The Instigator
Tatarize
Pro (for)
Losing
116 Points
The Contender
mongeese
Con (against)
Winning
131 Points

The Bible is an immoral bit of utter crap.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/9/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 9,508 times Debate No: 8178
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (56)
Votes (41)

 

Tatarize

Pro

In the comments of the debate http://www.debate.org... :

DATCMOTO's offered a counterargument to my claim that thought-crimes were immoral by citing some thought crimes in the Bible.

I contended that the that was not an argument against my position but a splendid argument that "the Bible is an immoral bit of utter crap."

You claimed that this was offensive:
As proper conduct dictates I now offer this debate on two points to be proved:

1) The Bible is an immoral bit of utter crap.
2) It is not offensive to say so.

I understand that these are both rather vague but I'll happily support both opinions if accepted.
mongeese

Con

The Bible - the sacred scriptures of Christians comprising the Old Testament and the New Testament (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)
Also: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Immoral - conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)
Bit - a small piece or quantity of some material thing (http://www.merriam-webster.com...[3])
Utter - carried to the utmost point or highest degree (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)
Crap - defecate (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)
Offensive - causing displeasure or resentment (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)

So, the Bible is a book, and cannot be immoral, because it is the basis of 1/3 of the world's traditionally held moral principles (http://en.wikipedia.org...).

Additionally, to call what a religion reveres to be sacred a piece of defecate is considered blasphemy (http://en.wikipedia.org...) and does indeed cause me to feel displeasure and resentment, because you are insulting my religion, so yes, it is offensive.

I await my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 1
Tatarize

Pro

From your position, it seems that my task is two fold:
1) I need to establish that the Bible is immoral to the highest degree.
2) I need to establish that blasphemy should not offensive.

--

My opponent claims that "the Bible is a book, and cannot be immoral, because it is the basis of 1/3 of the world's traditionally held moral principles".

This is wrong on several points. The Bible is immoral and thus is not the basis for any amount of morality. You cannot have morality based on something immoral. In fact, the idea that I could make a coherent argument against the Bible morality, in and of itself, says the Bible is not moral.

-

Deuteronomy 20:10-14 - "As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you."

The Bible commands genocide, slavery, and rape. This is quite clearly immoral. In fact, it's an obvious war crime by today's standards. The fact that I can even offer the argument that the Bible is immoral is because it isn't the basis for any standard of morality. In fact, by today's standards the Bible is largely immoral.

-

Judges 5:30 NAB - "They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera's spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil."

The idea of taking sex slaves and raping them seems a bit "conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles".

-

We are told to kill, witches (Exodus 22:17), homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13), fortunetellers (Leviticus 20:27), Unruly children (Exodus 21:15, Leviticus 20:9), Adulterers (Leviticus 20:10), Nonbelievers (2 Chronicles 15:12-13), Entire towns with non-believers (Deuteronomy 13), Non-virgin brides (Deuteronomy 22:20-21), Children of sinners (Isaiah 14:21), etc.

-

Which is not to say that the Bible has been at times treated as a moral guide. Take slavery for example:

Leviticus 25:44-46 - "However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way."

One could argue that perhaps such things were ignored or just not part of our morality. But one need not look further than the actual arguments invoked in the antebellum years of the United States:
http://docsouth.unc.edu...

"Nellie's mind was not at rest. The Bible certainly did teach that slavery was a perpetual institution. Its chains were forged in heaven, by God himself, and so fastened, that no power could sunder them but His."

The book itself is a wonderful refutation from a Biblical standpoint that the absolutely immoral practice of slavery is very much supported by the Bible.

I contend, just as I did in the comments section of the other debate, that "Southern Slavery and the Bible." by Ebenezer Warren isn't an argument that slavery is moral, but that the Bible is an immoral bit of utter crap.

-

Let's not forget DATCMOTO's points either. The Bible enforces thought crimes. You are not to covet your neighbor's wife, his house, his male or female slaves. You cannot lust after a women, because that's adultery in your heart. You cannot be angry because that is murder.

Thought crimes, rape, murder, slavery, genocide, and you have the audacity to suggest this is the core of our morality? That's what's actually offensive.

--

As for your definitions, I'm fine with most of them, but from context it's clear that I wasn't literally calling the bible feces. I was saying it was "utter crap" http://www.urbandictionary.com... , to suggest that this is akin to saying it is extreme feces is wrong. It's worthless and immoral. It causes more harm than good and is immoral and suggests we conduct immoral behaviors. I didn't mean literally feces: it's paper, just paper, with horrible things written on it.

--

"Additionally, to call what a religion reveres to be sacred a piece of defecate is considered blasphemy"

I'll gladly concede to being blasphemy. It's a victimless crime. Religions can revere whatever they want. It doesn't suggest for a moment that those things are worthy of more respect. Speaking the truth should not be objectionable. The Bible is an immoral bit of utter crap. It condones atrocities, thought crimes, murder, hate, bigotry, and what little nuggets of wisdom are to be found buried in places are almost always unoriginal and taken from older religious traditions. I'm sure you could cite, do not kill and do not steal, as a moral backbone of the Bible (which suggests running into towns, killing the people and stealing their stuff) but those rules are found in every semicoherent set of laws from Hammerapi to "ask some kid to make up rules to live by".

>> and does indeed cause me to feel displeasure and resentment, because you are insulting my religion, so yes, it is offensive.

You are not your religion. Why do you not feel displeasure and resentment when I insult your politics, or your opinion on the state of the economy? Why does your religion allow for offense? Further, why should saying true things about it be offensive. Supporting justifications for thought-crimes is absolutely immoral. While I understand that you are entitled to having paroxysmal responses to telling you the truth, your offense does not make something offensive in any proper understanding of the word. I am offended that you suggest the Bible is the source of morality for anybody today. If people followed the Bible as a moral guide, the world would be a reprehensible place of barbaric forms of injustice and the petty bigotry of small minds.

The fact that the Bible supports, rape, murder, slavery, genocide, thought crimes, and hate doesn't mean that those things are moral. Rather those are all arguments which say that the Bible is an immoral bit of utter crap!
mongeese

Con

This is wrong on several points..."
Someone saying that something is not moral does not make it not moral.

"The Bible commands genocide, slavery, and rape..."
The entire story of the Bible may not be our basis, but God has occasionally changed his laws. However, the Ten Commandments are. Additionally, Christianity was based on Biblical views, and the American government was based on Christian views.

