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.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

In his opening round pro states the core portions of the bible that outlaw homosexuality - that they should be killed.

Cons case here is that the Bible teaches that sinners should not be reviled themselves, that while it maybe a sin, “Everyone” is a sinner and should not be judged. My main issue with cons case is that con claims the bible does not tell us to treat homosexuals differently.

Pro pointed out the bible commands that homosexuals be out to death. This seems a pretty clear cut “treating people differently”

Cons case here separates the bibles treatment of the sin from the sinner.
Pros response however, doesn’t do that: and argues that the sin should be shunned and people shouldn’t commit the sin, primarily: this misses the point of cons main premise, and con points this out in his next round. This goes back and forth on this with pro not addressing the key point that while the sin is bad, the sinner shouldn’t be reviled.

That is until the final round and a half where pro posts a quote from the comments without an associated argument talking about how the bible commands that homosexuals be murdered.

Con argues that everyone deserves death for their sins, and should not be judged. Reiterating his opening round. Pro - in his final round - points out that God commands homosexuals he murdered.

The difficulty for me here, is the murder part. Con did well to show the broad teaching of the bible doesn’t support the resolution - but this one point seems relatively clear, however pro doesn’t point it out until the last minute with no context.

Reading the resolution, while I think I could easily have gone with pros contention had it been more thrashed out and more topical to the resolution: cons case and examples did a better job of showing the bible commands people not to judge, that it’s no different from any other sin, and that all sinners deserve death. However, this was very close - and I could potentially have gone the other way there if pro had done more with the murder aspect

Arguments to con

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Written before reading the debate: While many Christians are X (homophobic), the question is were they told to be that way by Y (the bible). Of course, Christians who are not X is not proof against Y telling them they should be… Similarly if Y tells them not to be Z (homosexual), it has little baring on the debate, as not being something and being prejudiced against other people doing it are not the same thing (unless a debater shows otherwise, which would not be impossible, but still prohibitively difficult).

Gist:
Pro all but conceded at the start of R2 (“Yes we should avoid it, but it doesn't mean that we should be a homophile” he repeats this under other phrasings, to just we shouldn’t ourselves be homosexuals, but we should also not be homophobes according to the bible). … From there the debate is largely con trying to show that God (or at least the bible) too isn’t homophobic, which is a nice bonus, but a little off topic. The debate ends with pro making a point that we should act out God’s punishments, but this was not supported with biblical evidence; and it came out of left field.

1. Leviticus
Y says kill Z. Con counters by reminding us (with two biblical passages) that the bible says everyone is a sinner who will die, so argues that one particular sin and death is no different. The death spoken of us not a literal one. There’s some talk of capital S sins, and Occam’s Razor, but none of it gets past con’s initial counter.

2. History
Irrelevant side point (a group of Christians were X, which does not prove they were obeying Y). This is an appeal to tradition, without supporting the reason behind the tradition. As con puts it “Also, the Catholic Church is not equivalent to the Bible.”

3. Matthew
A little biased here, as Matthew is my gold standard for biblical books. Con used Matthew to show that we’re explicitly told not judge others (which combines nicely with the previous bit that we’re all sinners, otherwise it might fall flat). Pro agrees.

4. Seven Deadly Sins
I could see the start to an interesting point forming here, but it needed a lot more support (I hate saying more biblical passages, but pulling the line from the bible about the sin of lust would have been a great starting place to make this a real contention).

---

Arguments: Con
See above review of key points. None of pro’s contentions held against con’s rebuttals. The most important two are biblical passages, and con clearly won both.

Sources: tied
Debate never left the bible.

Spelling and Grammar: tied
I could imagine someone assigning this, but pro gave fair warning that English is his second language, so errors are not malicious.

Conduct: tied
No personal attacks or any other problems stood out.