The Instigator
Projectid
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
drewman1
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

The Bible is the Foundation for Objective Morals.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Projectid
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/11/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,048 times Debate No: 41998
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (44)
Votes (2)

 

Projectid

Con

The Pro must believe that objective morals stem from God, which are found in the Holy Bible.

In this debate Pro will have to give his/her arguments for the basis of these objective morals via the Holy Bible, which includes the Old and New Testament.

This debate will consist of using only the Bible for arguments.

Old King James, New King James, New American Standard, English Standard Version are the only acceptable translations to be used, this will alleviate any bias paraphrase translation to be used.

The Pro must introduce no more than four points (with scripture references), beyond these points no new points can be brought forth, the Pro must stick with them and I must deal with them, no more and no less.

No outside resources, BIBLE ONLY, so I ask the voters to disregard points for resources.

The Pro will give his/her arguments in the first round, which is his/her first post.
The Pro will make no argument in the 5th round.
The Pro will write in the 5th round "No argument posted as agreed upon".
If the Pro posts anything in the 5th round other than what is agreed as said above, he/she will forfeit the debate.
Any forfeit of any round results in a loss of the debate by either debater.
drewman1

Pro

As a firm believer in God and His Word, I believe fully that the Bible is the basis of all objective morals and is in no way controversial. I will use the Saint Joseph Edition Bible, which is a Catholic Bible. My first reference would be the most obvious,, the ten commandments. Genesis 20:7-17. The first three Commandments of course are not objective morals, for they speak of respecting the Most High God, however the last seven are. Honor you father and mother, thou shall not kill, shall not commit adultery, shall not steal, shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor, shall covet neighbors house, shall not covet your neighbors wife (can also mean lust). This one speaks for itself. My other argument comes from Romans 13:8-10 "Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet," and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law." If I am going to try to convince you that the Bible is the basis of objective morals, I would call myself mad, because we both know that is not going to happen. However, speaking from a Christian view, your argument is easily shot down. John 1:1-5 says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be. What came to be through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race; the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it." If all things came to be through God's Word, which is spoken through the Bible and is alive as the person we know as Jesus, then He is the center of all righteous, good, love, and morality. However, if you have not love and you only rely on what the human mind can comprehend, then you have won the debate, because I put my faith and trust in things the human mind can not comprehend. This is called faith. God Bless
Debate Round No. 1
Projectid

Con

I would like to thank the Pro for accepting this debate.My responses will be my arguments that the Pro will have to deal with, I will tag them with A-H.

1. My first contention is that the Pro believes that the Bible is the foundation for ALL objective morality.

A) Slavery is condoned by the Bible (Leviticus 25:44-46;Exodus 21:20-21;Luke 12:46-47;1 Timothy 6:1-2). Certainly the Pro would agree that slavery is wrong, yet in the Ten Commandments we have God dictating laws in owning slaves.
Exodus 20 If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. 21 If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.
Christians try to explain this away as indentured servitude as if that is not slavery, but owning (property) any human being is considered slavery and is not right on any logical moral foundation.

2. The Pro insists that the Ten Commandments are a source of objective morality minus the first three. I do not deny that there are some moral principles in the Ten Commandments, but they hardly stand up to today's moral values and don't even stand up to the bibles examples by God and those He commands through out scripture.

"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy".

B) How can this be objective morality? The Sabbath was a Saturday and in the New Testament you have Christians worshiping on the first day of the week which is a Sunday. If this is a law that the Pro must keep, does he observe the Sabbath (Saturday) or the does he worship on the first day of the week (Sunday)? If he does not follow the Saturday Sabbath requirement then how objective is the commandment in accordance with his belief today? Besides if the Pro claims to observe the Sabbath, then does he follow all the Sabbath restrictions?

3. The 5th commandment: "Honour thy father and thy mother".

C) This cannot be objective, there are cases where horrible things are done to children by their parents, are they to honor their parents even then? Is a child that is raped by her father to continue to honor her father, or better yet how about a daughter that is sold as a slave: "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do."( Exodus 21:7) Now is she suppose to honor her father, would you honor your father if he sold you into slavery, I don't think so? Secondly, if this was an objective moral law then why does Jesus say this: "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple"? (Luke 14:26 ESV ) This does not sound like honoring your father and mother.