According to "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Bible," "Biblical laws paved the way for democracy and political government," and "The Bible promotes human freedom." http://www.humanevents.com...

"We are told to kill..."
Those were the instructions for groups of people in the Old Testament. Things changed in the New Testament. None of your arguments come from there.

"The book itself is a wonderful refutation from a Biblical standpoint that the absolutely immoral practice of slavery is very much supported by the Bible."
There is a difference between "was" and "is".

"Let's not forget DATCMOTO's points either... Thought crimes, rape, murder, slavery, genocide, and you have the audacity to suggest this is the core of our morality? That's what's actually offensive."
Anger is not murder. How do you put together such a connection?
That is not the part that we base our morals on. The Ten Commandments are the actual basis.

"As for your definitions, I'm fine with most of them, but from context it's clear that I wasn't literally calling the bible feces. I was saying it was "'utter crap', to suggest that this is akin to saying it is extreme feces is wrong. It's worthless and immoral. It causes more harm than good and is immoral and suggests we conduct immoral behaviors. I didn't mean literally feces: it's paper, just paper, with horrible things written on it."
Such a definition should have been mentioned in the first round, not the second.
You don't really back up your "worthless" argument very well. At the very least, the Bible is paper and ink, which isn't worthless. Additionally, the book was where we got the Ten Commandments, and our current, successful democratic government.

"I'll gladly concede to being blasphemy. It's a victimless crime. Religions can revere whatever they want. It doesn't suggest for a moment that those things are worthy of more respect. Speaking the truth should not be objectionable. The Bible is an immoral bit of utter crap. It condones atrocities, thought crimes, murder, hate, bigotry, and what little nuggets of wisdom are to be found buried in places are almost always unoriginal and taken from older religious traditions. I'm sure you could cite, do not kill and do not steal, as a moral backbone of the Bible (which suggests running into towns, killing the people and stealing their stuff) but those rules are found in every semicoherent set of laws from Hammerapi to 'ask some kid to make up rules to live by'."
You concede that the Bible has a moral backbone, which means that it is not immoral. The Bible is part history, part morals, and the history is the part that is filled with what we now consider immoral actions. The moral parts, found mostly in Proverbs, are very moral.

"These are the proverbs of Solomon, David's son, king of Israel. Their purpose is to teach people wisdom and discipline, to help them understand the insights of the wise. Their purpose is to teach people to live disciplined and successful lives, to help them do what is right, just, and fair. These proverbs will give insight to the simple, knowledge and discernment to the young. Let the wise listen to these proverbs and become even wiser. Let those with understanding receive guidance by exploring the meaning in these proverbs and parables, the words of the wise and their riddles. Fear of the lord is the foundation of true knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline." Proverbs 1.1-7

"The Lord detests the use of dishonest scales, but he delights in accurate weights. Pride leads to disgrace, but with humility comes wisdom. Honesty guides good people; dishonesty destroys treacherous people. Riches won't help on the day of judgement, but right living can save you from death. The godly are directed by honesty; the wicked fall beneath their load of sin. The godliness of good people rescues them; the ambition of treacherous people traps them. When the wicked die, their hopes die with them, for they rely on their own feeble strength. The godly are rescued from trouble, and it falls on the wicked instead. With their words, the godless destroy their friends, but knowledge will rescue the righteous. The whole city celebrates when the godly succeed; they should for joy when the wicked die. Upright citizens are good for a city and make it prosper, but the talk of the wicked tears it apart. It is foolish to belittle one's neighbor; a sensible person keeps quiet." Proverbs 11.1-12

Those sound like very good morals to follow, in addition to many, many more.

"You are not your religion. Why do you not feel displeasure and resentment when I insult your politics, or your opinion on the state of the economy? Why does your religion allow for offense? Further, why should saying true things about it be offensive. Supporting justifications for thought-crimes is absolutely immoral. While I understand that you are entitled to having paroxysmal responses to telling you the truth, your offense does not make something offensive in any proper understanding of the word. I am offended that you suggest the Bible is the source of morality for anybody today. If people followed the Bible as a moral guide, the world would be a reprehensible place of barbaric forms of injustice and the petty bigotry of small minds."
I would feel displeasure and resentment if you called capitalism a failure, but the current economic state does not draw much of my attention. Religion is very important to many people, and offending it is, well, offensive. Also, whether your statements are true or not is very much controversial, and I disagree. Also, even the truth can be offensive. If I call someone fat, it can offend them, even (no, especially) if they weigh 1,000 pounds.

"While I understand that you are entitled to having paroxysmal responses to telling you the truth, your offense does not make something offensive in any proper understanding of the word."
It caused discomfort and resentment in me and many others, as you can see in some of the first Comments, so it fits the definition for the word "offensive."

"I am offended that you suggest the Bible is the source of morality for anybody today. If people followed the Bible as a moral guide, the world would be a reprehensible place of barbaric forms of injustice and the petty bigotry of small minds."
You think Proverbs are bad? You think the Ten Commandments are bad? Those are the parts of the Bible that are used as morals in the modern world, and the rest is quite literally history. We used Proverbs for our morals, and thus, we are a democracy. Israel wasn't barbaric, because times had changed since the beginning of the Old Testament. Thus, "Old."

"The fact that the Bible supports, rape, murder, slavery, genocide, thought crimes, and hate doesn't mean that those things are moral. Rather those are all arguments which say that the Bible is an immoral bit of utter crap!"
Say, you misquoted most everything you said from the Bible. That was not the Bible talking; that was God's instructions to a group of Israelites in the past. He was commanding them, in those times; there is nothing to suggest that God was laying it out as a law for the future! I say, don't misquote the Bible! You need an extra set of apostrophes to surround most of your quotes, which completely changes its implications.
Thus, because the Bible does not actually support the aforementioned actions, my opponent's entire argument mostly falls apart.

Thank you for responding. I still feel offended.
Debate Round No. 2
Tatarize

Pro

While dismissing the Bible's commands that people commit genocide, slavery, rape, sex slaves, various murders, thought crimes, punishing children for their father's sins, and cleaning up sin with some blood of birds and such. We are now told that it's not the source of our morals, but that the ten commandments are.

--
1) I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not have no other gods before me.
-- Religious intolerance is prohibited by the first amendment.

2) Do not make unto thee any graven image.
-- Drawing a picture of a horse should not condemn your great great grandchildren.

3) Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
-- Freedom of speech.

4) Remember thou keep the Sabbath Day.
-- There are some blue laws, but such a widespread rule has been found unconstitutional.

