The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
2 Points

The 10 commandments are a JOKE!

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/20/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,019 times Debate No: 103614
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)




Thankfully this country was NOT founded on christianity. The 10 commandments is a perfect example. Here’s George Carlin’s take on them. Its great. Its true.

The 10 commandments. Here’s my problem... Why are there ten? You don’t need ten. I think the list of commandments was deliberately and artificially inflated to get it up to ten. It's a padded list. Here’s what they did. About five thousand years ago, a bunch of reli­gious and political hustlers got together to figure out how they could control people and keep them in line. They knew people were basically stupid and would believe anything they were told, so these guys announced that god had given one of them a list of Ten Commandments that he wanted everyone to follow. They claimed the whole thing took place on a mountaintop, when nooooo one else was around. But let me ask you something: When these guys were sittin' around the tent makin' all this up, why did they pick ten? Why ten? Why not nine, or eleven? I'll tell you why… Because ten sounds important. Ten sounds OFFICIAL. Ten sounds IMPORTANT. They knew if they tried eleven, people wouldn't take them seriously. People would say, "What're you kiddin' me? The Eleven Commandments? Get the BLEEP outta here!" But ten! Ten sounds important. Ten is the basis for the decimal system; it's a decade. It's a psychologically satisfying number: the top ten; the ten most wanted; the ten best-dressed. So deciding on Ten Commandments was clearly a marketing decision.
And it's obviously a B.S. list. In truth, it's a political document, artificially inflated to sell better. I'm going to show you how you can reduce the number of commandments and come up with a list that's a bit more logical and realistic.

We'll start with the first three, and I'll use the Roman Catholic version because those are the ones I was fed as a little boy. • I AM THE LORD THY GOD, THOU SHALT NOT HAVE STRANGE GODS BEFORE ME. ===== • THOU SHALT NOT TAKE THE NAME OF THE LORD THY GOD IN VAIN. ===== • THOU SHALT KEEP HOLY THE SABBATH. Okay, right off the bat, the first three commandments... pure B.S. "Sabbath day," "Lord's name," "strange gods." Spooky language. Spooky language designed to scare and control primitive people. In no way does superstitious mumbo jumbo like this apply to the lives of intelligent, civilized humans in the twenty-first century. You throw out the first three commandments, pppppffttttt…. and you're down to seven.

===== • HONOR THY FATHER AND MOTHER. ===== This commandment is about obedience and respect for authority; in other words it's simply a device for controlling people. The truth is, obedience and respect should not be granted automatically. They should be earned. They should be based on the parents performance. PARENTS PERFORMANCE! Some parents deserve respect. Most of them don't. Period. We're down to six.

Now, in the interest of logic---something religion has a really hard time with---I'm going to skip around the list a little bit: ===== • THOU SHALT NOT STEAL. ===== • THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS. ===== Stealing and lying. Actually, when you think about it, these two commandments cover the same sort of behavior: Dishonesty. Stealing and lying. So we don't need two of them. Instead, we combine these two and call it "Thou shalt not be dishonest." And suddenly ‘kluck’ we're down to five.

And as long as we're combining commandments I have two others that be­long together: ===== • THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY. ===== • THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR'S WIFE. ===== Once again, these two prohibit the same sort of behavior; in this case, marital infidelity. The difference between them is that coveting takes place in the mind. And I don't think you should outlaw fantasizing about someone else's wife, otherwise what's a guy gonna think about when he's waxing his carrot? But marital fidelity is a good idea, so I suggest we keep the idea and call this commandment "Thou shalt not be unfaithful." Suddenly we're down to four. And when you think about it... honesty and fidelity are actually parts of the same overall value. So, in truth, we could combine the two honesty commandments with the two fidelity commandments, and, using positive language instead of negative, call the whole thing "Thou shalt always be honest and faithful." And now we're down to three. They’re going away. They’re going away real fast.

•THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR'S GOODS. ===== This one is just plain BLEEP stupid. Coveting your neighbor's goods is what keeps the economy going: Your neighbor gets a vibrator that plays "O Come All Ye Faithful," you want to get one, too. Coveting creates jobs. Leave it alone. You throw out coveting and you're down to two now: the big, combined honesty/fidelity commandment, and the one we haven't mentioned yet:..

===== •THOU SHALT NOT KILL. ===== Murder. The Fifth Commandment. But, if you give it a little thought, you realize that religion has never really had a problem with murder. Not really. More people have been killed in the name of God than for any other reason. To cite a few examples, just think about Northern Ireland, the Middle East, the Crusades, the Inquisition, our own abortion-doctor killings and, yes, the World Trade Center to see how seriously religious people take Thou Shalt Not Kill. Apparently, to religious folks—especially the truly devout—murder is ne­gotiable. Its NEGOTIABLE!!! It just depends on who's doing the killing and who's getting killed. And so, with all of this in mind, folks, I offer you my revised list of the Two Commandments: First: ===== •THOU SHALT ALWAYS BE HONEST AND FAITHFUL, ESPECIALLY TO THE PROVIDER OF THY NOOKIE.===== And second: ===== •THOU SHALT TRY REAL HARD NOT TO KILL ANYONE, UNLESS, OF COURSE, THEY PRAY TO A DIFFERENT INVISIBLE MAN
THAN THE ONE YOU PRAY TO. ===== Two is all you need, folks. Moses could have carried them down the hill in his pocket. And if we had a list like that, I wouldn't mind that brilliant judge in Alabama displaying it prominently in the courthouse wall. As long he in­cluded one additional commandment: ===== •THOU SHALT KEEP THY RELIGION TO THYSELF! =====

So it is your job as Con for this debate is to prove that the 10 commandments are worthly of following within today's hamburger market society.


Are the 10 Commandments a joke?

What does my opponent mean by this? I do not think he means that Moses was pulling a prank. I think, rather than trying to say Moses was not serious, that he means that we should not take the 10 Commandments seriously. At the end of the first round, he says that it is my job to prove that the 10 Commandments are worthy to be followed. While that isn’t quite the same as taking them seriously (which is what I take to be the negation of the thesis of this debate), it is at least related.

What are my opponents objections to the 10 Commandments?

