The Instigator
matt8800
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Jerry947
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

The Biblical God is Immoral

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...
Jerry947
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/4/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 601 times Debate No: 87628
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (2)

 

matt8800

Pro

The Biblical God can be shown to be immoral for many reasons. One of those reasons is that he commanded that people that work on Sundays should be put to death.

Exodus 35:2 (King James Version)
“Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.”

According to the bible, it is without error and inspired by God. Psalms 12:6 “the words of the Lord are flawless”.

“Biblical God” refers to the God as described in the Christian Bible.

Bible (definition): The infallible word of God.

Jerry947

Con

My opponent hasn't explained why the rule about the Sabbath makes God immoral. I don't see anything immoral about it. He merely quoted a verse and never stated how it made God immoral.

The Bible actually states that God is good and upright. Psalm 25:8 says that "Good and upright is the LORD; Therefore He instructs sinners in the way." In other words, God is perfect and therefore is the ultimate source of guidance. There is also Romans 2:15 which tells us that God is the one who put the moral law on every persons' heart. Basically, the Bible makes it very clear that God is moral.

As for the Sabbath day, I can only guess my opponent doesn't see the importance in the day and therefore thinks that God is killing someone for no reason. It would have been more helpful if my opponent had explained more. But...the whole point of the Sabbath was to set aside a day for holiness. It also represented the rest that God provides for his people. In other words, it was a day where people recognized that they needed God in their life.

Matt Slick says that "The O. T. system of Law required keeping the Sabbath as part of the overall moral, legal, and sacrificial system by which the Jewish people satisfied God's requirements for behavior, government, and forgiveness of sins. The Sabbath was part of the Law in that sense. In order to "remain" in favor with God, you had to also keep the Sabbath. If it was not kept, then the person was in sin and would often be punished" (https://carm.org...). So I really don't see how my opponent sees anything immoral in God's character in this passage.

Note: My opponent should define the word immoral.
Debate Round No. 1
matt8800

Pro

“My opponent hasn't explained why the rule about the Sabbath makes God immoral.”

First, I don’t have the BOP to explain why killing someone for working on Sunday is immoral. Nobody would say that killing their neighbor for working on Sunday is reasonable or moral. For some reason, it is claimed that this is the one exception. Apologists try to invent reasons, completely outside of the Bible, to justify why people should die for working on Sunday. Any explanation that Con gives is either something he made up or something he heard from someone that made it up.

Con asked me to define moral.

1. Moral (definition) - of, relating to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical:

Source - http://dictionary.reference.com...

I think a synonym for “moral” could be “upright”

“The Bible actually states that God is good and upright. Psalm 25:8 says that "Good and upright is the LORD; Therefore He instructs sinners in the way." In other words, God is perfect and therefore is the ultimate source of guidance. There is also Romans 2:15 which tells us that God is the one who put the moral law on every persons' heart. Basically, the Bible makes it very clear that God is moral.”

That is correct; that is exactly what the Bible says. There is an unvalidated presupposition that the Bible is correct so those verses are no good for the purposes of this debate. If it is appropriate to reference the Bible as authority in this case, then it would be just as appropriate to use Quran verses to justify killing of apostates. Without a bias, one book cannot be chosen over another when both claim supernatural revelation.

“My opponent hasn't explained why the rule about the Sabbath makes God immoral. I don't see anything immoral about it. He merely quoted a verse and never stated how it made God immoral.”

Con seems to think it was my mistake to assume it was self-evident that it would be wrong to murder someone for working on a particular day. I am not talking about made up rules for an imaginary world. There were people that actually lived during the time these rules were invented and they were put to death. Here is my premis: When their neighbors killed them for working on Sunday that was wrong. How can there be any question about this?

“As for the Sabbath day, I can only guess my opponent doesn't see the importance in the day and therefore thinks that God is killing someone for no reason.”

Yes, I think murdering someone for working on Sunday is the same as killing them for no reason. So the reasoning is that an all-powerful god created the universe in six days and had to rest (I don’t know why he didn’t make it in one second with no rest if he was all powerful). For some reason, he had to rest from his exhaustion and if any one of his much loved children does anything other than rest on every Sunday, they will be killed. I am saying that, in that “hypothetical” situation, it is immoral.