5) Honor thy Father and thy Mother.
-- You can't murder unruly children. Also, what if your parents sexual abuse you?

6) Thou shalt not kill.
-- This is a rule in every culture even those long predating this rule. (See Hammurapi).

7) Thou shalt not commit adultery.
-- Killing adulterers sounds fun, but the Constitution prohibits all such laws.

8) Thou shalt not steal.
-- This is a rule in every culture even those long predating this rule.

9) Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
-- Accusing your neighbor of a crime is no longer that serious of a crime because we now view people as innocent until proven guilty.

10) Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife or goods.
-- Thought crimes are not enforceable. Further, this is the core of capitalism. You need to covet your neighbor's goods. Also listed in the commandment are slaves. No coveting of slaves. Slaves fine, coveting bad!

Which of these could actually be part of American Jurisprudence? Only stealing and killing, the rest are strictly unconstitutional. It's hard to say that Christianity is the core of American government when it's prohibited from being a part of the American government. America is a child of the enlightenment which was a move away from the Church and Monarchies and towards individual freedoms. The rights of the government do not come from God, they come from the consent of the people to be governed. That is the central theme of American government and what sets our government in apart. If you want to see what government by way of Christianity does, look up Europe during the Dark Ages.

--

"Anger is not murder. How do you put together such a connection?"

While I freely concede that the connection is silly, it's biblical! It's from the Sermon on the Mount:

Matthew 5:21-22 Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment. But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment.

--

"Such a definition should have been mentioned in the first round, not the second."

You were the one who defined them. I pointed out that my meaning was the colloquial one the next round. I still think it's immoral crap. But, crap in the general sense rather than in the specific one. I don't even see how the literal definition makes any sense.

--

"Additionally, the book was where we got the Ten Commandments, and our current, successful democratic government."

The Bible is littered with Kings with dozens of wives and murders, genocide, and slavery. Nothing in the Bible speaks to the sort of self-empowerment that democracy does. A Biblical government would be a theocracy.

--

"You concede that the Bible has a moral backbone, which means that it is not immoral."

No. I said nothing of the sort. I conceded that I was blasphemous. However blasphemy is not a crime and it would be a victimless crime if it were. I said that you could cite "do not kill and do not steal, as a moral backbone of the Bible (...) but those rules are found in every semicoherent set of laws" -- I was pointing out how baseless the claims you had yet to make would be.

--

"The Bible is part history, part morals, and the history is the part that is filled with what we now consider immoral actions."

The Bible is not very historical.
http://video.google.com...;
http://video.google.com...;

--

"The moral parts, found mostly in Proverbs, are very moral."

Proverbs is a collection of proverbs taken from various culture. Some of them are taken from the Instructions of Amenemopet others are taken from other cultures around at the time. They aren't religious wisdom or moral pronouncements they are wise sayings that kick around a culture.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

19:18 Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying.
22:15 Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.
23:13 Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.
23:14 Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.
30:17 The eye that mocketh at his father, and despiseth to obey his mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the young eagles shall eat it.

Judging by how many there are about beating the crap out of kids, I'm not too impressed. Though, I never said there weren't some good bits. Ingersol said of proverbs:

"In the Proverbs there is much shrewdness, many pithy and prudent maxims, many wise sayings. The same ideas are expressed in many ways -- the wisdom of economy and silence, the dangers of vanity and idleness. Some are trivial, some are foolish, and many are wise. These proverbs are not generous -- not altruistic. Sayings to the same effect are found among all nations. "
http://www.infidels.org...

They aren't moral statements or the foundations for real morality. Not one of them says never own other people, don't murder entire towns because they don't worship your god, don't kill people and keep the little girls for raping. They are pithy and somewhat banal. In short, they are pretty much crap, and not written by Solomon.

--

"I would feel displeasure and resentment if you called capitalism a failure,"

Capitalism is a failure. How much resentment? How much displeasure? Are you seething?

--

"Religion is very important to many people, and offending it is, well, offensive."

The point is, I'm not offending it! It's a bunch of beliefs. By definition if I called a person fat, I am saying something about that person. I'm saying, this bronzed aged religion that insists people be murdered, raped, slain, cut open and their fetuses stabbed, is an immoral bit of utter crap! I've said nothing about people. It isn't "offensive" though you can take offense to anything.

--

"You think Proverbs are bad? You think the Ten Commandments are bad?"

Yes and yes.

--

"you misquoted most everything you said from the Bible. That was not the Bible talking; that was God's instructions to a group of Israelites in the past."

Are you telling me to blame God, not the Bible? The Bible is just records how God does evil stuff, but doesn't advocate doing evil stuff yourself. But it says, "have slaves", "kill gays", "beat children"!

Jesus says in Matthew 5:18 "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." -- Jesus says it will all apply until the end of days.

The ten commandments are the commands to kill sabbathbreakers, unruly children, adulterers, unbelievers, and those who covet (a thought crime). You're telling me to ignore the parts that tell you to kill people and rather look at the ten commandments! Those are those parts!
mongeese

Con

"While dismissing the Bible's commands..."
The Bible can be split into two parts: history and morals. This is like my World Geography textbook; it has some parts about history and some parts about the world today. If a history book mentions that George Washington led an army to kill a bunch of soldiers, does that make the book immoral? No. The actions of the past are history; the Ten Commandments are moral.

"1) I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not have no other gods before me.
-- Religious intolerance is prohibited by the first amendment."
He is talking to his own people; if you do not listen to God, you end up not obeying to the First Commandment in the first place, because you already chose not to listen to them.

"2) Do not make unto thee any graven image.
-- Drawing a picture of a horse should not condemn your great great grandchildren."
I'm pretty sure that that was supposed to mean that you shouldn't give yourself a bad reputation.

"3) Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
-- Freedom of speech."
Again, he is commanding his own people about what to say. Either obey or disobey; you will pay the price in the end. And I quite literally mean you.

"4) Remember thou keep the Sabbath Day.
-- There are some blue laws, but such a widespread rule has been found unconstitutional."
And God's people do keep the Sabbath Day when they go to church. It does not apply to non-Christians/Jews.

"5) Honor thy Father and thy Mother.
-- You can't murder unruly children. Also, what if your parents sexual abuse you?"
Where does it say that you have to kill those who disobey? And if your parents sexually abuse you, report them. They then no longer deserve honor, if they do not treat their children with respect.