My opponent objects that the reason there are 10 is that they are "artificially inflated" to "sell better."

He speculates that some religious leaders met in a tent and created this list because people are stupid and would believe anything they are told. He never gives any reason to prefer his speculation to the biblical narrative.

After asserting his speculation, he speculates further on why there are ten commands instead of some other number. My opponent thinks ten is a good marketing number. Of course, he lives in a society which places a high value on the number 10 and uses a base 10 numbering system. But, it seems like seven could have been the more likely choice in the ancient Hebrew society. Every 7 days they observed the Sabbath. Every 7 years they had a Sabbath year. Every 50 years there was the year of Jubilee. This was the Sabbath of Sabbaths, the year after 7 times 7 years.

Animals went onto the Ark in sets of twos and sevens. Jacob worked 7 years for each of his wives. When Joseph was in Egypt there was 7 years of plenty and 7 years of famine. The Feast of Unleavened Bread lasts 7 days. It was to be after 7 days that a male child would be circumcised. I could go on and on.

It is not the case that 10 played no role of importance in that culture. There were the 10 plagues the were brought on Egypt. The Day of Atonement was on the tenth day... of the seventh month. But, it is not obvious that the 10 commandments are 10 because the number 10 sounds important or official. So, if he is going to build some sort of case from this, he needs to show that the number 10 would make marketing sense in ancient Israel and not the present-day U.S.

But then again, so what?

Suppose it was put in the form of 10 commands for the purpose of making it easy to remember or to emphasize it's importance. That does not prove my opponent's speculation that they are contrived as a form of securing power, let alone that they are "joke" or unworthy of being followed.

My opponent that the first three commands consist of "spooky language" designed to scare and control people.

My opponent dismisses these as having to do with "superstitious mumbo jumbo" but gives no reason for us to think of Christian theism in this way. Christian theism has been well defended and argued for. It will take more than a label and a "pppppffttttt" to show that these commands are a joke.

My opponent says that the command to honor your father and mother is designed to control people and that most parents do not deserve respect.

This objection comes from a loaded and oversimplified understanding of biblical ethics.

It is generally a good thing for you children to obey their parents. You children may not be able to understand dangers or consequences that their parents can. Generally speaking, this could be true of older children as well. Generally, parents seek the well-being of their children.

But, the objection comes in when parents are bad and not seeking the well-being of their children. Or, perhaps in instances when otherwise good parents break character and do not seek the well-being of their child. What are the children supposed to do? Are they just supposed to obey, to their own detriment?

This objection hinges on the idea that "honor" should be taken to mean "unconditionally obey." But the text gives us no reason to think that this is what it means. And looking at the whole of the Bible, you'll see that it is full of examples of civil disobedience and the idea that unconditional obedience is reserved for God alone.

What happens if a parent tells their child to steal? Are we to believe that the child must break one of the commands. I imagine my opponent might think this. But there is no need to except under the unwarranted meaning my opponent is forcing on the text.

My opponent wants to combine lying and stealing into the category of dishonesty.

I don't know why my opponent wants to combine commandments. Even if you can boil down the 10 Commandments into 2 commands, it does not invalidate them, make them a joke, make them unworthy to be followed or make them in any way bad. I would say you can sum up them up in two commands:

  1. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.
  2. You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

When you summarize or give the principle they are derived from, you don't make them a joke. Nor do you make them unnecessary or superfluous. How do you love God? Don't follow after other gods or take his name in vain. How do you love your neighbor? Don't steal his things, don't sleep with his wife, etc. Expanding on ideas or detailing them is not bad.

As far as I am concerned, this is a wasted effort on the part of my opponent. If he was more familiar with the Bible, perhaps he would know that Paul does this in Romans 13:9 when he says, '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.”' But Paul is not disparaging the commands he lists, even inadvertently.

My opponent likewise wants to combine adultery and coveting your neighbor's wife, but in a way that makes it mainly about adultery.

I've already addressed the idea that combining commands doesn't discredit them. So, I'll address the idea that we shouldn't have a command not to covet your neighbor's wife.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (Matt 5:27-28) My opponent agrees with Jesus when he says that coveting your neighbor's wife is marital infidelity, just in your mind. But, consider that this lust is the natural precursor to adultery. Adultery typically doesn't happen without it. So, perhaps my opponent is wrong to dismiss this aspect of it.

My opponent makes an error here about what the 10 Commandments are. He says, "I don't think you should outlaw fantasizing about someone else's wife." If he means we should not criminalize it, which is what I take him to mean, then he is right. But the 10 Commandments are not purely criminal law. They are at least moral law, but not all of them are civil law. In the passages where the commands are given there are no civil penalties attached. And, even though some of the commands are reiterated elsewhere in more detail and given civil penalties, not all of them are. Coveting is never "outlawed" in the sense that it is criminalization or given a civil penalty.

My opponent says coveting your neighbor's goods is what drives the economy and creates jobs.

Suppose I go to my neighbor's house and he shows me some sort of tool that he has that simplifies his life. Suppose I think to myself, "That is a nice tool and it would help me to have one too. I should look into buying one." Is that coveting? No. But it does affect the market since it will likely result in me purchasing the tool.

Coveting has to do with desiring something that is not rightfully yours. The commands concerning coveting all involve things that belong to your neighbor. The passage begins by talking about his house. This is probably something that, at the time this was written, was fairly unique to your neighbor. Ideal Homes (or any other builder) were not cranking out houses that are exactly the same. It doesn't forbid wanting a home. It then moves to his wife. As my opponent has acknowledged, this is a specific married woman. It does not forbid wanting to find a wife of your own. The same things can be said for the male servants, female servants, oxen, and donkeys. This isn't about wanting things that are for sale on the market, but about wanting the specific things your neighbor owns.

Just as coveting your neighbor's wife is related to adultery (which my opponent acknowledges), coveting possessions is related to theft.

My opponent objects that "religion has never really had a problem with murder."

My opponent claims that according to religious folk, murder is negotiable. He then throws a variety of events together and tells us religious folk are actually okay with murder. But notice what he doesn't do. He doesn't say that the command to not murder is bad. He seems to agree with it, he simply thinks people don't follow it. But that isn't a problem with the command but the people.