Lets hypothetically pretend that I told my kids they cannot work on my birthday because that is the tradition in our family. If I catch my son cleaning his room, would you consider it morally justifiable to kill him? If I lived in another culture where that kind of justice was accepted by the rest of the community, would it be moral then?


Even if Con can somehow argue that working on Sunday was a travesty, he also has to explain why execution is a reasonable punishment for that “crime”. Some punishments make the punisher immoral. For example, if I catch someone stealing my lawnmower, it would be reasonable for me to expect them to be punished. My expectation of justice with an appropriate punishment does not make me immoral. If I stabbed them to death; however, that would make me immoral because the punishment is excessive.

“But...the whole point of the Sabbath was to set aside a day for holiness. It also represented the rest that God provides for his people. In other words, it was a day where people recognized that they needed God in their life.”

So in other words, God tells his people that he wants them to remember how much he provides rest to them and that they need to recognize they need God in their life but if they don’t in the way that he commands, he will murder them or anyone in their family that disobeys. This does not describe a loving and merciful God in the least; it describes a petty, spiteful and cruel god.

Despite what Con says, he would never let his current or future children stay at a relative’s house that had such rules but lets pretend he would be OK with that. What would be the effect on his children if they were in an environment where they knew they would be murdered if they brushed their teeth at the wrong time? It would not foster a relationship of trust, love and respect. It would foster an unhealthy relationship of fear, intimidation and mistrust.

The rules for morality do not change depending on who it is being applied to. Just like it would be immoral for a man to rape a woman, it would be immoral for god to rape a woman. Any argument that god could rape a woman if he wanted to would be perverse. Similarly, it is immoral to kill someone for working on a particular day regardless of who the executioner is.

“In order to "remain" in favor with God, you had to also keep the Sabbath.”

Obviously, I love my children much more than the Christian god loves his children because I would never kill them over some trifle offense.

Remember, mothers, fathers, sons and daughters were actually killed for working on a Sunday.



Jerry947

Con

Jerry947 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
matt8800

Pro

matt8800 forfeited this round.
Jerry947

Con

I thank my opponent for their understanding of my first ever forfeit on this debating website. I am truly sorry. I have always been annoyed at people who do this. But nevertheless, I thank my opponent again for their kind nature.

"First, I don't have the BOP to explain why killing someone for working on Sunday is immoral."

Not true. My opponent shouldn't just quote some Bible verse and think that is all they have to do in this debate. They need to show why they think the Bible verse is evidence for the supposed immorality of God.

"Nobody would say that killing their neighbor for working on Sunday is reasonable or moral."

It would depend on who the neighbor was (Hitler?) and it would also depend on other factors such as if they were obeying the law or not.

"For some reason, it is claimed that this is the one exception. Apologists try to invent reasons, completely outside of the Bible, to justify why people should die for working on Sunday. Any explanation that Con gives is either something he made up or something he heard from someone that made it up."

Not even close to being true. My opponent just does not recognize what I said (it did come from the Bible) simply because they only read one verse out of context and somehow concluded that God was immoral. By the way, this is something atheists do all the time. They take verses out of context and irritate the stew out of Christians.

"Con asked me to define moral."

I actually asked for a definition of the word "immoral." But I would guess the definition would be the opposite of the one given.

"That is correct; that is exactly what the Bible says. There is an invalidated presupposition that the Bible is correct so those verses are no good for the purposes of this debate."

First of all, this is a double standard since the whole debate does apparently presuppose that the Bible is correct. If it isn't, then you would have no argument since you used a single Bible verse to support your position. Why can my opponent use Bible verses and why can't I? Also, I could say something similar to what you said. Ignoring the Bible presupposes that the Bible is incorrect. But since the Bible was was written by people who knew God/Jesus/People that knew people who knew Jesus/brothers of Jesus, I can determine that they knew something about the nature of God/Jesus. There is no reason to reject what was written. By the way, I would have no issue discrediting the Koran. The man who wrote it actually thought demons were speaking to him when he was originally writing the book.

"Con seems to think it was my mistake to assume it was self-evident that it would be wrong to murder someone for working on a particular day."

The verse mentioned nothing about murder. The death was simply a just execution. I can only recall one instance where this law was carried out. And that was right after the law was given to the people. There was a man who instantly when out and collected sticks for work. Back then, this would have been the equivalent of someone giving the finger to God. Since there were multiple witnesses (as required by the law), he was put to death to show that God and the law was important and good. Remember, when someone disobeys God, they are rejecting all things good.

