae.net...
[3] http://factn.org...
Debate Round No. 3
queenofmayhem

Con

Interesting. My opponent opened his debate by offering the dictionary definition of law. But then he protested when I rebutted his opening arguments by delving more deeply into this definition. Never mind that he even opened his last argument by appealing to the "need to address what law is". Can we both at least agree that addressing the meaning of law is a discovery topic that is central to this debate? If so, my opponent cannot then talk out of both sides of his mouth: He should not appeal to the definition of law for his side and then claim that I'm off topic when I do the same on my side.

At any rate, this is a moot point because my opponent already lost the debate with his opening argument. Here is why. He opened by claiming that the resolution is a "syllogism": [p1] The bible is law; [p2] Therefore it should be followed accordingly. Actually, this is not even a syllogism [1] but for the sake of brevity, let's give my opponent a pass on this.

Unfortunately for my opponent, and contrary to his claim, premise 1 (p1) can and should be contested. First, the bible is a Christian text, not a Jewish text; so let's exclude Jewish people from this because they would reject the bible out of hand. This is important because one could conceivably argue that the Torah, (i.e., Old Testament (OT)) is law to all Jews and therefore all Jews should follow the Torah. The bible, however, includes the New Testament (NT), in addition to the OT. And the NT proclaims that the law of the OT is obsolete [2]:

"But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code." (Romans 7:6)

In Judaism, the OT (aka, the Torah) is seen as the Law of God. Therefore, a follower of God in the Jewish tradition must assiduously try to follow the OT as law. In this way, a devotee of Judaism is "justified by works". In the bible, however, the NT and the OT. According to the NT, followers of Christ have been freed from the Law and they are now "justified by faith". This NT paradigm has created an age-old debate that is now known as "justification by faith" vs "justification by works" [3].

For most Christians then, the bible really should not be viewed as law. In fact, the bible as we know it today was not even compiled until the 4th century [4]. Early Christians believed that the Holy Spirit (not the bible) would guide them spiritually [5] and they also believed that Jesus' second coming was imminent. So, initially, they were not concerned about compiling a holy book for future generations [6]. Establishing a set of rules and "bylaws" for the Church as a perpetual human institution was also far into the future.

So, for a Christian and his bible, the notion of law, moral and secular, is a relevant topic of debate. It is too bad that my opponent completely missed this. For this reason alone, my opponent lost this debate.

In case some voters need more reasons to vote for me, I'd also like to point out that my opponent committed a debate faux pas by repeatedly putting the word, "federal" in my mouth. In fact, I never uttered the word "federal" a single time in my previous rounds. Instead, I described law as emerging by consensus within a community. The ultimate ideal is to uniformly apply a system of laws as fairly and equitably as possible.

Of course this notion of law applies to any community! It is not confined to a federal system. For example, Common Law emerged at the grass roots, among small communities. As it grew into a robust system of law, it was gradually formalized and absorbed into bigger "jurisdictions" until it was adopted into a country's government. (England was the first country to utilize the Common Law system [7]. England's government, by the way, is not a federal system.)

For any community (church or otherwise), the process of forming laws by consensus is complicated. It may involve political and economic pressure, debate, compromise, etc. The outcome of this process does not necessarily involve someone's personal views being codified into law. Any lawmaker would probably agree that, in the process of debate and compromise, any one person's personal views do not usually survive the law making process without significant alterations. The law making process is truly a community process -- any one person's views contribute to this process but the community does not necessarily adopt this person's views as law. The process of forming consensus is a complex process. My opponent is simply wrong to reject this notion as "entirely false". Au contraire, it is correct.

Any way, as I said earlier, my opponent lost the debate with his opening argument. By asserting that the Christian bible is law to Christians, he fell into a familiar trap. Namely, he thought that Christianity falls into the conventional paradigm of a religion with moral laws that must be obeyed for salvation. He wrongly applied the Old Testament paradigm to the New Testament.

Agree or not, Christians themselves view their salvation as already assured by the grace of God. The law for a true follower of Jesus is therefore obsolete. For a Christian, good works come not from adhering to moral law -- a prescription for salvation. Rather, good works are a description of a follower who has already been saved by God through grace. For a Christian, good works and moral laws are a description, not a prescription [6].