I would make a couple more observations:

  • The Bible prohibits killing but allows for special cases where it is okay. And, unless my opponent is an extreme pacifist who doesn't allow for self-defense, he allows for special cases too.
  • Principle and practice are different. The whole notion of a hypocrite depends on this idea. The existence of someone who doesn't practice their claimed principles doesn't automatically invalidate the principle.

Debate Round No. 1


Wow. You are truly pathetic and a snot meat sow ridiculous within your snuffed pillow talk. Can’t you read? Or are you just totally incapable of delivering a used lecture from your hole in the wall to speak for you because you have to defend your reputation somehow because you like nearly all christians are out of excuses?

As stated for at least the THIRD FRICKEN TIME, do you understand now? Or do I have to repeat it again for your stumbled eyes, ears, and maw that juiced out from your radioactive PJ’s in the middle of the night when its bathroom time… that what you have taken are from George Carlin’s lips and NOT from me. Got it? So you cannot use George Carlin and thus say "my opponent". And yeah you absolutely deserve to be insulted, degraded and dehumanized on that merit alone. Now how can I or anyone speak for someone who is dead? Nor would I want to speak for him if he was alive because he, unlike YOUR god was an absolute genuis. I simply agree with everything he stated posted in this debate. And it would be absolutely 100% wrong for me to interpret what he was saying and thus bend his comedy of truthful errors in your god's horrid miss-steaks. Do you really think for a nth of a degree as to know what he was saying? Of course not. All you try to do is slam ME underneath a headstone without any sad sack easter egg ability too. And no I’m not even going to bother making a miserable attempt at reading what you have to say under those circumstances.

So what I will do is try to scroll down and see if you have anything to state and or say about what was stated back to you in regards to what I said in RD2. If you said nothing about it, I’m just going to let RD3 fly. Should you not choose to argue RD2, then that’s your problem and you lose this debate because hey, you brought the entire thing up for RD2 in which I responded to in turn. Now say a very big DUH for the camera.
So every time I scrolled on down I saw “my opponent” those paragraphs thus dismissed. You argued George Carlin. Not me in which was your entire bankrupt unread conversation.
The parameter stands for itself. Argue the parameter if you want to argue the debate… “So it is your job as Con for this debate is to prove that the 10 commandments are worthy of following within today's hamburger market society.”
AND argue what was put forth to you by myself in RD2 which was brought up by yourself in RD1.
Or not. And if not then this debate is over and I win this debate.


My opponent is right (in a meandering, indirect way) that I have not yet made a positive case for my position. I will make a positive case this round. But, I want to be clear that I do not believe the burden of proof rests solely on me.

It seems clear to me that my opponent does not believe the debate topic to be identical to the thesis of which we are either pro or con. So, he insists that while I am Con with respect to "The 10 Commandments are a joke," I am supposed to argue for the proposition that the 10 Commandments are worthy to be followed in today's society. I don't mind arguing that the 10 Commandments are worthy to be followed, but I don't think my opponent should be free of obligation to argue for the idea that the 10 Commandments are a joke.

I would also like to point out that in Round 1, my opponent implicitly agreed that some of the commands are good.

Now, amid my opponent's verbose, incoherent ramblings he has some sort of unclear objection to me using the debating convention of referring to him as "my opponent." Apparently, it renders him unable to read or understand any argument that follows. So, for his sake, I will address him directly for the rest of the debate.

Before I make my case, I want to make clear what I am not arguing. I am not arguing that the 10 Commandments should be civil law. They were not civil law when they were given, they were moral law. The passages in which the 10 Commandments are given do not prescribe civil punishments. While some are reiterated in passages prescribing civil law, others are not. What I am going to argue is that the 10 Commandments are prescriptive moral obligations.

I am also not going to argue for the 10 Commandments in a vacuum. They exist as part of the Mosaic law and I will take my understanding of them from the context of the Bible.

Considering that the commands to have no other gods before God, to not make idols, and to not take God's name in vain are rooted in the idea of God - a specific God, no less - it seems that I simply need to argue for Christian theism. If Christian theism is true, the Ten Commandments are not a joke and are worthy of being followed.

For this, I am going to argue along two related lines of thought. The first centers around knowledge:

1. If God did not exist, knowledge would not be possible.

2. Knowledge is possible.

3. Therefore, God exists.

The second line of reasoning:

1. If God did not exist, then there could not be any moral facts.

2. There are moral facts.

3. Therefore God exists.

Let's get into the detail of each of these. There are a few arguments for why God is the necessary precondition for knowledge, which work in tandem.

Within the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, you have a plurality of persons and a unity of being. So, ontologically, neither unity nor plurality is ultimate. Rather, unity and plurality are co-ultimate.

1. The ontology of the universe is such that either (a) unity is ultimate and not plurality, or (b) plurality is ultimate and not unity, or (c) unity and plurality are co-ultimate.

2. If unity is ultimate and not plurality, then knowledge of the universe (even in part) is impossible.

3. If plurality is ultimate and not unity, then knowledge of the universe (even in part) is impossible.

4. Knowledge of the universe is not impossible.

5. Therefore, the ontology of the universe must be such that unity and plurality are co-ultimate.

Additionally, if no one has comprehensive knowledge of the universe, then no one can have any knowledge of the universe.

There are no "brute" facts. A fact can only be understood by understanding it in the context of its relationship to other facts. This means that the only way (apart from theism) that someone can gain knowledge is by understanding all of the relationships between all of the facts.

If you were to try to start with a fact and relate it to another fact without comprehensive knowledge, you could not know if what you purported to be knowledge would be entirely undermined by relationships you had not uncovered.

But, you cannot simply argue that the probability of your purported knowledge being overturned is low since your ideas about probability are likewise subject to this dilemma.

Only God could have comprehensive knowledge of the universe, by virtue of having created it and defined the relationships between all of the facts.

And God is able to create beings whose cognitive faculties implicitly take into account ideas that God alone can know. In this way, God can give humans a reliable way of knowing that they could not otherwise have. One such idea could be the uniformity of nature presupposed by inductive reasoning.

Theism seems to be the precondition for knowledge. Naturalism provides insufficient conditions for knowledge.