4. The 6th Commandment: " Thou shalt not kill".

D) God commands man to not kill, yet commands mankind to kill homosexuals: "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB) I wonder if the Pro feels that killing homosexuals is okay since God commands it even though God said to not kill, which is it? The Pro must answer these questions, why doesn't he kill homosexuals today, God commands that he should!

"Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death." (Exodus 21:15 NAB) To kill or not to kill, this is the question. It is obvious that our own morality in this present day is much higher than that of the Old Testament, now I have never been struck by my children, but even if they did I would not kill them for it. Does the Pro really think that children should be killed for this? God says do not kill then says kill your children, this is more like objective chaos!

5. Thou shalt not bear false witness:

E) God says don't lie, but then makes other people lie. 1 Kings 22:23 Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee. 2 Chronicles 18:22 Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets. Jeremiah 4:10 Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people. Jeremiah 20:7 O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived. Ezekiel 14:9 And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet. 2 Thessalonians 2:11 For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.

F) As a punishment for killing Abel, God says Cain will be "a fugitive and a vagabond." Yet in just a few verses (4:16-17) Cain will settle down, marry, have a son, and build a city. This is not the activity one would expect from a fugitive and a vagabond. Sounds like God told a lie here, again in Gen.4:12 God promises to bring Jacob safely back from Egypt, but Jacob dies in Egypt. (Gen.47:28-29) A promise not keep is just a lie. This is enough for the Ten commandments, it very exhausting to go through all this but it simply shows that the Ten Commandments are not as objectively moral as the Pro has stated.

6. The Pro states that all the commandments can be summed up in "You shall love your neighbor as yourself".

G) So then what do we do with a passage like this: "If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you ... Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die." (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)
So which is it love them or kill them?

7. The Pro said speaking from a Christian view, your argument is easily shot down, however from a Christian world view your argument makes no sense and how can someone know right and wrong objectively when the Bible doesn't know what message it wants to extend?

8. Pro: " If all things came to be through God's Word, which is spoken through the Bible and is alive as the person we know as Jesus, then He is the center of all righteous, good, love, and morality."

H) Then according to the Bible and it's craziness, God is also the author of evil, hate, and immorality. The Bible is clearly not the foundation for objective morals. The Bible is contradictory in its moral teaching and is not the foundation for what is deemed objective. If the Bible is the source of objective morality then it is okay to have and beat slaves, to sell our daughters into slavery, to kill homosexuals, and to do all the other things that the Bible dictates that we can do. Morality has evolved far beyond the Bible, it does not take much to see that objective morals cannot come from the Bible and do not come from the Bible.
drewman1

Pro

Thank you for your response, I will respond to your arguments in the order you placed.

A) Before you can condemn the Bible for condoning slavery, it is important to understand the differences slavery was back then and now. The slavery we know as today is an evil, however back in the days when the Bible was written, it was not so much a bad thing. When you became a slave, you were "owned" by your master. Sounds like destroying dignity, right? Well, what did that mean to the people reading such laws in those days. When a person became a slave, he became a member of the masters house. Just as a son or daughter is "owned", in a sense, be his or her parents, the same is said for the slave of that time. We see this type of relationship here "As he entered Caper'na-um, a centurion came forward to him, beseeching him and saying, 'Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, in terrible distress.'" (Matt 8:5-7) So, slavery was not what you think it as, but rather very beneficial to the slave for the slave had a home, food, and he belonged to the masters house, which was held in high respect.

B) "Remember to keep holy the Sabbath." The reason why Christians observe Sunday the Sabbath instead of Saturday, as Jewish law observes, is a very practical reason. At first, the Sabbath for Christians was Saturday, however, Our Lord Jesus Christ made Sunday a very holy day because he Resurrected on Sunday, and so the Holy Spirit moved Sabbath to Sunday for that reason. There is no scriptural text regarding this change, the reasoning has been passed down through Apostolic writings and Sacred Tradition. However I do no believe that this will void my side of the debate because the subject was not the subject intended and I found it necessary to explain the reasoning behind this.

