Instigator / Con
14
1641
rating
63
debates
65.08%
won
Topic
#1016

Does The Bible Tell Christians To Be Homophobic?

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
0
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

Speedrace
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
8
1489
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Description

INTRO

We will be debating over whether the Bible commands its followers to be homophobic.

-- TOPIC --

Does The Bible Tell Christians To Be Homophobic?

-- STRUCTURE --

1. Con waives; Pro Opening argument
2. Rebuttals
3. Rebuttals
4. Rebuttals/Close

Definitions

Homophobic: having or showing a dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people.

Rules

1. No forfeits
2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final speeches
4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)
7. For all resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate
8. The BOP is on Pro; Con's BOP lies in proving Pro wrong. Con may make original arguments if he wants to.
9. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate their appropriateness)
11. Violation of any of these rules merits a loss.

-->
@BrotherDThomas

Why?

.
For Christ's sake, the JUDEO-Christian bible is most certainly homophobic within the Old and New Testaments, period. If there is any fake Christian that says otherwise, then they should discard their Christianity post haste to save further embarrassment in the eyes of Jesus the Christ!

Kids, nothing but kids.

.

-->
@Dr.Franklin

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Dr.Franklin // Mod action: [Removed]

>Points Awarded: 3 points to con for arguments

>Reason for Decision: See below

>Reason for Mod Action: To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.

************************************************************************

-->
@Dr.Franklin

A=Argument
The BOP was on Pro so I have grouped his arguments
1.Leviticus Quote
2.History
3.Homosexuality is sin
Con arguments
1. Matthew Quote
A1-Pro said-"Yes we should avoid it, but it doesn't mean that we should be a homophile."Conceding the Point
A2-This argument is irrelevent. The Debate resolution is that Does the Bible Tell Christians to be Homophobic? This talked about history.
A3-Again,irrelevent. Doesnt fit thesis or topic.
A1-Both agrees
Arguments-Con
Sources-Tied>No one used any sources outside of Bible
S&P-Ties>No problem with this
Conduct-Tied>Both sides had Great conduct!Great job
Good debate

-->
@Speedrace

Lmao I just noticed that you skipped #10 in the rules HAHAHHAHA

-->
@Dr.Franklin

The Old Testament is a part of the Bible.

-->
@TheAtheist

The Letiviticus quote was actually in the old testement?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhHamDQOgjw

shoutout to BrotherDthomas

-->
@Boopy

Alrighty, lol

-->
@Speedrace

History is my special field
I don't think I'll tackle anything about Religion for now

-->
@Boopy

No, but feel free to challenge me

-->
@Barney

I'm still new to this debate thing and still soft.
Thank you for informing me this

-->
@Boopy

Closing rounds are a weird thing, because they are both where we want to give everything, but also where we should be putting in the least effort (most things of consequence should have already been said).

A tactic some unmentionables use is a Final Round Blitzkrieg, which is holding off arguments until the other side truly cannot respond. I advice judges to dismiss these for being inorganic to the debate.

-->
@Speedrace

I'm trying to look for debates about history (especially WW1 & WW2)

-->
@Speedrace

Anyways about new debates?
Got anything for me

-->
@Speedrace

What the fuck did I do to you
I'm just trying to find new debates

-->
@RationalMadman

How did you even see that comment? XD

-->
@Speedrace

he's much better than ramshutu but still is flawed

-->
@Barney

Thanks to the voting legeeeeeeeeeeeeeeend

-->
@Boopy

You can't cheat me :)

-->
@Teh_ChosenOne

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Teh_ChosenOne // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 6 points to pro for arguments, sources and conduct.

>Reason for Decision: Boopy seems to have the high ground

>Reason for Mod Action: The voter is not eligable to vote. A voter must have 2 complete non troll and non forfeit debates, or 100 forum comments in order to vote and must have read the code of conduct.

Saying this; the vote would also be insufficient, with the voter not sufficiently explaining any of the key points awarded.
The voter should familiarize themselves with the code of conduct here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
*******************************************************************

-->
@RotobagaLover

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RotobagaLover // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to pro for arguments, sources and conduct. 1 point to con for S&G

>Reason for Decision: The battle was tough.
Although I liked Boopy's arguments better

>Reason for Mod Action: The voter is not eligable to vote. A voter must have 2 completes non troll and non forfeit debates, or 100 forum comments in order to vote and must have read the code of conduct.

Saying this; the vote would also be insufficient, with the voter not sufficiently explaining any of the key points awarded.