Alvin Plantinga has argued that proper function and a good design plan aimed at true-belief production is necessary for warrant:

According to the central and paradigmatic core of our notion of warrant (so I say) a belief B has warrant for you if and only if (1) the cognitive faculties involved in the production of B are functioning properly (and this is to include the relevant defeater systems as well as those systems, if any, that provide propositional inputs to the system in question); (2) your cognitive environment is sufficiently similar to the one for which your cognitive faculties are designed; (3) the triple of the design plan governing the production of the belief in question involves, as purpose or function, the production of true beliefs (and the same goes for elements of the design plan governing the production of input beliefs to the system in question); and (4) the design plan is a good one: that is, there is a high statistical or objective probability that a belief produced in accordance with the relevant segment of the design plan in that sort of environment is true. Under these conditions, furthermore, the degree of warrant is given by some monotonically increasing function of the strength of ,S"s belief that B. This account of warrant, therefore, depends essentially upon the notion of proper function. (Plantinga, Warrant and Proper Function, 194.)

Plantinga's notions of "proper function" and "design plan" succeed where naturalistic accounts fail because Plantinga's notions provide a teleological normativity that naturalism cannot produce.

If naturalism were the case, then no human has cognitive faculties that function properly according to a good design plan aimed at true-belief production.

Ergo, if naturalism is the case, no human has knowledge. Given that the reasonableness of the idea that we have some knowledge (for this debate to even happen, knowledge is required), then due to the implausibility of the alternatives, theism is the case.

The more detailed version of the moral argument goes as follows:

1. If there are moral facts, then their basis is either natural or supernatural (where these two are construed as mutually exclusive categories).

2. The basis of moral facts is not natural.

3. Therefore if there are moral facts, then their basis is supernatural.

4. The most plausible way to think of a supernatural basis of moral facts is in terms of a supernatural person who brings moral facts about.

5. Therefore, if there are moral facts, the most plausible way to think of their basis is in terms of a supernatural person who brings moral facts about.

In the end, if Christian theism is true, then the Ten Commandments make sense and are worthy to be followed.

Debate Round No. 2


Thankfully I am intelligent enough to skim through a person’s debacle debates before I deliver my dutified dusty damnation remarks to my opponent as he usually seems to drown in the dreariness of down for the dimwitted dullard diseases and “damn it Spock” dementia.
“1. If God did not exist, knowledge would not be possible.” That’s a joke right? My opponent, who I will call “you” as I have been throughout these debates thus far as it is more personable, is so brainwashed, and indoctrinated within himself, actually tickled pink within his pillow talk from his head to his toes that he seem to forget that he can’t even prove that his god even exists. What a super massive hypocritical contradiction is there ever was one.
That’s the problem with the super devout, is that they are so convinced of something, god in this case, that they never stopped to think that “Gee maybe god doesn’t exist because after all there’s no proof. And gosh, I don’t have an answer for something so therefore I’m going to take the easy way out and POOF therefore I’m going to blame god.” Oh absolutely the BOP 100% lies solely on you. No exceptions. None. That’s a couple of paragraphs long in which would take up far too much space of the 10,000 limited character limitations that allows. So onto something else. Let’s see what else you hand picked.

I did make it clear, twice, what the parameters are for the debate. I gave George Carlin’s comedy reviews, which are true btw, a hoot and a holler as an example as to how the workings of the printed text bible god is and how truly arrogant, malignant and stained he is. Wow did George Carlin nail it. Now I will absolutely argue that nearly all of the 10 commandments should not be followed. And in today’s society here in the states, 9 of them thankfully they are not by god’s word according to the bible.

“I would also like to point out that in Round 1, my opponent implicitly agreed that some of the commands are good.” That’s news to me. 1 of them is depending…

Good thank you. I like you referring me to as “him”. Its more personable.

“They were not civil law when they were given,” ABSOLUTELY THEY WERE CIVIL LAW WHEN THEY WERE GIVEN. And they were supposed to be moral law also which is a true joke. “The passages in which the 10 Commandments are given do not prescribe civil punishments.” In other verses they were most certainly are.
“Considering that the commands to have no other gods before God, to not make idols,” Yes and its punishable by death tif you do with the countless genocides that your god committed because of it which included the slaughter of innocent babies suckling on their mother’s nipples, children, pregnant mothers (obviously) which is abortion so you christians live in a super massive hypocritical contradiction to be against abortion, and the lovely slaughter of animals which is animal abuse. Ah yes, the great flood (which never happened) in text is the worst example of genocide and animal slaughter and abuse of all time in which you christians seem to justify for the wiping out of every---living---thing. Saving 2 of each species wouldn’t have been enough to save any species., 2 ants for 2 anteaters? Now here’s your other god’s genocides… Indeed god is far far far worse than Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Hong Xiuquan combined. Here's some examples... 3,000 EX 32:27-28, 14,700 NU 16:49, 24,002 NU 25: 1-11, 12,000 JOS 8: 1-25, 10,000 JG 1:4, 120,000 JG 8:7-10, 42,000 JG 12:3-6, 1,000 JD 15:14-15, 3,000 JD 16:27-30, 25,101 JD 16:27-30, 1 SAM 4 34,002, 1 SAM 6:19 50,070, 2 SAM 8 65,850, 1 KI 20: 28-29 100,000, 1 KI 20: 30 27,000, KI 19 35 -37 185,000, 2 CHR 13 17-18 500,000!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, 2 CHR 28:6 120,000, Esther 9:5-18 75,813 etc etc etc Yeah god is really so moral huh? There’s no such a thing as “love” within any genocide.
Now here’s proof that worshiping other gods is punishable by death Deuteronomy 13 especially verses 9-10 and Deuteronomy 17 2-5 which basically states the same thing.

“not take God's name in vain”
A true god wouldn’t care. Not only that but it violates the freedom of choice just as many of the commandments do. Thankfully we here in the states have the right to choose and this country was NOT founded on your god.