C) Honor your Father and Mother. I agree with you this is not objective, but is something expected of us. You gave the example of the Father raping his daughter. Unfortunately this happens, however, should the daughter hate her father or hope the father changes. I would hope that my father would change if that happened to me, and that is in a way honoring your parents.

D) Again, before con can claim the Bible contradicts itself, con must first understand the context and beliefs of that time. As a matter of fact, God commands the people of Israel to kill nations. "Now go and smite Am'alek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." 1 Samuel 15: 3. Now anyone can agree this is an evil act, but read the verses before it, "This is what the Lord of hosts has to say: "I will punish what Am'alek did to Israel when he barred his way as he was coming up from Egypt." 1 Sam 15: 2 Now as to your attack on the issue of homosexuality, again, con should understand what that meant to the people in those days. Homosexuality was a very terrible sin, it was almost as bad as murder itself. We see again that homosexuality is a terrible sin. "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God." 1 Cor 6: 9-10. Where sexual perverts is a reference to homosexuals. God tells us that homosexuality is such a serious sin, that they should be put to death. (Lev 20:13) Yet, Christians do not do this and it definitely seems outrageous, but was God doing? He was purifying Israel. God was trying to make Israel a "priestly" nation for the rest of the nations. "You shall be to me a kingdom of priests, a holy nation." Another example would be would it be a serious evil if you killed someone that was trying to kill you. The Bible says "Thou shall not kill" but we understand this as killing innocents, not guilty. The same principle applies to striking your mother and father, unless, of course, the mother and/or father perform acts of evil on the child. This is known as observing the "Spirit" of the Law and not the explicit words of the law. Jesus emphasizes the Spirit of law when He says, "You shall love the Lord your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself." And so, the Bible needs to be interpreted carefully, with the Spirit in mind and what it meant in those days.

E) Again, con has failed to refer to the passages before the verse. The prophet explains his vision God gave him 1 Kings 22: 20-22 says "The Lord asked, 'Who will deceive Ahab, so that he will go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead? And one said this, and another that, until one of the spirits came forth and presented himself to the Lord saying, "I will deceive him." The Lord asked, "How?" He answered, "I will go forth and become a lying spirit in the mouths of all the prophets.' The Lord replied, 'You shall succeed in deceiving him.'" God does not make the person lie, but allows a spirit who has betrayed God to deceive him. 2 Chronicles 18:22 is the EXACT same story. Jeremiah 4:10, again,is a misinterpretation. In the Bible the verse has a little star next to it, and in the footnote below it explains, "False prophets blame their deception on God." It was the people's fault for listening to false prophets, God did not lie. Jeremiah 20:7 is again, another half-versed attack. What is said right after that? "You were too strong for me, and you triumphed." Con did not even write down the rest of the verse! This is a classic feeling among Jews and Christians alike where we think, sometimes, God is not that powerful because He does not do such powerful things, and then He shows us His power, and we feel deceived. However, When did God lie? Ezekiel 14:9, again, con should look at the footnotes. The verse means that God allowed the prophet to be deceived, that is how the Jews of that time understood that saying. 2 Thessalonians 2: 11, again is referring to God allowing these evils to happen, to separate the "men form the boys" idea. Your either on God's side or not, if your on His side, you do not believe the lies He allows you to hear.

F) Con failed to give the land Cain settled down in. The Bible says it is as the land of Nod, which is not a definite geographical region, the land refers to the "land of Nomads". What are nomads? Travelers. Also, the descendants of Cain are known as the Canaanites, who are evil peoples. Now cons reference to Jacob is, again, provided with half of the information. The Bible says "Not only will I go down to Egypt with you; I will also bring you back here, after Joseph has closed your eyes." And that is what happened, Jacob was buried by his son Joseph in the land God promised.

G) I do not wish to repeat all I said back to argument (D)

7. Until con has read the Bible cover to cover and understand the true interpretations, as inspired by the Holy Spirit, I will not continue to argue pro's statement on "The Bible doesn't know what message it wants to extend."