By not understanding the crux of the debate, it is my opponent who has been arguing off-topic.


[1] A syllogism should have three parts: a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion. http://en.wikipedia.org....
[2] Bible, English Standard Version (ESV); See also: Romans 6:14, 1 Corinthians 15:56, and Ephesians 2:8
[3] Are Christians Justified by Faith or by Works? http://christianity.about.com...
[4] Who compiled the Bible and when? http://answers.yahoo.com...
[5] Romans 8:13-16
[6] The New Testament " An Introduction, by N. Perrin, D. Dulin, and D.C. Dulin
[7] History of the Common Law, http://labspace.open.ac.uk...
Mikal

Pro

Again there is nothing really to refute, but for the sake of the debate I will offer some brief rebuttals. The debate is already over at this point.


Types of Laws

See my prior round to confirm the bible is law.

A law can be applied to set group of community, groups, workplaces or even across the board. My adversary almost completely drops this and even concedes the point

" For any community (church or otherwise), the process of forming laws by consensus is complicated "
" The process of forming consensus is a complex process. " (she is referring to community laws )

These laws are derived from the bible from a communal and personal sense. People believe following the word is God is what they aught to do and this is accepted in a community, thus verifying the bible as a law to some. This does not have to be for everyone but by acknowledging this can happen in a community or a group, she concedes this.


By claiming this, she has conceded this point. She is openly acknowledging that a community or a group can have their own set of laws. This is the entire premise behind [p1], and by making these statements she concedes the point. By saying it is complicated she is admitting it happens, which supports by case and the point that I made

Since we can acknowlede the bible is a law, we can strike out the entire first part of the resolution

The bible is a law



A bunch of nothing

Literally there is almost nothing left to refute. All of her points did not even address the contention and she tried to straw man the actual premise behind the debate. I could spend an entire round refuting all of her arguments, but it is moot. All of her contentions do not actually touch anything that is relevant to the debate at all.

She argues that because the bible can be interpreted differently , and is read literally, that it should not be a law. This is the breakdown of her entire argument. Essentially this is false. No matter how people read or interpret the bible it can be and is a law for groups of people. Again premise 1 stands.

"For most Christians then, the bible really should not be viewed as law. In fact, the bible as we know it today was not even compiled until the 4th century [4]. Early Christians believed that the Holy Spirit (not the bible) would guide them spiritually [5] and they also believed that Jesus' second coming was imminent. So, initially, they were not concerned about compiling a holy book for future generations [6]. Establishing a set of rules and "bylaws" for the Church as a perpetual human institution was also far into the future. "

Again this is a bunch of irrelevant things that are not applicable to the debate. Note her own words

"Establishing a set of rules and "bylaws" for the Church as a perpetual human institution was also far into the future. "

She admits that churches and Christians have by laws. This is often derived from the bible and even in a communal sense and personal sense following the teachings of the bible often goes hand in hand with those laws.



Should be followed accordingly

Again his was never really touched and my argument stands. If someone openly accepts the bible is law, and goes into a community that accepts it as such they should follow it if they wish to remain in the community.




Conclusion

My adversary all but concedes this debate when she admits that a church and community can adopt a set of by laws and rules that are directly impacted by the bible itself. By acknowledging that a group of people or even a person can accept the bible as a guideline or law to live their life by, she has lost this debate. She has even made it easy for me, and allowed me to not spend a bunch of unnecessary time refuting half of her arguments because she conceded the essential premise behind this debate.
Debate Round No. 4
62 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Adrilidexus 3 years ago
Adrilidexus
Taking an aggressive defense in an issue as you are doing only makes the case more favorable for the person rivaling you. It also gives you a bad look, and the conduct outside of the debate a midst the general public reading the debate can also prove to be unfavorable for those who vote between either party. Such an example is the middle finger remark, which to some can contradict your stance in terms of religion by favoring sinful gestures.

If you do want things to run smoothly, you need to attempt to look presentable in doing so, and it may or may not include polite mannerisms among your enemies. Though, in the end, that all comes down to you. So my suggestion as a fellow member is to, instead of lashing at one another, keep nerves temperate while Max settles the issue.
Posted by queenofmayhem 3 years ago
queenofmayhem
argument: an exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one

debate: a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward

Make up your mind.