2. Knowledge exists without your god and always has since the dawn of fire.

3. You cannot prove your god exists.
4. You live in a world that when you do not have answers so you say “therefore god”
5. Your god has no morals and is completely bankrupt and corrupt.
6. You do not have the ability to think, reason, rationalize, use common sense, use logic because you, your god, your religion, your bible does not require a single green pepper steak of it.
7. If you could prove that your god exists you would be the only quadrillionaire on the planet and your god would be the only religion.
8. Yes there are moral facts. Your god isn’t it.

OK then you get into “facts”. Wow. Do you even know what facts are? The ONLY facts that there are, are mathematical equations. 2 + 2 = 4 no matter which language you speak. God can be disproved no matter which language you speak. Stephen Hawking, perhaps the smartest man who has ever lived has come up with an equation that proves that something comes from nothing. In other words your god was not needed, nor required to have created the known universe. Period.

Oh and btw, whatever you came up with is so far off base that its so unintelligible and unreadable and unprovable and has nothing to do with the 10 commandments, I mean do you really expect me to respond to it especially when its utter trash?

See you don’t have answers so therefore god “Only God could have comprehensive knowledge…” what a load of utter rambunctious bile that would not even fit in your silly pity locked up universe that you hold in your hands.

I can’t read the rest of your round. You do fully get that - right? Especially when you attempt to mention a creationist. No creationist, not one has any credibility nor integrity whatsoever and they never will until they put god on trial again. They are not stupid. They will NEVER put god god on trial again. Why? Because they know that all they have to go on is faith. And faith can never be proved. So he's tossed to the winds. Science will ALWAYS win in the courts because of that. Science has proof of something, anything, a pen perhaps. There's no proof for god. No exceptions. None.

Well I was wrong. I do have room to prove that the BOP for you to prove your god is absolutely 100% upon you. No exceptions. None.
Until god waves his rosey red flag, he's a forgery a fake and a fraud. Indeed it is always up to theists to prove their god. No exceptions. None. How can you prove something that is unproved? How can you prove something that is unknown? How can you prove something that has never been seen by anyone - ever? What do you look for to prove this unknown commodity of non existence? Um no. Sorry. The burden of proof is always upon those who claim "let there be light" or "let the truth be known" because it is they that makes those outrageous and absurd claims. And we sit around and laugh with glee and the mint cookies on the shelves.

There’s absolutely no evidence for their god. None. There’s no tests that can prove their god. None. There’s nothing that can demonstrate their god. None. If there was, those who could prove this cherry picker god would be the only quadrillionaires on the planet. Their god would be the only god worshiped on the planet.

So how do you even know that this god even exists? Through faith? What? What kind of god, especially the god according to the bible with his truly bloated superior ego complex would ever NOT show himself and present evidence instead of leaving his so-called creation of man to rely on faith? Also if this god is truly a god, he would not rely on faith and he could simply come on down here and---talk---to---us. Now that’s evidence. The bible which is in TEXT form, which is clearly not evidence, in which no god would EVER use, the worst form of communication possible, with copies upon copies and translations upon translations, with no updates in at least 2,000 years, and no possible way to trace it back to the original, so EVERYBODY misinterprets this so-called holy book, no exceptions, none. So this bible is essentially a useless pile of scrapping without proof of anything.

If this god of theists is a true god he can simply come on down here and talk to us rather than using faith or text. Talking to man is evidence in which there is none to be proved.. So until this so called god of theirs presents any kind of evidence, he’s a sham, a fake and a fable unless you belong to the club of the truly gullible as many that are religious do rather than being shown something that is tangible in which there’s no proof that this god of theirs has ever done. That shows that those who worship this god with their gullibility, generally have a true lack of intelligence and education. .

In closing for this round... if you have the slightest whimsical doubts within your beliefs in this god in which you cannot prove even exists, then you are an atheist.

So you still have yet to prove the original parameters rather than going COMPLETELY ASTRAY. Prove that the 10 commandments are moral and just and fit within today's society.


I don't worship a God of the gaps. Nothing I have said indicates that and you have no reason to accuse me of appealing to God because I lack an explanation of something. I believe in God because he has spoken, because he did come down here.

Why don't you stop substituting ridicule for argument and address the things I've written? You are not particularly good at ridicule, anyway.

You say that the Ten Commandments were supposed to be civil law, but I've already addressed that. In Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 (the two passages in which the Ten Commandments are given) no civil penalties are listed. Now, in the Mosaic law, you will find penalties attached to things like murder and theft, but you won't find penalties for coveting. This is because the Ten Commandments were ethical obligations given as a part of God's covenant with Israel. While most of these obligations are also expressed in the civil law and given penalties, not all of them are. This is because it is a different category of law.

To help you understand the distinction between what is legal and what is moral, consider lying. If I were to lie to you in this debate, it would be immoral but not illegal.

As to the deaths that God has caused, it is a matter of sovereignty. God, as the creator, has the authority to take anyone's life he pleases. We, as the creatures, are not authorized to end anyone's life for just any reason. So, when you try to say that Christians are hypocritical for opposing abortion, you fail to make your case. We are maintaining that humans cannot destroy other humans for just any reason.

You say a true God wouldn't care about someone taking his name in vain. I would like to see you try to argue this. If I were to lie or slander a good man, people would likely be upset with me - and they would be in the right. I don't think it is so hard to see how using the name of the source of everything good as a derogatory term or expletive is bad.

When you argue that some of the commands "violates the freedom of choice" that we have, you are confusing legal and moral categories again (I hope). Actions, words, and thoughts have moral value. You may be free to do something under the current laws of the U.S. that is immoral. That doesn't have any bearing on whether it is moral to do that thing or not. Nor should every immoral thing be criminalized under civil law. You may be free from civil penalty to take God's name in vain, but that doesn't contradict the notion that it is unethical to take his name in vain.

//You live in a world that when you do not have answers so you say “therefore god”//

This is patently false. Nowhere have I done this. This is cheap speculation on your part. It also contradicts your idea that I am brainwashed. Do I look around and lack answers and use the idea of God to fill in the holes, or was this belief taught to me and crammed down my throat until I believed it unquestioningly? You can't really have it both ways.

//Your god has no morals and is completely bankrupt and corrupt.//

Prove it. Christianity says that not only is God ethically good, he is the very basis of ethics.