H) God can not be the author of evil, hate, and immorality, because what is evil? The same thing cold is. Cold is the absent of heat, evil is the absence of good, and because everything God made is good, whatever twists itself and decides not to do Gods will is doing evil things for it is not of God.
Debate Round No. 2
Projectid

Con

A: Slavery: " Exodus 20 If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. 21 If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property."

1. The Pro needs to deal with this passage, because all he is doing is pushing the issue aside declaring that the slavery in the Bible is nothing like the slavery today. First of all, nobody mentioned slavery of today, or in our modern times. We are talking about the Bible being the foundation for objective morality. Now if you read carefully the passage above, does this sound like it would benefit a human being, does it sound moral, YES or No? Besides how do you know what slavery was like then? If it is anything like what God is allowing here, it is safe to say it is not good for the slave and cannot be deemed moral by our standards today.

2. Exodus 21:7 "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do." The Pro ignores this passage as well, you tell us how this is morally objective, show us how it is good for the daughter to be sold as a slave by her father?

B:The Sabbath changed to Sunday: The Pro said: "There is no scriptural text regarding this change, the reasoning has been passed down through Apostolic writings and Sacred Tradition. However I do no believe that this will void my side of the debate because the subject was not the subject intended and I found it necessary to explain the reasoning behind this."

1: Your burden of proof is to show how the Bible is the foundation for moral objectives. You brought up the Ten Commandments. So perhaps this commandment should not be in the objective morals list with 1-3, which the Pro already declared were not morally objective .

C: The Pro agrees that the 5th commandment is NOT objective. So I will offer no more arguments for this one.

D: Homosexuality and killing: Pro: " Now as to your attack on the issue of homosexuality, again, con should understand what that meant to the people in those days. Homosexuality was a very terrible sin, it was almost as bad as murder itself. We see again that homosexuality is a terrible sin."

1: If God doesn't change (Malachi 3:6), then he didn't change his mind about how to treat Homosexuals, why is it that you want God to change? You keep referring to how things were then, what has changed other than our natural progression in moral standards? God hasn't changed his mind about all these things, either you accept what he says or you don't, face the music, God wants mankind to kill homosexuals and disrespectful children!

2: The Pro speaks of the Spirit of the Law, or with the Spirit in mind and what it meant in those days. So how many different doctrines can someone come up with by interpreting things within their own way believing that they are reading with the spirit in mind, is this subjective or objective? What about conflicting beliefs among believers, who is right about all these objective morals that one needs to understand through the spirit?

E: Bearing False witness:

1: The Pro says: " God does not make the person lie, but allows a spirit who has betrayed God to deceive him." Whats the difference, it is by God power and allowance that this happens?

The Pros assumption: "Until con has read the Bible cover to cover and understand the true interpretations, as inspired by the Holy Spirit, I will not continue to argue pro's statement on "The Bible doesn't know what message it wants to extend."

2: These are your interpretations, you say this as if all Christians are in good company with each other over their doctrines, views, morals, and interpretations of scripture, so what you really mean is until I see it your way you are not interested in talking about the way I see it. Cover to Cover huh, I have read the bible more times than you may think, and probably more than most Christians. I have been on both sides of the fence reading it, have you? Lets not assume anything here.

H: Pro: " God can not be the author of evil, hate, and immorality, because what is evil? The same thing cold is. Cold is the absent of heat, evil is the absence of good, and because everything God made is good, whatever twists itself and decides not to do Gods will is doing evil things for it is not of God."

1: God said he was the author of evil in Isaiah 45:7 (King James Version):
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. Now are you going to explain this away as well? Scripture is subject to each and everyone's own interpretation, so how can this book be the foundation for objective things when it is always view subjectively by each person?

2: God hates plenty of things, but I am sure you are aware of the fact that God does hate, and nobody makes him hate, this is only done by his will. He is the one that created hell to throw people into, does this sound like love? I know, it is our fault we will be in hell, I know the story, but it is a joke to pretend that God has nothing to do with sending us to hell.