"6) Thou shalt not kill.
-- This is a rule in every culture even those long predating this rule. (See Hammurapi)."
Irrelevant. It provides a moral for killing, whether it is an old rule or not. You also give no evidence for a culture that precedes this.

"6) Thou shalt not kill.
-- This is a rule in every culture even those long predating this rule. (See Hammurapi)."
It is actually, "You must not murder." And this is still moral, even if it already exists. The more cultures that follow such a rule, the better.

"7) Thou shalt not commit adultery.
-- Killing adulterers sounds fun, but the Constitution prohibits all such laws."
It doesn't say to kill adulterers; it just says not to become one.

"8) Thou shalt not steal.
-- This is a rule in every culture even those long predating this rule."
Again, irrelevant.

"9) Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
-- Accusing your neighbor of a crime is no longer that serious of a crime because we now view people as innocent until proven guilty."
A witness stand is still pretty powerful, as people have been put on death row by witness. Also, just because we don't charge such a crime against it, doesn't mean you should do it. It is still a moral code that is very advisable.

"10) Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife or goods.
-- Thought crimes are not enforceable. Further, this is the core of capitalism. You need to covet your neighbor's goods. Also listed in the commandment are slaves. No coveting of slaves. Slaves fine, coveting bad!"
That was a day when slavery was common; they continued to apply until slavery was abolished. Also, just because they are unenforceable, doesn't mean you should not obey them.

"Which of these could actually be part of American Jurisprudence?..."
It is only unconstitutional for the sake of those who do not practice Christianity or Judaism. Separation of church and state is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution; it only allows for the freedom of religion. America is a child of a Protestant movement in which people fled Europe to escape religious prosecution. The Enlightenment (http://en.wikipedia.org...) was still a movement towards inner religion, not a secular movement.
((http://en.wikipedia.org...)
We still use many morals from the Bible.
And why should I be the one to look up Europe in the Dark Ages?
http://en.wikipedia.org...
"Classical Antiquity, so long considered the 'dark' age for its lack of Christianity..."
I thought you said that that was supposed to be a government WITH Christianity...

"While I freely concede that the connection is silly, it's biblical! It's from the Sermon on the Mount..."
All that says is that they both will have similar punishment. Murder seems as if it would give you more danger of the judgment than anger, as it is mentioned first and anger seems to be a new addition to the statement.

"You were the one who defined them..."
Well, I don't use the Urban Dictionary; I use Merriam-Webster. Your lack of any definition led me to need a definition; the easiest way to get the proper definition is to say so BEFORE I can misinterpret it. I didn't see any literal sense, either, but hey, that was to my advantage.

"The Bible is littered with Kings with dozens of wives and murders, genocide, and slavery..."
A World History book would be littered with governments that committed mass genocide, persecution, and corruption, but that does not make the book immoral. The Bible was written AFTER those events; look towards the end to see what the modern opinion was in those days.

"No. I said nothing of the sort..."
You are blasphemous, yes. However, just because a law is used in one culture, doesn't mean that it can't be a moral backbone in another; you still have yet to show me these cultures that you speak of.

"The Bible is not very historical."
You honestly expect me to watch 50 minutes of video that you claim to support your argument? I think that it's your job to cite the evidence you need from the video, give the time in which the fact was mentioned, and then allow me to attack your point. I'm tired of doing most of the dirty work for you.

"Proverbs is a collection of proverbs taken from various cultures..."
I think that some of them do have moral values. Additionally, you have admitted that Proverbs are wise, which means that the Bible contains wise sayings, which is enough to show that it is not worthless.

"Judging by how many there are about beating the crap out of kids, I'm not too impressed..."
I'm pretty sure the rod was supposed to be a metaphor for discipline.

Ingersol agrees that the Proverbs are often wise, and are found everywhere, neither of which make it worthless.

"They aren't moral statements or the foundations for real morality..."
Is there a Proverb that says any of these things? You cannot dismiss them as crap for not addressing some subjects that you want; you already admitted that they are often wise, and wisdom is not crap.

"Capitalism is a failure. How much resentment? How much displeasure? Are you seething?"
Any resentment or displeasure is killed by your lack of sincerity.

"The point is, I'm not offending it!..."
To be offensive, a statement must cause either resentment or displeasure, which it indeed does. Thus, it is offending, which goes against your point.

"Yes and yes."
Any reason why?

"Are you telling me to blame God, not the Bible?"
Sometime in the distant past, God gave some Israelites some one-time instructions. He never said they were laws, because they were instructions.

"Jesus says it will all apply until the end of days."
But you have yet to prove that such statements were actual laws.

"The ten commandments are the commands to kill sabbathbreakers, unruly children, adulterers, unbelievers, and those who covet (a thought crime). You're telling me to ignore the parts that tell you to kill people and rather look at the ten commandments! Those are those parts!"
The Ten Commandments teach NOT to murder, and it does not say to kill the rule breakers, because they will already suffer on the Day of Judgment.

Good day.
Debate Round No. 3
Tatarize

Pro

If a book tells you that the holocaust was good and commanded by God, that book is immoral. If it tells you to continue murdering, condones slavery, and give commands which are absolutely immoral. Then it is immoral.

I previously noted that slavery was argued from a very strong religious position. Had there been the smallest fraction to suggest that slavery wasn't God-sanctioned then a number of the pious southerners would have been in an indefensible position. However, theologically they were right: The Bible condones slavery.

How about homosexuality today? Much of the anti-gay bigotry comes from religion. They specific cite Leviticus 20:13 repeatedly, and they are right. From a Biblical standpoint the argument is solid, homosexuals are to be put to death "their blood is upon them"; That is horrific. It's immoral, unjust, and bigoted.

Further, the central doctrine of Christianity is immoral. The idea of blood sacrifice and sins of parents on their children are completely immoral and absolutely central. Jesus sacrifices himself to himself in order to give himself permission to forgive his creations for his mistakes. It's blood sacrifice to wash away sins other people committed (while not knowing right from wrong!).

--

"And God's people do keep the Sabbath Day when they go to church. It does not apply to non-Christians/Jews."

Jews (typically orthodox) keep the Sabbath, on Saturday (it's actually called Sabbath in many languages), they don't do any work as they are commanded by God. Outside of the 7th day Adventists and the Sabbathists, Christians largely ignore this.

--

"-- This is a rule in every culture even those long predating this rule. (See Hammurapi)."
".... You also give no evidence for a culture that precedes this."

I told you very specifically "See Hammurapi".
http://en.wikipedia.org...