//You do not have the ability to think, reason, rationalize, use common sense, use logic because you, your god, your religion, your bible does not require a single green pepper steak of it.//

I have demonstrated the ability to think, reason, rationalize, use common sense, and logic. The Bible does require those things. The Pauline Epistles, for example, have sequences of thought that logically build on one another. Paul makes arguments and anticipates objections. You have the ability to think, reason, and rationalize; but it seem to me that you are more interested in making loud, colorful assertions than providing thoughtful, well-considered arguments and responses.

//If you could prove that your god exists you would be the only quadrillionaire on the planet and your god would be the only religion.//

No, that isn't the case. You are equating proof and persuasion. People have biases in their thought and motives in their intellectual endeavors. You have accused me of being brainwashed and unable to reason because I follow the Bible. Does this mean that you haven't proved atheism to be the case? After all, I can turn your idea on it's head: If you could prove that no god exists you would be the only quadrillionaire on the planet and there would be no religion.

I do know what facts are. You say that the only facts that there are are mathematical equations. But, what I was talking about are ontological facts - I could use the word "particulars" instead, if that helps with your confusion.

When you say that Stephen Hawking has come up with an equation that proves something comes from nothing, you have to understand that "nothing" is a bit loaded in this context. It is actually describing quantum potential. In physics, when you are talking about a vacuum, you are talking about something that contains quantum fluctuations and is governed by physical laws. It isn't what is meant when a philosopher asks why there is something, rather than nothing.

But, more importantly than that, I didn't argue that God has to exist because there is something, rather than nothing. While I think there is merit to the idea, that has nothing to do with what I am arguing. Also, since I agree that the world came into existence, I have no problem with someone describing that with math, if they can. If you want to make your understanding of that math into something that discredits Christianity, you have to go further with it.

I didn't mention a creationist in Round 2. The only person I mentioned was Alvin Plantinga, who I believe adheres to theistic evolution. So, unless you aren't using the common meaning of "creationist," then you're simply wrong. And, the thing that is debated in the courts has to do with the demarcation of science for the purposes of public school curriculum, not the truth value of whether or not God exists or created the world.

God has spoken to people and he did leave a text. And when you say that the Bible is "copies upon copies and translations upon translations" you betray that you don't know anything about textual criticism or how we actually got the Bible. Saying that God would not want his words written down is quite a claim. Why not? If text is the worst form of communication, why are you using it to debate? Why are you using YouTube or some other medium instead?

You drone on and on, repeating ad nauseum that there is no proof for God and yet you admitted that you basically skipped over the arguments I gave. You haven't interacted with them.

Did I go completely astray? No. I argued that if Christian theism is true, then the Ten Commandments are moral and just and should be observed. I then argued that Christian theism is true. Calling it "utter trash" is lazy excuse to dismiss what I have said rather than critically interact with it. Please don't substitute arguments with things like "no exceptions," "none," and "period" in the fourth round.

Debate Round No. 3


Who said you worship a god of “gaps”? No you don’t worship a god of anything because there’s absolutely no proof that this god even exists.
12:15 and listen to the end of the call. And both the hosts Tracie and Matt know one helluva lot better than you with your proof of nothingness.

Now let’s see here what else you have to say and see if you have anything to say about the 10 commandments. Apparently not…

“Why don't you stop substituting ridicule for argument and address the things I've written? You are not particularly good at ridicule, anyway.” Because everything you state is such a farce that there’s no sensible mind that can possibly take you seriously. If you were to be put on the witness stand, the entire courtroom if filled with people would ridicule you and laugh at you and what you would have to say. And if you had an actual case, there’s 0% chance of you winning because YOUR god who you cannot even prove even exists, is based on hate, evil, pain, suffering as previously mentioned which is so easy to prove. But you being the stint that you are, you haven’t read your bible. That is so blatant and obvious. Oh and oh yeah why don’t you address what I have stated. In case you haven’t noticed, this is MY DEBATE. ITS NOT YOURS. And really what points have you made that have had to do with the 10 commandments? You are such a B.S. artist that knows how to perfectly stray from the topic because he knows his reareth endeth is NOT equipped to deal with the subject matter at hand AND YOU FRICKEN KNOW IT you lazy boy rocking chair recliner.

Now here’s how things are… when you or anyone does not know what they are talking about and they know it and they thus try to pretend that they do and they thus have to invent excuses and or flat out lie to cover for their ineptitude then you flat out absolutely deserve to be insulted, degraded, dehumanized. That’s something that is taught at the college level. And judging by the way you present your skunk perfume bionic mind, you never got that far. god most certainly is NOT taught at THAT level that you have triggered and tickled him at lil ole me. So exactly where and how did you get YOUR interpretations from? Now if you do that kind of sickening little aphid spit granola grain divings into a pond filled with lice to your so-called genuine friends and loved ones, you will soon have no friends and loved ones. And I’d be willing to bet nearly 100% of everything I have that you have no friends and loved ones.

Oh for crying out loud. The 10 commandments, 9 of 10 if not followed were punishable by death. If that’s NOT civil laws, what are? Here’s some examples…

Deuteronomy 13 the entire chapter to NOT bow down to false gods especially verses 9-10 and Deuteronomy 17 2-5 repeats the same thing. And if you do, its death.

Exodus 21:17, Leviticus 20:9, Mark 7:10, Matthew 15:4 are all verses in which if you merely curse at you parents you are to be put to death.

Exodus 31: 14-15, Exodus 35: 2, Numbers 15: 32-35 Requires you to be put to death for working on the sabbath.

Leviticus 24: 16 If you blaspheme in the name of the lard, you are to be put to death. So that’s the same thing as No other gods before me, and I am the lard thy god. 3 commandments = POOF gone.

Leviticus 20: 10 Committing adultery is punishable by death
And apparently, well that is according to you, because of just how the way you worship YOUR god, you should absolutely be put to death IF any of those commandments are broken - correct?
“If the reader will turn to Deuteronomy 13:6, 10; 21:18, 21; 22: 21-28, and all of Leviticus 20, he will read there a whole series of injunctions concerning the putting to death of persons who were idolaters, who were rebellious to their parents, who committed adultery or were guilty of incest, who cursed father or mother -- in fact, who violated any part of the moral code. Indeed, someone has estimated that no less than nine of the Ten Commandments are specifically mentioned in connection with the penalty of death for their violation.”