3: As for immorality, I have shown plenty of things that God allowed and since God does not change then he stands by his words, whether written in the Old testament or the New. If they don't line up and we see apparent contradiction we can only assume that God did not author this book, therefore it is not the source of objective morals.

Thank you.
drewman1

Pro

Due to school and work, I am unable to put the time and effort into my next argument, so no argument will be posted this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Projectid

Con

This is not good, we are in a debate, you cannot just stop the debate at your will, this is a forfeit. As per the said rules in my first post upon you accepting the debate you will notice that is says: " Any forfeit of any round results in a loss of the debate by either debater."

The Pro has FORFEITED this debate, by choosing NOT to post an argument.

I forward all my arguments and declare that the Pro never dealt with with the arguments that I posted in round three.
Point A Slavery
Point B Sabbath
Point C Homosexuality and Killing
Point E Bearing false witness
Point H Author of Evil

Perhaps the Pro is just having a hard time dealing with the inconsistencies in the Bible as the foundation for objective morality.

Don't accept a debate and then blow it off, it's disrespectful, and it wastes other peoples valuable time as well.
drewman1

Pro

Ok, since projectid clearly doesn't have a heart (or morals) I do not see why I should continue with this debate. I thought I was debating with a mature, understanding, adult. Instead I was debating with a person who hasn't the heart to understand peoples legitimate excuses and has so much hate for the Christian Religion that I feel I will do more harm than good if I continued on with the debate. And I know projectid is just going to blame this on me and I am rude, heartless and blah blah blah. Insult me all you want, but con knows a 16 year old kid is right, that God is the source of good, and that the Bible is God's Word.
Debate Round No. 4
Projectid

Con

The Pro was given the opportunity to post an argument again after his forfeit, which resulted in a loss according to said rules and has decided instead to add insults verses an argument .

Its not about blame, it's about debating, it's not about the Pros age, which he keeps alluding to in the comment section.

So again, I say that the Pro has forfeited twice and has not dealt with the points that were brought up in my last post.

These excuses do not excuse your actions on this web site in an actual debate, what you say and do in the comment section is one thing, but how you act inside the debate and what you say is everything.

Vote Con if you even bothered to read this debate.

The Bible is not the foundation for objective morality, which the Pro has clearly not been able to prove. I carefully pointed out the things the Pro keep side stepping and would not directly answer.

I forward all my arguments and declare that the Pro never dealt with with the arguments that I posted in round three.
Point A Slavery: The Pro did not deal directly with the scriptures about beating slaves and fathers selling their daughters in slavery, the Pro claimed that slavery wasn't that bad and was good for the people.
Point B Sabbath: This point doesn't even matter.
Point C Homosexuality and Killing: The Pro would not answer the direct question about how the Bible mandates the killing of homosexuals.
Point E Bearing false witness: Again no direct answer.
Point H Author of Evil: The Bible says that God is the author of evil in Isaiah, but the Pro never responds.

Vote CON
drewman1

Pro

drewman1 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
44 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Well morality simply evolved as creatures that relied on being in groups for survival, not only humans, realized that in order to survive the group needs to be strong, strength of a group comes from unity.
Killing, injuring and upsetting other members of the group, reduces the group's strength and thus weakens their chances of survival, if attacked by predators (e.g. lions) or rival groups.
Meerkats, groundhogs, most ape families exhibit various subsets of what we regard as morals and altruism.
Empathy is purely a brain based (mirror-neuron) function which is mostly innate, those which don't exhibit empathy may suffer neurological damage or malformation of the limbic/pre-frontal-cortex regions. Some forms of autism exhibit this condition which is often called psychopathy.
I knew such a psychopath who had a slightly disfigured skull, some believe it was damage by the forceps used in assisting his birth that contributed to his brain damage and psychopathy.
Though the issue regarding forceps being used in delivery was never resolved to my knowledge, many medical bodies are still in denial of such incidents, though such incidents may be caused by incorrect procedures in the use of the forceps.
They may be perfectly safe if correct procedures are followed, but, not all doctors follow procedures properly if a panic or unusual situation arises.
Posted by Logical-Master 3 years ago
Logical-Master
@ SimpleObserver