The code of laws specifically outlaws murder and stealing as well as making a number of very practical provisions. It predates the Bible.

--

"6) Thou shall not kill."
"It is actually, "You must not murder.""

I'm obviously using the KJV and it translated ratsach as kill. Also, it's used elsewhere as a lion killing a man. Though, none of this is relevant.

--

"It doesn't say to kill adulterers; it just says not to become one."

Leviticus 20:10 " 'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.

--

It's unconstitutional to enforce 80% of the ten commandments, largely because of the separation of church and state. The first Amendment says that the government has no right to interfere with anything religious. The actual phrase doesn't appear, but the intention and spirit of the law, is dripping with it. You can't really be free to practice religion if the government is free to press religious ideas and beliefs upon you: such as Worship the God of the OT.

---

"America is a child of a Protestant movement in which people fled Europe to escape religious prosecution."

A couple of early American colonies were setup because puritans lost the English Civil War and were no longer able to persecute people as freely as they wanted to: the fled European liberalism. If you want to check this, look at the rules they passed after setting up their colony. They were some of the most religiously constrictive ever to the point of near theocracy. The era is called the era of religious intolerance.

--

"The Enlightenment was still a movement towards inner religion, not a secular movement."

Many Enlightenment thinkers were deists and individualists. It was a movement away from the dogmas of the Bible, influence of the Church and tyranny of the Monarchies. It was the founding of this country, not on the doctrines of the Bible, but on the thoughts and philosophy of men.

--

"--Classical Antiquity, so long considered the 'dark' age for its lack of Christianity..."
"I thought you said that that was supposed to be a government WITH Christianity..."

You misapprehend, it says: "Classical Antiquity, so long considered the "dark" age for its lack of Christianity, was now seen by Petrarch as the age of "light" because of its cultural achievements, while Petrarch's time, allegedly lacking such cultural achievements, was seen as the age of darkness."

Petrarch was the first to see the Grecian-Roman era as an "age of light" rather an "age of darkness" due to the lack of Christianity. The "dark" age, referred to in the passage was the non-Christian ages 'evil age' when most cultural and scientific occurred. Petrarch flipped the metaphor on it's head and referred to the new Christian age as "dark" due to the lack of cultural advancement.

--

"All that says is that they both will have similar punishment."

No. Jesus is clearly making a point: Lust is adultery. Anger at your brother is murder. He's clearly saying they are thought crimes and you need to keep your inner self in check.

--

"I use Merriam-Webster."

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
2. sometimes vulgar : nonsense, rubbish ; also : stuff 4b

From context, there's no argument to suggest I mean literally feces.

--

"You honestly expect me to watch 50 minutes of video that you claim to support your argument?"

The Bible's a pretty long book. It takes a while to go over all the archeological evidence against various points. No Garden of Eden, no global flood, no Jews in Egypt, no conquest of Israel, no empire of Solomon and David. There's a lot of stuff in there while not being a part of history and Dr. Avalos does a good job.

--

"Bible contains wise sayings, which is enough to show that it is not worthless."

The Bible has nice thin pages which are quite useful. I never said it was completely worthless. I said it was an immoral bit of utter crap. From thought crimes to genocides, sex slaves, daughter selling, kid beating, etc. Even Mein Kampf has some good parts (even if also largely a work of fiction to aggrandize the past), even though it's immoral crap too.

--

"I'm pretty sure the rod was supposed to be a metaphor for discipline."

"23:13 Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die." - Yeah, because it doesn't directly say "beat him with the rod" -- Wait, it does!

--

"Is there a Proverb that says any of these things? You cannot dismiss them as crap for not addressing some subjects that you want; you already admitted that they are often wise, and wisdom is not crap."

I said that the Bible was immoral crap, not completely crap. The fact that the Bible says thought crimes are okay, is an argument that the Bible is immoral crap. The fact that the Bible includes some common sayings of the culture doesn't negate the fact that the Bible is immoral crap. Even the wisest man is an immoral cad, when he's raping a girl whose family he just slaughtered (on the direct orders of God).

--

"Sometime in the distant past, God gave some Israelites some one-time instructions. He never said they were laws, because they were instructions."

Genocide! Today only! Order now! Murder this town, kill their men, rape their little girls. Did you kill all the children? No. Oh, God's pissed now. Go back and make sure you've killed all the kids. Remember, two enslaved girls for raping each. Don't be greedy.

--

"The Ten Commandments teach NOT to murder, and it does not say to kill the rule breakers, because they will already suffer on the Day of Judgment."

You think the ten commandments weren't to be enforced? They were really just the ten suggestions? Even though it proscribed the punishments for sabbathbreaking, adultery, etc as death? There's a long story about people grabbing somebody for picking up sticks, bringing him to Moses, and then murdering the guy. It clearly does say kill them.
mongeese

Con

"If a book tells you that the holocaust was good and commanded by God, that book is immoral. If it tells you to continue murdering, condones slavery, and give commands which are absolutely immoral. Then it is immoral."
It doesn't say to continue murdering. And this genocide you speak of was actually a town invasion...

"I previously noted that slavery was argued from a very strong religious position. Had there been the smallest fraction to suggest that slavery wasn't God-sanctioned then a number of the pious southerners would have been in an indefensible position. However, theologically they were right: The Bible condones slavery."
Again, it was a different time. War slaves were common. Selling out to be a slave was common. However, the only time where there was all-out slavery on a defenseless culture was with Egyptians vs. Israelis, which God opposed.

"How about homosexuality today? Much of the anti-gay bigotry comes from religion. They specific cite Leviticus 20:13 repeatedly, and they are right. From a Biblical standpoint the argument is solid, homosexuals are to be put to death 'their blood is upon them'; That is horrific. It's immoral, unjust, and bigoted."
Actually, most of the "unclean" laws went away with the death of Jesus. Additionally, those were the laws of Israel at the time. At one point, John Adams restricted free speech in America. Is my textbook immoral now? No. Also, because most people agree that homosexuality is a sin, it is actually moral for those people to not practice homosexuality.

"Further, the central doctrine of Christianity is immoral. The idea of blood sacrifice and sins of parents on their children are completely immoral and absolutely central. Jesus sacrifices himself to himself in order to give himself permission to forgive his creations for his mistakes. It's blood sacrifice to wash away sins other people committed (while not knowing right from wrong!)."
Blood sacrifice ENDED with Jesus. Anything before that can be called history, the past, what once was.