"Yes, I think murdering someone for working on Sunday is the same as killing them for no reason."

But it wasn't for no reason. The people (I can only think of one instance where it happened) wee killed for breaking the Sabbath which was "part of the overall moral, legal, and sacrificial system by which the Jewish people satisfied God's requirements for behavior, government, and forgiveness of sins. The Sabbath was part of the Law in that sense. In order to "remain" in favor with God, you had to also keep the Sabbath. If it was not kept, then the person was in sin and would often be punished" (carm.org). I am re-posting that quote sine my opponent never responded to it.

"For some reason, he had to rest from his exhaustion and if any one of his much loved children does anything other than rest on every Sunday, they will be killed. I am saying that, in that situation, it is immoral."

God didn't rest on the Sabbath because he was tired. Look who is making up stuff about the Bible now. Since God never gets tired (Isaiah 40:28), we know that God rested on the Sabbath in order to set the example that the people were to follow. And no one mentioned anything about killing children. This was a law that established the covenant that the people had with God. If you rejected that, then you also rejected all the gifts that God offers humans (including life).

"Lets hypothetically pretend that I told my kids they cannot work on my birthday because that is the tradition in our family. If I catch my son cleaning his room, would you consider it morally justifiable to kill him?"

Of course not. The Sabbath law has been done away with (Col 2:16) since Jesus has died for us. The Sabbath represented the rest and the holiness we would find in Jesus. And the fact is that even when the law was in place, it represented part of the overall moral, legal, and sacrificial system by which the Jewish people satisfied God's requirements for behavior, government, and forgiveness of sins. When you rejected this back then, you also rejected good behavior, and God's forgiveness of sins. When you do that, bad things happen. Instead of being forgiven (due to the rejection), you get the punishment.

"Even if Con can somehow argue that working on Sunday was a travesty, he also has to explain why execution is a reasonable punishment for that crime"."

I have explained this twice already, but the Sabbath represented the things God had done for his people...when people rejected that they were also rejecting all of the gifts of God including life.

"So in other words, God tells his people that he wants them to remember how much he provides rest to them and that they need to recognize they need God in their life but if they don"t in the way that he commands, he will murder them or anyone in their family that disobeys. This does not describe a loving and merciful God in the least; it describes a petty, spiteful and cruel god."

The God you just described would be a horrible being. But that is not the God of the Christian Bible. People are justly punished for breaking laws. The says "therefore you are to observe the Sabbath, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people." The day was a single day where people where to act in a holy manner. It was a day that needed to be good since the people were so sinful the other days of the week. It was a more important day than you may realize.

"Obviously, I love my children much more than the Christian god loves his children because I would never kill them over some trifle offense."

Nothing about the offense was trifle. I would recommend my opponent read the Bible before making such accusations.

"Remember, mothers, fathers, sons and daughters were actually killed for working on a Sunday."

This is an unsupported assertion. God actually showed loads of mercy to his people. like i already said, I can only think of one instance where someone was put to death for violating this law and that happened right after the law was given.
Debate Round No. 3
matt8800

Pro

In the first round, I explained:

1. The Old Testament commands that people that work on Sunday should be killed.
2. Killing someone for working on a particular day is unjust, under all circumstances.
3. Unjust laws are immoral.
4. The bible contains immoral laws.
5. Christians claim that the biblical God wrote the Bible.
6. The biblical God is immoral for commanding the death of people that worked on a particular day.


Con’s rebuttal is basically broken down into the following propositions. I am paraphrasing Con’s argument in bold to save on characters.

Con claims I have the burden of proof (BOP) to show that killing someone for working on Sunday is immoral.

Con used an example that if your neighbor was Hitler and he wasn’t obeying the law, it would be perfectly acceptable for killing them for working on Sunday (for example, mowing his lawn). To compare someone that works on a Sunday with Hitler is ludicrous.

Con claims I took the verse in question out of context.

Con never explained in what way it was taken out of context. If I want to properly convey a message in writing, I can simply write my words and people understand what I am saying. If I told someone in writing to kill someone else for a particular offense, it would be very easy to communicate this with no confusion. If God’s writing is so easy to take out of context, then that would imply I am a superior writer and communicator than God.