“To help…” You can’t give me any help you really need to help yourself because you are so stupid and you know NOTHING about your sheepish bile bible that in no way if actually put into effect, the world’s population would be greatly diminished. But thankfully god does NOT rule this planet, his following is failing, god is a fraud and you cannot even prove he exists.

What is “moral”?
“As to the deaths that God has caused, it is a matter of sovereignty. God, as the creator, has the authority to take anyone's life he pleases.” Well WRONG. 1.god is NOT the creator considering the fact that you cannot even prove that he even exists. 2. billions of people do not believe in this creator of YOURS, who is only YOURS btw. 2. I can 100% prove what I know and prove it to everybody. You can prove nothing. You only assume. 3. But you are so desperate to make a claim, kind of like a gold miner desperate to seek his first chunk of gold, but not finding any. 4. You cannot convert me. I am far too good for you and your god. Nice try.

“When you start making excuses for atrocities you have removed yourself from ANY valid discussion on morals. When you say ‘yes the bible says you can own slaves but’ well now you’re contradicting yourself because before I was asking if you thought the bible was accurately representing the mind of god, the will of god. You’ve got this conflicted mess of contradictions and you’ve found a way to rationalize them. You’ve gone and looked at them and said ‘boy that one really sounds bad, BUT that’s what Israel was doing that’s not what god was doing. So let me ask you this… do you believe that there’s an all knowing all powerful fun loving god who has an important message for humanity and he is so completely inept that his best attempts at communicating to people managed to convey the exact opposite message of what you think he meant. Now like are you the one who got it right? And all the people who authored the holy book and got you started that they managed to get it wrong? Is your god such a bumbling buffoon that he cannot state ‘thou shalt not own somebody as another human being?’ or ‘please don’t rape the people and pillage the villages around you’” and he managed to communicate so poorly that it got written down as Thou shalt be able to own other people as property and oh by the way go over there and kill everybody kill everything except for the young virgins. Its asinine. You cannot reconcile this.” Matt Dillahunty

YOU are completely immoral for believing in your god. Period. You want solid proof your god is immoral? Duh. These videos are irrefutable IF you have even the remotest of intelligence and an education in which you clearly don’t.

Since you are completely immoral, bankrupt and corrupt as your god is, and since you obviously think that the murdering/ killing of innocent babies still suckling on their mother’s nipples and children is perfectly OK and justified, we’re done. I’m not even going to bother reading the rest of what you have to say. You are completely useless in this world. There’s absolutely no one that will agree with you except for maybe a very small band of elitist egotistical completely friendless and loveless, depraved, dishonest, unethical simpleton christians like you who thankfully are shrinking in this world.

It might have been just a little bit nice during this debate instead of your windchopped yammering, that you would have presented some actual evidence to have supported your case rather than point blank assuming that I or anyone is automatically going to believe in what you believe. Again what you believe is because you do not have the answers to something so “therefore it must be god” is among the worst fallacies there is in YOUR religion as you cannot even prove that your god even exists. No one can. Not one person. If they could, they’d be the only quadrillionaires on the planet and god would be the only religion. So how come this hasn’t happened? Um no what you say to your god is “I don’t know”. That shows integrity and credibility. And mister blankety blank wishful thinker, you’ve got none.

You are so convinced of something, namely that your god exists, without a single shred of proof, that if this god of your were to tell you to jump into a fiery volcano, well by the fairy godmothers of Cinderella who has much more credibility and integrity, you’d do it.

If someone were to agree with EXACTLY what you were to state, no difference, whatsoever, none, you would still manage to find fault with that person.

If your god was proven 100% false and a new god(s) were to appear right before your very teary eyes and show you the way to absolute purification and enlightenment, you would still believe in the same god who is obviously not a god that you believe in now.


Your "conclusions" amount to unwarranted accusations about my beliefs and character. Your "summary" is just a reassertion that no one can prove God exists and the same "quadrillionaire" argument that I debunked in Round 3. You are probably right that I won't convince any atheists to be theists on the basis of this debate. Your ramblings and repetition prevented digging into the substance of the matter. But, unfortunately for you, determining the winner of a debate is not dependent on my making theists out of atheists. The question is, who made the better case?

//Who said you worship a god of “gaps”?//

You did. And you did again in Round 4 when you say: 'what you believe is because you do not have the answers to something so “therefore it must be god.”' If you didn't know what "god of the gaps" meant, you could have easily looked it up.

You have spent a lot of words saying how easy it is for you to win and how ignorant I am, but you have spent very little of them showing that to be the case. You claim my God is "based" on hate, evil, pain, and suffering, but you don't argue it.

Look, I don't have a problem with insults or ridicule when you can back them up with thought, or at least make a good effort of a defense. But when you pad your writing with insults and lack substantive argument, it becomes sad.

//The 10 commandments, 9 of 10 if not followed were punishable by death.//

Not quite. Coveting is not punished by death, neither is theft. And someone who commits perjury is punished by whatever punishment would have wrongly been dealt out as a result of their perjury. So, lying could, but didn't necessarily result in death.

I still maintain that the Ten Commandments are the moral law that serves as the basis for much of the civil law found in the Mosaic Law. I think it is my obligation in this debate to argue that the Ten Commandments should be an ethical obligation that this society should follow and I am not obligated to show that all of the Mosaic Law's civil punishments were just or should be implemented. I would say that arguing for the enforcement of penalties found in other parts of the law is not a part of showing that the Ten Commandments are not a joke, or a condition of making them worthy to be followed. Following them is not the same as enforcing the civil penalties associated with them. After all, I can't do that with 10 - I can't do that with coveting, since there isn't a civil punishment. I would say that if that is what you wanted to debate, you should have made that clear. As it stands, you didn't even mention civil penalties until the third round.

But, in the interest of not coming off like I am trying to win on a technicality, I will try to at least somewhat address the issue of penalties. But, I will be addressing the penalties in light of the coming of Christ and the New Covenant. While your knee-jerk reaction to this may be that I am cheating or dismissing the question of penalties, I am not. The only one in particular that would change very much is the command about the Sabbath. This is because Christ has come as lord of the Sabbath to give his people rest. But, I do not think the moral value of having a day of rest and ensuring that those that work for you are likewise given a day of rest is negated in any way by this.