"Jews (typically orthodox) keep the Sabbath, on Saturday (it's actually called Sabbath in many languages), they don't do any work as they are commanded by God. Outside of the 7th day Adventists and the Sabbathists, Christians largely ignore this."
Why do you think Christians go to church on Saturday?

"The code of laws specifically outlaws murder and stealing as well as making a number of very practical provisions. It predates the Bible."
However, you give no reason for the Bible to be unable to copy good rules.

Leviticus 20:10 " 'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.'"
That was history of Israel; the Ten Commandments said nothing of the sort. Hey, times were stricter back then.

"It's unconstitutional to enforce 80% of the Ten Commandments..."
Well, yeah, because we chose not to be an entirely Christian nation, but there were still influences. It allows for freedom of religion, but that's actually about it, because the law can still borrow ideas from any culture or religion it pleases.

"A couple of early American colonies were setup because puritans lost the English Civil War and were no longer able to persecute people as freely as they wanted to..."
Well, that's religion for you. Why should I check it? You should back up your claims, not me.

"Many Enlightenment thinkers were deists and individualists..."
And yet, you have no sources.

"No. Jesus is clearly making a point..."
If I fine you $5 for speeding, and $5 for assault, is speeding assault? No.

"From context, there's no argument to suggest I mean literally feces."
I went with the first definition I saw.

"The Bible's a pretty long book..."
I'm still not going to spend 50 minutes watching your facts. As I already said, you should cite facts within those videos to use, or else they're not part of your argument.

"The Bible has nice thin pages which are quite useful..."
http://www.urbandictionary.com...
You still need to show how it is either pointless, senseless, insolent, or meaningless. Pick one, and give reason why. The Bible addressed harsh times, but the end gives the final instructions, not the beginning. History and morals.

"Wait, it does!"
That doesn't mean that the rod isn't metaphorical.

"I said that the Bible was immoral crap, not completely crap..."
To affirm your resolution, you need to connect the Bible to your definition (http://www.urbandictionary.com...), which you haven't. The past is the past, but today, the Bible is indeed wise. If you were to follow Proverbs today, you would be wise. Thus, it serves a purpose, and thus isn't worthless. A book that preaches the need to be wise is good.

"Genocide!..."
Well, it WAS war...

"You think the Ten Commandments weren't to be enforced?..."
As I said, eternal suffering is punishment enough. The death penalties for such things have changed over time, but the basic meaning is the same; don't do such things, because they are BAD. The killing was just in the times.

And while we're at it...
"Bit - a small piece or quantity of some material thing"
You still need to enforce this definition. And it looks as if you've dropped the offensive argument.
Debate Round No. 4
Tatarize

Pro

I thank my opponent for his arguments, though underwhelming. The general claims seem to be akin to the idea that the Bible doesn't matter, that those part of the Bible aren't true anymore. Why should this be the case at all? If the Bible is moral, I should be unable to cite anything that isn't the utmost moral sentiment of all time. However, I bring up various genocides depicted in the bible and my opponent attempts to shrug them off by saying it "was actually a town invasion". Clearly a genocide would be very naughty, but killing all the men and women and young boys of a town and keeping the young girls to rape is different? The Bible is littered with such petty genocides. (Jeremiah 50:21, Judges 21:10-24, Numbers 31:7-18, Deuteronomy 20:10-14).

When murdering the Midianites they killed all the men and gathered up the remaining villagers. And then Moses comes by and he gets pissed that they haven't slaughtered all the women. You can keep the virgins for some raping, but murder the women and kids for God's sake (literally for God's sake)! We are asked to consider this moral because it was *only* a town full of people. They only specifically murdered all the Midianites, that may technically be genocide, but only tens of thousands.

This is your argument that the Bible isn't an immoral bit of utter crap? Insufficient death?

--

I am offended by your insinuations. The idea that calling the Bible an immoral bit of utter crap should be offensive to you is a joke.; it's absolutely true. No amount of arm waving about how genocides are fine, rape is fine, and murder people is fine is going to excuse this. You have no right to be offended by the truth being observed about a book. While certainly if I said a hurtful truth about you, one could see justification. However, I am simply expressing a simple truth about a horrible book.

In the comments of this debate a commenter chimed in "how can the bible be immoral if the bible is what decides what morals are!?" to which you replied, "exactly!" -- Seriously? Rape, genocide, blood sacrifice, child sacrifice, slavery, homophobia, thought crimes, and you have the audacity to claim that these are basis of morality? How dare you? Our government and our morality today are largely secular and we are better for this.

We do good, when we do the most good for the most people. You would have us believe that we do good by following the Bible. That because Gandhi didn't accept the God of the OT (violating the first commandment), that murdering him wouldn't have been acceptable today, but we can be happy that he's now burning in hell forever. This is equally as barbaric, equally as immoral, and equally as disgusting. The only redemption of these immoral claims are their falseness.

---

I didn't bring up slavery as some distant bit of trivia. You can't say "it was a different time." because it was 150 years ago. This country is still haunted today by the ghosts of slavery. It was wiped out by a largely secular movement fighting against the letter of the Bible which condoned slavery and gave the pious in the south, a moral argument.

I'm not talking about myths like Exodus which you claim was "the only time where there was all-out slavery on a defenseless culture was with Egyptians vs. Israelis", that didn't happen. Archeologically there is no exodus, there weren't any Jewish people at that time and the Jewish identity grew up after that from the local populations. I'm talking about actual chains and slave ships. I'm talking about people owning people in contemporary existence. I'm talking about real pain and real evil being condoned by the Bible. "The Bible certainly did teach that slavery was a perpetual institution. Its chains were forged in heaven, by God himself, and so fastened, that no power could sunder them but His." - Ebenezer Warren

"...the church of this country is not only indifferent to the wrongs of the slave, it actually takes sides with the oppressors. It has made itself the bulwark of American slavery, and the shield of American slave hunters. Many of its most eloquent Divines . . . have shamelessly given the sanction of religion and the Bible to the whole slave system. They have taught that man may, properly, be a slave; that the relation of master and slave is ordained of God; that to send back an escaped bondman to his master is clearly the duty of all followers of the Lord Jesus Christ" - Frederick Douglass

--

"Actually, most of the "unclean" laws went away with the death of Jesus."

I have it on good authority that not a jot or tittle went away.

--

"Also, because most people agree that homosexuality is a sin, it is actually moral for those people to not practice homosexuality."