Never have really understood what the big deal was about calling atheism a belief/non-belief/worldview/etc. Sounds like meaningless semantics to me. Yes, it is very much a worldview in that that's you how choose to view the world. The true neutral position is apathy(i.e. apatheism) or anything else to effectively indicate that you have no conclusion. You've reached a conclusion, so have theists.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
LOL SimpleObserver, Gr8 Sam Harris Vid, Thanks!
Posted by SimpleObserverofThings 3 years ago
SimpleObserverofThings
Atheism isn't a worldview, it's a position, much like Off isn't a TV channel, rather secularism is a worldview that most if not all atheists tend to lean toward. This world view isn't fully understood, and it probably won't be for a long time but what is being studied thus far shows that we don't need an "objective" law giver that dwells out in the cosmos. What is being viewed seriously and being demonstrated to work in countries like Japan, New Zealand, etc. is a secular worldview that doesn't need a spooky ghost. Yet those with the most religiously incline and where the masses favor superstitious ideology over facts, tend to have a higher rate of Crime like US, Iran, and Russia. Some contend in this comment section that we need an objective moral system given by a dictator floating in the sky, well history is full of examples in where this has already been tried at a full scale (i.e. Dark Ages) and failed miserably. It's quite nauseating at this point to contend with believers who try to defend the bible as not being a poor source for a moral system and tries to continue making excuses for the blatantly obvious. This argument will never be won it can only be won by pure demonstration in here and now and examples that are available in history. I would invite anyone to view this short 10 min. summarize of Sam Harris regarding Morality and the Christian god. Enjoy. ()
Posted by Projectid 3 years ago
Projectid
It sounds like your just using all this to walk away from a debate that you cannot win, I believe that is why you didn't post your last argument anyway. Not a good way to start out, this being your first debate on the site. I will make it a point to debate with only people out of school that can manage their time accordingly. If this was a public debate would you have just walked away from your turn to speak, if so that would be a forfeit? It's called debate etiquette and it is disrespectful for you to post an argument telling everyone your to busy to man-up to what you agreed to. Doesn't matter to me either way, because you cannot justify the Bible and its craziness, that is why you are walking away, well before I spoke of your forfeit. Good luck to you on your future debates. Where are my morals, they right there doing what I say I am going to do following the rules and respecting the debate process, where are you morals?
Posted by drewman1 3 years ago
drewman1
Ok projectid, I am done. I'd rather debate with an adult than you. You are trying to claim something about morals, well where are your morals? I am not saying another thing on this debate and/or comments. This is just ridiculous.
Posted by Projectid 3 years ago
Projectid
How you balance your time is on you, you tell me to man-up, yet you are the one who can't budget their time for something you got involved in. Afraid to lose to a kid the same age as my own son, whatever, just make sure you deal with the points in my last argument. You say you were not trying to be rude, yet then you are just rude in general with your last comments. Your age is irrelevant. You man up and stick with what you started and post your arguments on time.
Posted by drewman1 3 years ago
drewman1
Ok, I guess I forfeit. I am 16 and just got a job so I can't balance debating, school, and a job. I was running out of time. So, project id can man up and finish the debate against a 16 yr old kid or win by default because he's afraid of losing. So project, you make your choice, finish the debate or not. Just remember, I am only 16 and me forfeiting a round only increases your chances of winning. If your so confident in your reasoning to win this debate, then lets finish. I was not trying to be rude but I just did not have the time.
Posted by Projectid 3 years ago
Projectid
Sounds good, I look forward to it.
Posted by PGA 3 years ago
PGA
Okay, I have already put my first round on Word format but I don't want to start something I may not be able to finish, so I will contact you in the New Year.

Peter
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 3 years ago
Logical-Master
Projectiddrewman1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: 2 or more rounds of forfeit = automatic 7 in my book.
Vote Placed by SimpleObserverofThings 3 years ago
SimpleObserverofThings
Projectiddrewman1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a difficult debate to judge, Projectid picked a good topic to debate but with an opponent with little more experience and practice, this debate would have been very interesting. I agree with Cons position seeing that I've argued the same before, both had the same conduct, spelling and grammar.