The voter should familiarize themselves with the code of conduct here: https://www.debateart.com/rules

*******************************************************************

-->
@ChristianDPriest

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: ChristianDPriest // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to pro for arguments, sources and conduct. 1 point to con for S&G

>Reason for Decision: Speedrace had better grammar than Boopy
But overall Boopy has provided better arguments than Speedrace

>Reason for Mod Action: The voter is not eligable to vote. A voter must have 2 completes non troll and non forfeit debates, or 100 forum comments in order to vote and must have read the code of conduct.

Saying this; the vote would also be insufficient, with the voter not sufficiently explaining any of the key points awarded.

The voter should familiarize themselves with the code of conduct here: https://www.debateart.com/rules

*******************************************************************

-->
@Speedrace

Please fully read my comment before you spit out anymore words out of that dirty mouth of yours.

If you continue to act like this.
You'll become a hindrance to society

-->
@David
@bsh1
@ChristianDPriest

LOL, your profile literally says it was made TODAY

He literally just lied, that’s an admission if I’ve ever seen one

-->
@Speedrace

If you think that I'm a bot or some sort. Please don't. I've been observing this debate since round 1.
Although it's questionable that this account is new, it's because I haven't been really fond of debates, but this one really caught my Interest and I really had to carry out my vote and opinion about this debate.

-->
@David
@bsh1

I’m calling cheats...all three of those voters signed up today, and they all happen to vote only against me? And all within an hour of each other

-->
@Speedrace

I didnt save arguments for last.
I have badly worded the statement once again.
What I meant by conserve everything was to give all my effort at the last round

As I have said. English isn't my first language

TO ALL VOTERS

My opponent just admitted to saving everything for last, which is a violation of the rules of the debate because you can’t make new arguments in the last round

-->
@Speedrace

Well
I was actually planning on saving everything for last
I was conserving everything
Anyways
You gave me a really good debate :D

-->
@Boopy

Dude, why did you save so many arguments for the last round? I couldn’t even respond to any of those >:(

-->
@TheAtheist

No, it doesn't. It never says "if you see a gay person, kill them." It doesn't tell HUMANS to do that. Furthermore, the Bible says that the wages of sin, ANY SIN, is death. So you're basically saying that the Bible is telling us to kill anyone who sins, which is LITERALLY EVERYONE. That's obviously not true.

-->
@BrotherDThomas

Though I disagree with you about many things, I agree with you on this one. The Bible literally tells Christians to kill gays.

.
Speedrace,

THIS ISSUE: In Leviticus 18 & 20 it states that "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death".

YOUR RESPONSE: This statement on itself dictates that Christians should avoid being homosexual. This statement doesn't dictate homophobia. In other words, we should avoid it, yes, but it doesn't tell us to treat those who do differently.

WHAT YOU ARE MISSING: HELLO? We have to admit that our God Jesus stated with specificity that Homosexuals should be MURDERED! Therefore, who are we to say that Jesus is wrong in this respect? Do you want to tell Jesus in prayer tonight that we shouldn't MURDER Gays as he commands? Huh?

.

-->
@sigmaphil

I agree

-->
@TheAtheist

If everyone is guilty of homosexuality, and then the Bible is saying that everyone should be executed for that...

-->
@Speedrace

Yeah I guess that is the prevailing opinion of most Gays in society today. Christian churches have dropped the ball there, not all but many.

-->
@Speedrace

Your mental gymnastics are astounding. If everyone is guilty of homosexuality, why should only homosexuals be executed according to the Bible? Do you even understand what homophobia is?

-->
@sigmaphil

I was just using the traditional one that is portrayed in society today

-->
@sigmaphil

Thanks lol :P

-->
@TheAtheist

In my opinion, Speedrace's definition of homophobic is not accurate and makes it difficult to debate against, but since Speedrace laid down the debate rules the opponent has to play by them. God loves all people and that includes homosexuals. He hates their sin but loves the sinner.

-->
@Speedrace

You're sneaky, lol!

-->
@TheAtheist

Because it says that anyone who breaks part of the law has broken every part of the law, which means that everyone is guilty of homosexuality, not just LGBT

-->
@Speedrace

But the Bible literally says that men who have homosexual sex should be put to death! How is that not discrimination based on sexual orientation?

-->
@TheAtheist

Hardly, what I am saying is that calling something a sin doesn't mean the Bible is saying that we should discriminate against people who commit that sin

-->
@Speedrace

Are you saying that homosexuals and thieves are the same thing?

-->
@TheAtheist

The Bible says that thieves will go to hell. Is that not kleptophobic?

-->
@TheAtheist

let's just wait for his response

-->
@Speedrace

The Bible says that if two men have sex with each other they should be executed. Is that not homophobic?

-->
@Boopy

Right back at ya