The idea that homosexuality is a sin, that being different is being wrong, that loving is evil is completely immoral. And the fact that you think this is, like DATCMOTO's defense of thought crimes, a good argument that the Bible is an immoral bit of utter crap. Homophobia isn't biblically justified. The fact that the Bible is used as a justification, shows that the Bible is wrong, not homosexuality.

--

"Blood sacrifice ENDED with Jesus. Anything before that can be called history, the past, what once was."

My point isn't that it ended but that the very *idea* of blood sacrifice is immoral. That causing innocents to bleed and die makes you a better person is barbaric. The fact that Christianity's central core is that of blood sacrifice is, in and of itself, the immoral bit.

--

"Why do you think Christians go to church on Saturday?"

The rules to keep the sabbath is more than attending a Saturday service (though Sunday is far more typical).

--

"However, you give no reason for the Bible to be unable to copy good rules."

True. It is able to copy good rules. Just as it copied down some good proverbs. The fact that this is so, doesn't make the Bible moral. It means that the good parts have nothing to do with the Bible.

--

"That was history of Israel; the Ten Commandments said nothing of the sort. Hey, times were stricter back then."

Women were property, it was theft to use another man's property. Such laws aren't constitutional today because the rights of women and men are paramount rather than some bronze aged property claims. Marriages are largely based on love rather than on property arrangements. The punishments for violating the commandments is death.

--

"Well, yeah, because we chose not to be an entirely Christian nation, but there were still influences."

We chose to be a secular nation. The fact that we got absolutely none of our laws from Christianity should be telling; They were immoral laws. They are not acceptable in a modern and just culture. Freedom of religion comes directly out of the enlightenment, and is the very definition of a secular ideal.

--

"I'm still not going to spend 50 minutes watching your facts. As I already said, you should cite facts within those videos to use, or else they're not part of your argument."

To cite the facts would take more than 50 minutes. The Bible is written largely as self-aggrandizing etiology to glorify the past. Most of it is completely false.

--

"That doesn't mean that the rod isn't metaphorical."

You can beat children with it and make them cry. We are told to keep beating them even if they cry, because it's good for them... such wisdom!

--

"The past is the past, but today, the Bible is indeed wise. If you were to follow Proverbs today, you would be wise."

Actually many of those proverbs would get me arrested.

--

"it WAS war..."

Even when the women were gathered up and defenseless and slaughtered?

--

"Bit - a small piece or quantity of some material thing"

The Bible isn't the complete set of utter crap, it's simply a bit of utter crap. Surely you've heard this part of speech before.

--

Thank you for reading.
mongeese

Con

"This is your argument that the Bible isn't an immoral bit of utter crap? Insufficient death?"
We look at genocide differently now than we used to. Today, the most recent genocides are the slaughtering of millions of innocent people at the hands of their own government. In those times, it was just the spoils of war. There IS a difference.

"However, I am simply expressing a simple truth about a horrible book."
No, the book is not horrible, and it does cause resentment and displeasure, whether you like it or not; thus, it is offensive.

"Our government and our morality today are largely secular and we are better for this."
Again, our government is not based off of the history part that you seem to have obsessed yourself with. It is based off of the moral part.

"The only redemption of these immoral claims are their falseness."
Murdering is not acceptable, as it violates a commandment. Stop contradicting yourself by saying that the commandments contradict themselves.

"I didn't bring up slavery as some distant bit of trivia."
Slavery as a result of war is different from slavery as a result of oppressive behavior. Don't forget the story of Moses freeing the UNFAIRLY enslaved Israelis. War and peace are not easily comparable when it comes to... anything.

You claim that Exodus has been proven wrong by archeology, yet you cite nothing.
Yes, the Bible supported slavery, as a spoil of war. However, we were not at war with Africa, and God did not support such racial and cultural discrimination leading to slavery, as shown by the story of Moses, so the two cases remain incomparable. Yes, the oppressors in such a racially discriminative case were wrong, in both the Bible and the history textbooks. Spoils of war make a completely different story, which you haven't really addresses AT ALL.

"I have it on good authority that not a jot or tittle went away."
The unclean laws were based on blood sacrifice necessary to remove the state of being "unclean", which Jesus repealed by making himself the ultimate, permanent blood sacrifice.

"The idea that homosexuality is a sin, that being different is being wrong, that loving is evil is completely immoral..."
The idea of going against nature with such love can be considered immoral in some cultures. Many Debate.org users are still against gay marriage, which means that it is still part of their morals, so anti-gay marriage is not immoral for them.

"My point isn't that it ended but that the very *idea* of blood sacrifice is immoral."
The blood sacrifice was of animals, and willed by Jesus. Contrary to what the PETA may tell you, animals are ours to use for our own purposes, which includes blood sacrifice.

"The rules to keep the sabbath is more than attending a Saturday service (though Sunday is far more typical)."
Whoops, sorry, I meant Sunday.
Church service is still keeping the most important part of the Sabbath (worship), and in some translations of the Bible, the Sabbath commandment changes from no work on the Sabbath to worship on the Sabbath.

"True. It is able to copy good rules. Just as it copied down some good proverbs. The fact that this is so, doesn't make the Bible moral. It means that the good parts have nothing to do with the Bible."
Christianity is also not the only culture that had many of the "immoral" things that you mentioned. And yet, you act as if that is the core of the Bible. The Bible supports moral proverbs, so it is moral. If I wrote a book that used all of the moral proverbs in the Bible, it would be moral, even though it "copied" the ideas. Anything written in ink in the Bible can be said to have SOMETHING to do with the Bible, and that includes the "good parts." You can't just cut them out because they've been done before. A movie that used great scenes copied from previous movies is still great. Your argument for discarding Proverbs makes literally no sense.

"The punishments for violating the commandments is death."
Only in Israel, at those times. The punishments have slacked off since, and women suffrage has come about, but the basic jist of the Commandments, that it is advisable to follow them, and they will generally make your life better, wiser, and more moral.

"We chose to be a secular nation..."
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Christianity still influenced our government, as its most important commandments are now laws. We tolerate other religions, but that doesn't make us secular. How do you think "under God" got into our Pledge of Allegiance?
http://en.wikipedia.org...

"To cite the facts would take more than 50 minutes. The Bible is written largely as self-aggrandizing etiology to glorify the past. Most of it is completely false."
You continually refuse to cite ANY "facts" from your source. You give no reason for me to watch the video. I just asked for important facts that you wished to use in your arguments. If it would take more than 50 minutes to source the facts you wish to use, you're using too many facts, and violating your character limit. You can't just extend your argument into a video without focusing on key points, especially when it is 50 minutes long. I declare your videos irrelevant, as you have refused to specify key points in it, and expect me to watch the entire thing, which is beyond ridiculous.

