Instigator / Con
7
1614
rating
17
debates
85.29%
won
Topic
#1218

Should the Bible be used as a moral compass?

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Pinkfreud08
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
15,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
4
1435
rating
15
debates
33.33%
won
Description

The goal of a moral system is to find a system which is logically consistent.

So for example, if my moral system defined intelligence as the valuable trait in humans, by logical extension any being with intelligence is also valuable.

However, consistency isn't the only thing we're looking for we also need a moral system that we agree with where we get consistent outcomes we like.

So back to that example it may be consistent however if intelligence is the trait than by logical extension, mentally challenged people also aren't valuable.

To summarize, a good moral system is consistent and doesn't lead to absurdity both of which the Bible lacks which will be elaborated on by me later.

Rules:

- Keep it civil

- This debate is going to assume that Gods version of morality is subjective and not objective morality

- We're going to be examining the Bibles morality, the Bible does have a place in a modern society in the form of studying for academic purposes. Similar to Hitlers books and killers manifestos.

- We're going to be examining whichever testament Pro deems to be Gods word. The rules for this is only the old and new testament are your choices. PM me whichever testament you're choosing to defend.

- BOP is on Con

Pretty simple debate topic, if I left any rules or definitions you feel I should have clarified I urge you to tell me so that I may clarify.

-->
@Pinkfreud08

"1 Corinthians 14:34-35:"
That's Paul quoting something that the Corinthians originally said to him, which he then refutes. Also, Paul command women to pray and prophecy in the church

"1 Timothy 2:12:"
Paul was responding to a heresy btw.

"This doesn’t excuse the fact that the Bible is still calling wives inferior to their male counterparts."
Have you read Eph 5:25?

-->
@Ramshutu

Appreciate that you took the time to thoroughly read the entire debate and give a detailed vote as this was a pretty long one.

Do you feel there are any gigantic mistakes I made and/or improvements I could make to make my overall arguments better?

Consistency:

Firstly pro appears to argue that con is not showing that the bible is inconsistent - yet he seems to be doing just that.

Secondly, pro argues that we should not be judging the bible against our own standard, that it cannot be assessed as a good standard if compared against our own. This part of the argument had legs (though this whole portion of the debate was very hard to follow)

If pro had doubled down and asked why is it bad to support slavery or sexism- as you can’t judge it agains your own standard- I may have awarded the win; but the argument somewhat Peters out and leaves me dangling on this front.

As a result, pro doesn’t give me much of a reason to object to the slavery or sexism points.

The final aspect is consistency and general - I agree with pro that cons standard was a bit nebulous: but my main issue is that did not appear to be a better one. Cons position throughout mostly appealed to moral contradiction (established) and bad morality like slavery (intuitive), in the absence of pro arguing an acceptable level of contradiction and what standard I should use to measure the morality - I have to weigh it by intuition.

Given that slavery and sexism both appeared to be portrayed either odiously to me, or contradictarly: either way I feel stands against the bible.

As pro does not offer a positive case for himself - this means that arguments go to con.

Pro goes on to claim that con hasn’t got a
Consistent argument, but pro makes a big error here by pointing out that pro can’t decide which damning indictment of the Bible he wishes to argue. The main problem is that without actually refuting the damning indictments - they are dangling over pros position.

My issue in this point is that the bible as a moral framework stated slavery is okay. While I could accept a change, pro doesn’t give me a good reason as to why it’s okay for a moral framework to claim slavery was okay - even if historically. There’s not enough here for me to give this to pro - even though I think con could have been more specific.

Translation:
Pro begins by claiming that there is a problem with cons context and translational understanding of the bible.

Whilst pro does a good job of convincing me that such errors are easily possible: pro doesn’t actually give examples of con making these errors in context. As a result this whole argument doesn’t add much to the detail. Thus this doesn’t change any of my weighing.

Sexism: con lists examples of sexism in the bible, where women are expected to be treated in a different, more negative way (such as keeping quiet in church, or being subject to men)

Pros response doesn’t rebut any of the specific claims made. Instead pro merely lists reasons that other parts of the bible are not sexist or exalt woman: the one I found most odd, was that God chose a woman to give birth to Jesus: which was just an odd point - is God found to make a man give birth to Jesus?

Pros last example is odd; as pro appears to confirm the man-head-woman-subservient; but appears to argue this is okay, because the man is required to love the woman.

In the next round con basically points out that the bible is inconsistent - that even if one buys pros case - some parts are sexist some are not is inherently inconsistent.

Pro then argues con has not shown any inconsistency - I don’t get this, as con is pretty explicit. The entire topic is changed up to a discussion about consistency rather than one specifically revolving around what the bible says about sexism

This argument mostly fizzles out; with pro dropping the point to focus on another argument.

Slavery:
Cons case seems fairly self explanatory: that slavery was okay, but is exempted for Israel - making the case that it’s also racist and hypocritical.

Pros response was to simply say that the bible teaches the slavery aspect as history; that there were also rules for treating slaves well, and this were only the rules for the given time.

I don’t think con did as well with this: and mostly doubled down on the contention, without addressing the “different rules”
Portion.