Con claimed it was a double standard to say the Bible is false yet quote bible verses.

I am quoting bible verses that contained early Judeo laws that one should be killed for working on a Sunday. I am saying that law is immoral, therefore the author promoted immoral laws. Because I believe that the Bible is not the word of god does not mean I can’t say its laws are immoral.

Con’s response that it is moral to kill someone for working on Sunday is that because the Bible claims that, a) the bible is true, b) God wrote the bible, and therefore the execution for this offense is moral. This is obvious circular reasoning. If Con really believes this, he cannot fault Muslim extremists for the atrocities they commit because of literal interpretation of the Koran or the human sacrifice of the Incas in observance to their laws. People cannot simply claim their religion is correct, and all the others are incorrect, and expect others to believe this without question.

Con claims there is record of only one person being executed for working on the Sabbath.

Living in a harsh environment where survival could be determined by predators killing your animals, weather destroying your crops, plundering by neighboring peoples or extreme temperatures, working on a Sunday would eventually become inevitable by someone trying to avoid calamity of varying degrees. Any claim that there are exceptions are simply baseless assertions.

Does the number of people that were killed for working on Sunday change whether the law was moral or not?

Can Con find any example of any law requiring death where only one person was executed? Remember, there was almost 2000 years between Abraham and Jesus. If Con argues that not all were executed, then the ones that were, were even more unjust. Then one would have to ask why there were inconsistencies in the enforcement of the law if it is so important and so offensive to God. In modern society, we always punish someone for heinous crimes without exception.

Con claims killing someone for working on Sunday was for a legitimate reason.

“The Sabbath was part of the Law in that sense. In order to "remain" in favor with God, you had to also keep the Sabbath. If it was not kept, then the person was in sin and would often be punished”


The punishment in this case was execution. The crime was being out of favor with God for working on Sunday. I’m sure I don’t have to tell you that the Koran commands Muslims to kill the infidels and many non-Muslims have died because of this command. There is no difference. If anything the Old Testament is more harsh because it commanded the killing of believers for a simple act that most people do today.

According to the New Testament stories, even Jesus knew the Old Testament laws were immoral. Remember, he instructed people to ignore the law BEFORE his death (obviously, but I’m sure the reader understands the implications).

“The death was simply a just execution. I can only recall one instance where this law was carried out. And that was right after the law was given to the people. There was a man who instantly when out and collected sticks for work. Back then, this would have been the equivalent of someone giving the finger to God.”

Would you kill your child if they disobeyed you? If someone killed their child for disobedience that didn’t hurt anything but their pride, wouldn’t you consider them a monster? Why is this not obvious? This is why religion is so scary to me. This is just a different flavor of the same kind of cognitive dissonance that made Muslim extremists should “God is great!” as the twin towers fell.

“God didn't rest on the Sabbath because he was tired. Look who is making up stuff about the Bible now. Since God never gets tired (Isaiah 40:28), we know that God rested on the Sabbath in order to set the example that the people were to follow. And no one mentioned anything about killing children. This was a law that established the covenant that the people had with God. If you rejected that, then you also rejected all the gifts that God offers humans (including life).”

That answer trades one nonsensical reason for killing someone for another nonsensical reason. Basically, it just says that an example for required resting methods must be followed or they will be killed.

“Nothing about the offense was trifle. I would recommend my opponent read the Bible before making such accusations.”

This answer was given to my statement that I wouldn’t kill my children for such a trifle offense as working on a particular day. It is incredibly trifle. The amount of spite and vengefulness a father would have to have to kill his children for something like that is staggering. (My use of children is not referring to age but is conveying the relationship perceived by believers with their god.)

As an ex-Christian that wanted to reinforce my belief by finding evidence the bible was credible, I have read the Bible in its entirety, on my own, at least eight times. With that said, one does not have to read the bible to know what the command to kill people for working on Sunday means.

“By the way, I would have no issue discrediting the Koran. The man who wrote it actually thought demons were speaking to him when he was originally writing the book.”

-Con, 2016

Please vote Pro!

Jerry947

Con

"To compare someone that works on a Sunday with Hitler is ludicrous."