"You can beat children with it and make them cry..."
You give no reason to not assume "metaphoricalness". Crying might just be protest against harsh discipline.

"Actually many of those proverbs would get me arrested."
Again, different times, and besides, you could still apply them METAPHORICALLY.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Even when the women were gathered up and defenseless and slaughtered?"
Yup. When they were at war, they were very complete with it.

"The Bible isn't the complete set of utter crap, it's simply a bit of utter crap. Surely you've heard this part of speech before."
You give no reason to say that it is not a complete set.

Anyways, my opponent has focused his entire argument on the immoral part, and has not even followed his own definition, in which he must prove that the Bible is either pointless, senseless, insolent, or meaningless, and thus has failed to properly affirm the resolution.

The holes in my opponent's arguments:
1. The quotes from the Bible were God's instructions, not the Bible's.
2. The quotes were taken out of context; it makes much more sense when you realize that war and peace are different, and they are at war.
3. Times were different in the days of the Bible; the Bible is both history and morals, yet my opponent only cites the history, which had laws that reflected its own times, while proverbs are timeless.
4. Slavery as a spoil of war is different from oppressive slavery against an entire race or culture, which the Bible openly opposed with the story of Moses.
5. My opponent has not actually cited any facts to back up archaeological evidence against the Bible, and demands that the readers and I must pick out the facts ourselves, which is not proper debating.
6. Our government is not secular; it merely allows religious freedom and tolerance.
7. The Ten Commandments do not currently demand for death, but are today simple guidelines for how to get to heaven.
8. Just because something was used in a previous culture, doesn't mean that it can't be used again to live up to its full morality.
9. The Bible is neither pointless nor senseless nor insolent nor meaningless, and my opponent has given no reason to think so.
10. Just because a statement doesn't address you directly, doesn't mean that it can't cause discomfort and/or resentment, and thus be offensive.

Thus, the resolution and the side-point are clearly negated. It is in order to vote CON.

Thank you for this debate.
Debate Round No. 5
56 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mongeese 8 years ago
mongeese
I didn't fail to realize that. And there isn't a single RFD in all 55 of these comments in which a person who read this debate actually voted PRO. You'll have to read the debate before you understand. PRO's choice of words for the resolution was terrible.
Posted by animpossiblepossibility 8 years ago
animpossiblepossibility
Pro had a better understanding and command of the Bible than Con did, and that is why, imo, Pro will win the debate. And besides Con, how could you failed to realize that the Ten Commandments are not in effect anymore because of Jesus' death?

Romans 3:21,22
"But now God has shown us a different way of being right in his sight--not by obeying the law but by the way promised in the Scriptures long ago. We are made right in God's sight when we trust in Jesus Christ to take away our sins. And we can all be saved in this same way, no matter who we are or what we have done."
Posted by fresnoinvasion 8 years ago
fresnoinvasion
"The only vote that is influenced by argument is the arguments vote..."

I don't agree with this voting system on such one sided debates. It's a horrible way to judge a debate. Therefore I have no reason to follow the system.
Posted by Icarus57 8 years ago
Icarus57
regarding what wjmelements said, if he had not addressed your points, he would have surely lost.
Posted by Icarus57 8 years ago
Icarus57
Awful way to word a resolution, I'd say.
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
No. I worded the debate as I worded it in the context it arose in. The Bible is an immoral bit of utter crap is not to say that the Bible is an immoral bit of complete crap. I'm saying that the crap is of a higher quality not an all encompassing quality.

I concede that the wording was vague as I conceded in Round 1. In such cases the initial context is probably a good place to start. *shrug*
Posted by Icarus57 8 years ago
Icarus57
@wjmelements

>CON could have won simply by stating that the bible was not crap, or that the majority of the bible is moral, or that the bible is not a "bit" of anything, or that the Bible is not "utter" crap. There were so many ways to negate the resolution, but instead, CON addressed PRO's arguments.

What a pathetic way to attempt to win a debate, this is just nit picking.
Posted by mongeese 8 years ago
mongeese
I did press that my opponent only used the immoral argument, and failed to live up to his own definition, which I classified to have been an easy win.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
Tatarize, You worded the resolution in such an extreme way, to win you had to prove that there was nothing whatsoever redeeming about the Bible. Conceding that a couple of Commandments are good ones is about all it takes to deny that it is "utter crap." There is also some good poetry along the lines of "The race is not to the swift" etc., although Con didn't push that idea.
Posted by mongeese 8 years ago
mongeese
"The point that there isn't much history in the Bible is somewhat an aside from the standard point. Watch the videos and tell me that they don't speak to the topic all the way through. You said the Bible is historical, I say no they aren't and posted a video by a PhD in Hebrew Bible and Near Eastern Studies who goes through the Bible point by point and shows where the actual archeological evidence is on each point. The entire thing is very much relevant to the point that there's not much real history in the bible.

If you seriously want to get picky about sources, you posted a fricking cover of a right wing propaganda book: not anything in the book, a picture of the cover!"
I cited one fact, and you didn't complain.
You tried to cite an hour's worth of many, many, many facts, and I decided that it was time to complain.

Cheers.

"The pro killed the con. All 7 points go his way. Sure, some of the points should be tied but I am inclined to vote pro when he wins the argument so blatantly."
The only vote that is influenced by argument is the arguments vote...
41 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by harrytruman 1 year ago
harrytruman
TatarizemongeeseTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: To quote Rabbi Mizrachi: "If there is one flaw in the Torah, the Torah is done, it cannot be from God." And there is not one flaw, all the science atheists propose is utterly flawed.
Vote Placed by oridinaryaverageguy 6 years ago
oridinaryaverageguy
TatarizemongeeseTied
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:51 
Vote Placed by jat93 7 years ago
jat93
TatarizemongeeseTied
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 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
TatarizemongeeseTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by M.Hernandez 7 years ago
M.Hernandez
TatarizemongeeseTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by mizzouvetmed 7 years ago
mizzouvetmed
TatarizemongeeseTied
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 
Vote Placed by stina2bina 7 years ago
stina2bina
TatarizemongeeseTied
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:06 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
TatarizemongeeseTied
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 
Vote Placed by Jasonrl4991 7 years ago
Jasonrl4991
TatarizemongeeseTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by sienkinm 7 years ago
sienkinm
TatarizemongeeseTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00