Pro mostly drops these points in the second round to focus on other points: con points out that the bible has two stances on slavery, one accepting and one rejecting.

-->
@PoliceSheep

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: PoliceSheep// Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 points to con do arguments, 2 points to pro for sources

>Reason for Decision: I was more convinced by pro and they certainly had better conduct.

Reason for Mod Action>Reason for Mod Action: This vote is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.

The voter should review the site code of conduct for details of what does and does not constitute a valid vote.
*******************************************************************

-->
@PoliceSheep

That's irrelevant, users are still required to give a sufficient vote and are still required to be eligible.

-->
@Pinkfreud08

It's open voting.

-->
@PoliceSheep

Firstly you're ineligible to vote and secondly this RFD is insufficient as it doesn't go into enough detail.

Almost 3K into a RFD, and I am undecided. When I've had more sleep I might look over it again. If I score points or not, I'll be sure to leave feedback.

-->
@GuitarSlinger
@Pinkfreud08

Good job guys, I may vote on this. One thing to ask is to make things prettier to look at. These massive text blobs felt like they were attacking my retinas. Although, Pinkfreud was a bit better about it.

-->
@Ramshutu
@oromagi

Only 3 days left!

-->
@Ramshutu
@oromagi

I have a long debate for you guys to vote on, I'd appreciate a vote and any way I can improve my arguments.

-->
@Pinkfreud08

I see

-->
@Dr.Franklin

Yeah I'm in bay area California

though I get out lat June like the last 3 days of June, northeast is different

you guys are back to school already, yikes. I dont get back until the 2nd, wtf

-->
@GuitarSlinger

Only 22 hours left! I'd really like to see your response.

NOTE FOR VOTERS:

I've had to cut out some fluff in the debate, namely some quotes and a few redundant sections due to a character limit. I apologize due to this. I also apologize since I didn't have room for new arguments. As I said at the end, I may or may not bring up new arguments. It all depends on the character limit.

-->
@GuitarSlinger

I have no idea why you're bringing up previous comments I made when I discarded them in my last comment and admitted I worded it weirdly and then clarified exactly my position.

Secondly, regarding my moral system, this is a clear misrepresentation of my argument.

You provided arguments against my moral system and I rebutted the false analogies you gave.

I have no idea why this is used as an argument against me when you've brought this up in the first place.

And I actually agree, this has nothing to do with the debate and is a waste of time. I already gave clarification on moral systems and provided you the clear instructions in the debate.

I have no clue as to why I need to keep reiterating when you're clearly not listening and are instead going on to make the same false analogies and ask the same questions over and over even though I've already given a rebuttal and answered them. And again these questions are almost irrelevant.

-->
@Pinkfreud08

Keep in mind, I'm not saying your particular Moral System (evaluating based on impact to society and if it produces results you agree with or like) is good or bad, just simply commenting that it's inconsistent.

I truly do believe you when you say your moral system is 100% consistent for you. Yep. I have no doubt that you use this moral system consistently. I believe when you say it's consistent for you. But someone else using that same moral system (Impact on society and results you agree with) might draw a different moral conclusion than you for the exact same action (we see this every day all around us). A moral system that gives different results when used is not consistent in my book.

So then, it comes back to my earlier points.

A. You say the Bible is inconsistent.
B. That is the foundation for discarding it (per the Debate description)
C, You have another Moral System that you use. However, this other moral system is likewise inconsistent. So you've basically swapped one inconsistent Moral System (the Bible) for another (Societal Impact and Results you like).
D. So "inconsistency" is not the real reason for discarding the Bible, for if "inconsistency" was the real reason, you wouldn't be using the Moral System you use now, which is also inconsistent.
E. The real reason for discarding the Bible is you feel it is a less consistent Moral System, compared what you use now.
F. SO then this becomes a numbers game (how many inconsistencies does the Bible have compared to your Moral System) as well as a severity game (how HUGE are the inconsistencies in the Bible vs the inconsistencies in your Moral System).
a. Severity is very subjective. What you may deem "huge", someone else may not

Technically speaking, for the debate, I'm not so sure I have to prove your Moral System is inconsistent because (a) the debate is about whether or not the Bible is a good moral compass (with consistency at the foundation of your argument), not whether or not your current moral system in use is consistent, and (b) you've kinda already done that for me :).

1. Your foundational argument for discarding the Bible is that it's inconsistent and doesn't give consistent outcomes you like. From your description: "consistency isn't the only thing we're looking for we also need a moral system that we agree with where we get consistent outcomes we like."
2. When pressed for your definition of consistency, you seem to struggle
a. First you say no Moral System is 100% consistent. And then you go on to explain that a Moral system that is not 100% consistent can still be called "consistent" based on the number of inconsistencies (Majority) or the severity of the inconsistencies (HUGE inconsistencies, as you put it).
b. Then you say a Moral System can be 100% consistent, but it depends on the person. This means that the moral system is either (a) not consistent, because if it's dependent on the person it's going to change from person to person to person or (b) it's purely subjective.
3. You then make the bold claim that your moral system is 100% consistent, meaning it never fails (if it fails, just once, then it's not 100% consistent). Not sure how you can defend that. A Moral system that is built on a subjective idea of "what is good for society and produces results I agree with" is going to vary person to person to person for the exact same situation.