I wasn't comparing someone that works on Sunday with Hitler. Con stated earlier that it would never be acceptable in our society to kill our neighbor. I simply (slightly humorously) gave an example of where most people would kill their neighbor.

"Con never explained in what way it was taken out of context."

I did actually. My opponent read the law and that was his opening argument. My opponent never read the whole passage or even thought about the reasons for the law.

"If God"s writing is so easy to take out of context, then that would imply I am a superior writer and communicator than God."

No...it would mean that you are dishonest and have no desire to learn anything God put in the Bible. That said, I don't believe you are dishonest. I think you just have no interest in hearing a the explanation for the law.

"I am quoting bible verses that contained early Judeo laws that one should be killed for working on a Sunday. I am saying that law is immoral, therefore the author promoted immoral laws. Because I believe that the Bible is not the word of god does not mean I can"t say its laws are immoral."

It is a complete double standard to use Bible verses to prove something and then turn around and say that I cannot do the same. You mentioned one law and then conclude that God is immoral. In part of my response, I used two other Bible verses to show that God is moral. Hence, we could then conclude that God has a good reason for this law (which I have also provided).

"Con"s response that it is moral to kill someone for working on Sunday is that because the Bible claims that, a) the bible is true, b) God wrote the bible, and therefore the execution for this offense is moral."

No actually...my opponent did that. He used a Bible verse to show that God was immoral and since they believe the Bible is true (well...they act like they do), he comes to the conclusion that God is immoral. I on the other hand showed a Bible verse that proved that God was moral and therefore had a reason for that law. In response, I am told that I can't quote the Bible even though he is allowed to. And I have never once in this debate argued that God is moral because God wrote the Bible or because the Bible is true. This whole debate has been about me showing that God is moral using other Bible verses that you ignored and by showing you how bad it was to ignore the Sabbath law. And we started off the debate assuming the bible is true since you used a verse from it to prove that God was immoral.

"Living in a harsh environment where survival could be determined by predators killing your animals, weather destroying your crops, plundering by neighboring peoples or extreme temperatures, working on a Sunday would eventually become inevitable by someone trying to avoid calamity of varying degrees. Any claim that there are exceptions are simply baseless assertions."

Uh no. That was actually a bare assertion you just made. The people of the time period prepared for Sunday in many ways (http://www.chabad.org...). That said, God killed the people for purposely violating the Sabbath and had other rules for unintentionally sinning.

"If Con argues that not all were executed, then the ones that were, were even more unjust. Then one would have to ask why there were inconsistencies in the enforcement of the law if it is so important and so offensive to God. In modern society, we always punish someone for heinous crimes without exception."

No, the one man (there might have been more) that was executed was committing treason against God by ignoring his laws. The point is that this law was for the people who directly disrespected God. And no, our society does not always punish someone for heinous crimes. But that is another debate.

"The punishment in this case was execution. The crime was being out of favor with God for working on Sunday."

Lets try to reword things. Sometimes this helps. The Sabbath was a sign that God truly ruled Israel and to break this law was to commit treason against God. As I recall, the United States also puts people to death for treason. Therefore all works except for acts of mercy, necessity, and worship were forbidden on the Sabbath (Is. 58:13 and Matt. 12:1-13). People were allowed to do things out necessity so maybe that Bible verse will help my opponent understand that God wouldn't kill a person for getting food for themselves. However, people who obviously disrespected God would be put to death.

"According to the New Testament stories, even Jesus knew the Old Testament laws were immoral."

Totally false. And again, another case where my opponent is allowed to use the Bible and for some reason I can't. But I am going to address this since the Bible never says this. Jesus simply made it clear that the old law had become obsolete since the law foreshadowed the rest the people would one day find in Jesus. Since Jesus had arrived, and since he was the "Lord of the Sabbath,"the law that foreshadowed him was no longer needed.

"Would you kill your child if they disobeyed you? If someone killed their child for disobedience that didn"t hurt anything but their pride, wouldn"t you consider them a monster? Why is this not obvious?"

That would be wrong and now my opponent is asserting things about this OT law that isn't actually there. The law was for treasonous people who hated God. It wasn't for children. The Bible even makes it clear that people were allowed to do things out of necessity.

"This answer was given to my statement that I wouldn"t kill my children for such a trifle offense as working on a particular day. It is incredibly trifle. The amount of spite and vengefulness a father would have to have to kill his children for something like that is staggering. (My use of children is not referring to age but is conveying the relationship perceived by believers with their god.)"