Commands 1 and 2 (ESV):

1. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me.

2. You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.

If Christian theism is the case, these make sense. I don't expect that you would object on the ground of the legitimacy of bowing down to a carved idol or a god that is not the God of the Bible.

Command 3:

You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.

I covered this in Round 3.

Command 4:

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

While I would say that the Sabbath obligation has changed with the advent of Christ, and that now we are to find our rest him (Heb. 3-4), it still stands as good to have a day of rest. In fact, most of us in the U.S. have 2 days of rest. In the New Covenant, it is no longer of importance which day in particular you rest on (Col 2:16-17).

Command 5:

Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.

I dealt with this in Round 1 and you have not argued any particular exception to this that would overturn this as a good rule.

Command 6:

You shall not murder.

You have not objected to this one and I don't think anyone really will.

Command 7:

You shall not commit adultery.

You seemed to implicitly think marriage fidelity is good in your arguments.

Command 8:

You shall not steal.

You have not objected to this one and I think that the most anyone really argues against this one is exceptions to it.

Command 9:

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

You haven't argued against this and I suspect you wouldn't if there were another round. I do think the Bible does permit special cases of lying. But, then again, this isn't so much lying in general as it is perjury or slander. It is against someone.

Command 10:

You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's.

As I've already covered, this is involved in adultery and theft. It has no civil penalty attached, but is warned against. Since I addressed this, you haven't given any counter-argument that coveting is good.

The Death Penalty

The only penalty that my opponent has objected to is the death penalty. As I've pointed out early, that doesn't apply to coveting, theft, and breaking the Sabbath (since Christ established the New Covenant). And it does not necessarily (or usually) apply to lying. Having the death penalty for murder is obviously proportional. So, that leaves 5 commands.

The first three commands, when described with penalties have to with God directly. Don't proselytize other gods, don't take God's name in vain. Why is the penalty so harsh? Consider that following other gods results in damnation. It is better that a few die than a large number end up damned. Now, this is a simplified defense, but you have only given a vague objection that consists mostly of pointing out what the penalty is.

The last two are adultery and cursing your parents. If the family is the basic structure of society, then these penalties have to do with the preservation of society. Perhaps the adultery one is obvious in this regard. But, what about the little child who "curses at" his parents? The reality is that the situation being described is more serious than that. This isn't describing a little kid who failed one time to obey, or said a cuss word. In Deuteronomy 21, when this situation is described, it is added that the son is a glutton and a drunkard. In this scenario the son isn't little and his rebellion is prolonged and far greater than making one wrong step.

Is God evil?

The YouTube videos you link to seem to simply be centered around the idea that God is evil. God killed people, damns people, allows evil to happen etc. I don't have the space here to properly lay out a theodicy or address everything that was said in the videos. But, I will say a few things to address this.

God has the authority to kill humans. God created man and has the authority to take man's life. He can authorize others to take lives. Such is the case with the death penalty, and the special cases in the Old Covenant.

As to the problem of Hell... I don't have the space left to defend an eternal hell, but neither the moral argument I laid out, nor the Ten Commandments require it. I could just as easily put forward annihilationism for the purposes of this debate.

When it comes to the deductive form of the problem of evil, you've got to be able to prove that a sufficient reason could not exist for a good God to allow evil to exist when he could stop it.

Anyway, I don't think the videos are "irrefutable," but 10,000 characters is not enough to fully address them and the primary concern of the debate: the Ten Commandments.

Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by backwardseden 2 years ago
@dsjpk5 - Well my opponent can't even read. So his round was completely blown.
Posted by SuperAwesomeMusician 2 years ago
You just don't get it, do you backwardseden? You need to leave DDO you idiot.
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
I think your opponent could easily establish the commandments were designed to be taken seriously, and therefore not a joke.
Posted by backwardseden 2 years ago
@dsjpk5 - well see taking the Con side to this debate, bad idea. Nothing is going to get resolved is it when it comes to this? has some stupid rules/ ideas that account for nothing.
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
No, you are the one who seems confused. Here's what I am talking about: (from this website new user guide):

(g)This is your resolution or topic of the debate, this will be seen when someone is reading through the lists of debate on Try to make it interesting but most important try to stay away from resolutions that can fall prey to semantics. An example of a semantic prone debate would have a resolution like this.

"President Obama will not get re-elected"

You see, backwards, what we see when perusing the challenge section IS your resolution. One person is Pro the resolution, and one is Con.
Posted by backwardseden 2 years ago
@dsjpk5 - No you don't tell me what's supposed to be debated and what's not supposed to be debated. You are really not that bright you know. And you do not know everything. Especially what you pretend that you know. There is no resolution to the ridiculous 10 commandments because they are so preposterous and nonsensical in the first place. They are an ongoing thing especially with god's over-bloated superior ego complex. And what is really totally senseless and extravagant is the mad cap ideals that this god puts himself above all else such as well such as what about commandments such as "thou shalt not have slavery" or "thou shalt always protect children from any harm and wrongdoing" etc etc etc. Well you get the point if you are remotely intelligent. But nah. god is a piece of crap that gave us these stupid commandments that thankfully this country does not follow except for perhaps one of them and it really doesn't follow it all that well.
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
The resolution is what is supposed to be debated. If you wanted to debate whether or not the commandments should be followed, that should be the resolution. As it stands now, your opponent would be justified arguing if they are a joke.
Posted by backwardseden 2 years ago
I don't jet the goke. Please explain it to an African albino glass eyed wino yeast infection barfing insect with no attached capabilities to realism of Dali paintings like me can understand?
Posted by MagicAintReal 2 years ago
Oh, I get it, you mean like:

The 10 commandments walk into a bar and ask the bartender for a soda.
The bartender says, "Why not get a hard drink?"
The 10 commandments respond, "Because we're already stoned."
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Khons 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Instead of being a reasonable person Pro repeatedly bashed Con by name because a standpoint that he has, don't bring your personal life into your debates bro.
Vote Placed by DNehlsen 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro repeatedly insulted Con personally and by name.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.