Either way I want nothing to do with you.
Posted by Actionsspeak 3 years ago
Actionsspeak
It's an argument and you just said:
"Seriously, do you have anything better to do with your time other than try to discredit and pick on me." I was refuting this (obviously).
Posted by queenofmayhem 3 years ago
queenofmayhem
this isn't a debate
Posted by queenofmayhem 3 years ago
queenofmayhem
You all can keep whining over this, I have better things to do.
Seriously, do you have anything better to do with your time other than try to discredit and pick on me.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
Yeah and all 4 of those other ones won't be
Posted by Actionsspeak 3 years ago
Actionsspeak
As he said, this case is still under review.... Please read what he writes.
Posted by queenofmayhem 3 years ago
queenofmayhem
Well, I have had enough debating for tonight, and I certainly won't be wasting any more of my valuable time on you than is necessary, so I will leave it to my middle finger.

But if you really want to try and debate, you have no solid proof or evidence and no means, however max does and I am still here so that should really tell you something.
Posted by Actionsspeak 3 years ago
Actionsspeak
@queen
----
You made no effort to refute my points, it's becoming more obvious that you did cheat... Just APOLOGIZE.
Posted by Actionsspeak 3 years ago
Actionsspeak
*it*
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 3 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
queenofmayhemMikalTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: I do not count wikipedia as a reliable source.
Vote Placed by daytonanerd 3 years ago
daytonanerd
queenofmayhemMikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ultimately argued the resolution better, so I give argument points to him
Vote Placed by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
queenofmayhemMikalTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: You can tell a debate is good when you sway your stance after reading every round. I certainly felt that way reading this. It was an exceptionally close debate. Pro takes an enormous risk by resting his debate on the definition of law. Pro concedes that the Bible can be multiply determined, but finds it to be law. However, I don't think Con's argument that the law is communally-defined but requiring near-uniform standards within that community is refuted. Thus, I think that Con wins. Con also used legal and biblical references, so gets sources.
Vote Placed by YYW 3 years ago
YYW
queenofmayhemMikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: CON concedes when she admitted that a church and community can adopt laws and rules which are directly impacted by the bible itself. If the bible can be a guideline, even then, PRO wins. Bizarre debate. Even more bizarre RFD's.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 3 years ago
Actionsspeak
queenofmayhemMikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: To christians the bible is law, and should be followed accordingly. Mikal proved this through the debate and the statement faced little refutation.
Vote Placed by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
queenofmayhemMikalTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: This one was an easy one for me. I usually refrain from religious debates, but this one had a clear winner. Con offered a very loose resolution, and did not specify whether she was talking about religious or civil law. Pro used this to his advantage and proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the bible is religious laws. A lot of cons arguments were unrelated to. Arguments on how the bible can't be law as it doesn't make sense? This is not a reasonable argument in my opinion, and an equivalent to bible bashing. As far as sources, con used Wikipedia a lot, which I exempt from my vote in the argument and source category. I do not factor them in, as they are unreliable unless in highly specific circumstances. Con used the bible as a source as well, which is illogical as she condoned the bible false and unreliable in one of her arguments. As for S&G, I did notice some slight errors on Mikal's side, and I think they should be addressed through a S&G point.
Vote Placed by Jonbonbon 3 years ago
Jonbonbon
queenofmayhemMikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I give conduct to pro because con didn't define the debate at all, so pro did, and con tried to redefine it in the third round. Aside from that con sounded a little condescending during the debate, which wouldn't have gotten the point to pro had she not pulled that move with the definition of the debate. When it comes to arguments, pro was actually consistent with himself and the definition of the resolution. Con felt like she was running in circles around her own case to find a ground on which to debate but couldn't find one in the end.
Vote Placed by Defro 3 years ago
Defro
queenofmayhemMikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro basically wrote my RFD for me in round 5. Con has committed a Straw Man fallacy. Half the debate was already won by Pro in round 2, when he proved the first premise of the syllogism and made it essentially impossible to refute. And Con did not successfully counter the second premise.