Anyone who disobeyed this law was not a believer. As already shown with other Bible verses, God does not put people to death unless the people are directly rejecting God as their ruler. This means that they want to be wicked like the rest of the world. So I recommend my opponent stop putting things in the Bible that aren't there.

"With that said, one does not have to read the bible to know what the command to kill people for working on Sunday means."

If that is all the Bible said on the matter you may have a point. But since you have inserted a lot of things that aren't actually in the Bible and because you ignore the seriousness of the crime, I don't know what else to tell you. You seem to want to believe that God is immoral. This became obvious with you Bible citing double standard.

In conclusion, my opponent has ignored everything I said due to his double standards and due to his insertion of things in the Bible that aren't actually there. The law about breaking the Sabbath was for people who committed treason against God.

No matter if people vote for me or not, I hope there is someone out there that sees how moral God truly is and how people will twist and add things to the Bible in order to make their case against him.
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by matt8800 8 months ago
matt8800
After reading the voters reasons, I see how I erred. I was arguing as if objective morality existed without establishing it does exist. I only suspect that objective morality exists anyway so this whole argument is probably moot on those grounds.
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Hoppi// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument was weakened by not establishing a clear definition of "immoral" from the beginning. He did not define it in the first round, and so Con was free to frame it as god's actions are by definition moral ("God is perfect and therefore the ultimate source of guidance"). Pro had the BoP to prove that god is immoral, and this is almost impossible to do without a clear framework around the concept of immoral. If we define moral as coming from god, then it is also impossible. You can't assume that everyone shares your definitions of words. Next time just state it in round 1, and you'll be in a much stronger position.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter sufficiently explains the decision within the context of the argumetns given and explains how BoP affects the outcome. The reporter's concerns about the definition are beside the point as the voter clarifies the importance of the framework and therefore the concept behind what's moral rather than the definition itself.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: tejretics// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Clear win for Con. Pro doesn't show at all how "killing someone" is immoral. Con contests the assumption Pro makes regarding whether killing is immoral. The resolution is an "is" not an "ought," so Pro has the greater BOP to prove the resolution true. Pro considers it "self-evident" that killing is immoral, and justifies it with appeals to emotion and arguments that aren't explained. Pro has to clearly explain why what he is saying is immoral. Con is right that merely quoting a Biblical verse isn't enough -- Pro has to show that whatever God does is immoral. Pro fails to establish any sort of framework for morality, and relies on some assumptions that he thinks can't be challenged. In fact, Con concedes that killing in general is immoral, but contends from a direct Divine Command Theory-framework, where what God does is always moral. He argues that killing on the Sabbath is justified because God's nature is moral. Pro doesn't uphold a framework for morality. Thus, I vote Con.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter more than sufficiently explains the decision within the context of the given arguments. I get that the reporter continues to find fault with it, but unless the voter is basing the entire decision on something completely contrary to what happened in the debate (which appears not to be the case due to the focus on the framework), it is not removed.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: tejretics// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Clear win for Con. Pro doesn't show at all how "killing someone" is immoral. Con contests the assumption Pro makes regarding whether killing is immoral. The resolution is an "is" not an "ought," so Pro has the greater BOP to prove the resolution true. Pro considers it "self-evident" that killing is immoral, and justifies it with appeals to emotion and arguments that aren't explained. Pro has to clearly explain why what he is saying is immoral. Con is right that merely quoting a Biblical verse isn't enough -- Pro has to show that whatever God does is immoral. Pro fails to establish any sort of framework for morality, and relies on some assumptions that he thinks can't be challenged. In fact, Con concedes that killing in general is immoral, but contends from a direct Divine Command Theory-framework, where what God does is always moral. He argues that killing on the Sabbath is justified because God's nature is moral. Pro doesn't uphold a framework for morality. Thus, I vote Con.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter more than sufficiently explains the decision within the context of the given arguments. Discrepancies such as that the reporter cites are not sufficient reason to remove a vote.
************************************************************************
Posted by tejretics 8 months ago
tejretics
@matt

If you're referring to the voters, they don't think that. I obviously don't think that. But voters should not reference arguments not made in the debate under any circumstances. Judges should vote based on who *won the debate* not whom *they agreed with.*
Posted by Jerry947 8 months ago
Jerry947
But they aren't killed for merely working on Sunday (technically Saturday by the way). In fact, I even pointed out that it was allowed if necessary in the last round.

If you are looking for an immoral God, the Muslim God is certainly the one to go to.
Posted by matt8800 8 months ago
matt8800
It would seem that there is a surprising amount of people that think that people should be killed for working on Sunday.

I guess I shouldn't be too surprised since 86% of Muslims in Pakistan think that Muslims that turn away from the religion should be killed.
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Shrekoning// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Both used the same source (bible). Both had decent grammar and conduct for the most part. I agreed with pro before the debate, and con failed to change my view during the debate. Pro is arguing about a law established by the bible, which would likely be practiced as a real law passed by legislature. The Con's argument seems to be that God can't be immoral because the bible is his word and the bible says he is a good god, thus he cannot be evil. This logic only applies to people of the same faith who believe in your religion. I could say, Hitler is moral because he wrote Mein Kampf, Mein Kampf is Hitler's word, Mein Kampf says Hitler is saving us from the jews, thus, Hitler did nothing wrong. This logic would not appeal to anyone except the looniest of neo-nazis. In my opinion, God is immoral. His whole theme is, "Worship me and gain forgiveness or die." God caused a huge flood to wipe out 99% of all living things because they weren't living the way he wanted them to.

[*Reason for removal*] While the vote shows that the voter has read the debate and understood at least one argument from both sides, the vote itself is based entirely in bias. The voter leads by saying that Con failed to sway him, which should have no bearing on the vote, and then proceeds to analogize Con's argument to Hitler, which was somewhat mentioned in the debate but never to this degree. The voter finishes off by reestablishing his view and putting in yet more information (the flood) that doesn't appear in the debate. The vote screams bias, and thus is insufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Hoppi// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro lost because he did not establish a clear definition of "immoral" from the beginning. He did not define it in the first round, and so Con was free to define it as god's actions are by definition moral (god instructs the sinners). Pro had the BoP to prove that god is immoral, and this is almost impossible to do without a clear framework around the concept of immoral. If we define moral as coming from god, then it is also impossible. You can't assume that everyone shares your definitions of words. Next time just state it in round 1, and you'll be in a much stronger position.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter seems to attribute arguments to Con that do not exist and a lack of arguments to Pro that just aren't true. Con didn't define moral in the opening round. Pro did define it in the second round, and it doesn't appear to have been disputed. It's fine if the voter wants to view the lack of a clear definition in R1 as a factor, but the voter has to take into account actual arguments made in the debate and not expand on or detract from points without clear reasons why that either have to do with logic or appear in the debate.
************************************************************************
Posted by Hoppi 8 months ago
Hoppi
I thought I voted on this. Did my vote get deleted?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Hoppi 8 months ago
Hoppi
matt8800Jerry947Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument was weakened by not establishing a clear definition of "immoral" from the beginning. He did not define it in the first round, and so Con was free to frame it as god's actions are by definition moral ("God is perfect and therefore the ultimate source of guidance"). Pro had the BoP to prove that god is immoral, and this is almost impossible to do without a clear framework around the concept of immoral. If we define moral as coming from god, then it is also impossible. You can't assume that everyone shares your definitions of words. Next time just state it in round 1, and you'll be in a much stronger position.
Vote Placed by tejretics 8 months ago
tejretics
matt8800Jerry947Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Clear win for Con. Pro doesn't show at all how "killing someone" is immoral. Con contests the assumption Pro makes regarding whether killing is immoral. The resolution is an "is" not an "ought," so Pro has the greater BOP to prove the resolution true. Pro considers it "self-evident" that killing is immoral, and justifies it with appeals to emotion and arguments that aren't explained. Pro has to clearly explain why what he is saying is immoral. Con is right that merely quoting a Biblical verse isn't enough -- Pro has to show that whatever God does is immoral. Pro fails to establish any sort of framework for morality, and relies on some assumptions that he thinks can't be challenged. In fact, Con concedes that killing in general is immoral, but contends from a direct Divine Command Theory-framework, where what God does is always moral. He argues that killing on the Sabbath is justified because God's nature is moral. Pro doesn't uphold a framework for morality. Thus, I vote Con.