-->
@Pinkfreud08

Not sure how you can say your moral system is 100% consistent in and of itself. You say your moral system is based on impact to society and provides results you like. I then gave a generic situation/hypothetical (not even using a real-world example) of how Society might deem something as Good and enact a law for something, but you happen to disagree with it. In that situation, you would be disagreeing with Society (the law)...You agreed that yes, you would stand firm with your belief and actually followed it up with a real-world possible scenario of gun control (gun rights). NOw, one might counter "But I believe gun rights are beneficial to society, so in reality my moral still holds up. I'm measuring it against the benefit of society and it has results i agree with it" But the guy down the street might disagree. He may be actualizing saying "I think gun rights are bad, unlike you. But I too am measuring the impact against society and it has results I like." So now you have two different people using the exact same moral system (Impact to society and does it give results they like) but yielding two very different results.

Doesn't sound very consistent to me.

-->
@Pinkfreud08

Honestly, I'm having a hard time keeping up with your definitions and descriptions of moral systems and "consistent". First you say no Moral system is 100% consistent. Then you say Moral Systems can be 100% consistent, but it depends on the person.

** Moral systems can be consistent, it's dependent on the person. **

If a moral system is considered "Consistent", shouldn't it be the same person to person to person. If a Moral system works one way for Joe, and another way for Jane, and then another another way for Juan, and then another way for Jethro, to me that doesn't sound like consistency.

So are you saying then a moral system is "subjective"? I know that's not the subject of the debate-- it's whether or not the Bible is a good moral compass (with consistency as the foundation for your argument). But it's begging this question.

-->
@GuitarSlinger

I'll admit, I've worded this a bit weirdly so let me explain how this works.

Moral systems can be 100 % consistent but they generally lead to absurdity.

For instance, I can say my moral system is that any living organism must die, well this moral system is consistent however can be rather absurd.

Moral systems can be consistent, it's dependent on the person.

For instance, if you're a psychopath and an idiot, that moral system would work since it's consistent and in your mind, doesn't lead to absurdity.

Obviously, for the vast majority of people, this moral system doesn't work.

Most moral systems and the people who abide by them are sometimes inconsistent.

In the case of the Bible, the system itself is inconsistent and the inconsistency isn't dependent on the person thus making it overall inconsistent.

My moral system is 100 % consistent in and of itself. Obviously, some people may have different beliefs however this moral system works for me and gives me results I like. However, you still haven't provided me evidence that I am inconsistent since you've used false analogies.

I hope this clarifies that moral systems can be consistent, it's mostly dependent on the person.

-->
@Pinkfreud08

2. ** if the moral system works the majority of the time than it's consistent. If it only works in a few scenarios it isn't.**
a. So it comes down to numbers—the number of times it works? “Majority” refers to quantity, specifically, technically speaking, majority means anything greater than 50%.
b. But what if the one time it doesn’t work, it’s a huge one—consistent or not consistent? I mean, you did say after all “finding one exception doesn’t make or break the entire system unless it’s a huge one.” So what your saying is one HUGE exception could break the system (i.e. make it inconsistent?). So something could, by your definitions work the majority of the time, but have one HUGE inconsistency and still be considered inconsistent?

On the one hand you imply it’s related to the number of scenarios (if it works the majority of the time, it’s consistent)
On the other hand you imply it’s not necessarily quantity, but severity (HUGE inconsistencies).
Or is that you are saying it’s both? It can be either the QUANTITY of inconsistencies or the SEVERITY of inconsistencies, or both, that determine whether or not it’s consistent?
i. If It’s QUANTITY, then what is the magic number? I’m assuming by “Majority of the time” you mean anything greater than 50% of the time.
ii. If it’s SEVERITY, how is that defined or determined, and by whom?

-->
@Pinkfreud08

1. ** I define consistent as consistent as reasonably possible.””
a. I take issue with how you define “consistent”—you really shouldn’t use the word within its definition. You wouldn’t define “high quality” by saying “something that has high quality”. Nonetheless, I think I can work with it.
b. Veganism - Not sure I agree with this. If one eats meat, can one still call oneself a “vegan”? Not sure how that works lol. I guess your point is it depends on the number of times one eats meat? If the “permissible # of circumstances” are small, I guess you are saying you could still be vegan.
c. ** Finding one exception doesn't make or break the entire system unless it's a huge one.** What do you mean by a “huge one”? Within the moral system, who or what defines what is “huge”?

-->
@GuitarSlinger

Regarding your 1st comment, yes this is essentially my moral system and thought process.

Now onto your 2nd comment,

1. I define consistent as consistent as reasonably possible.

Obviously there is no known 100 % morally consistent system that doesn't lead to absurditiy in some way.

For instance veganism, well there are certain circumstances where I believe eating meat would be permissible, so therefore veganism isn't 100 % consistent.

However this obviously doesn't make it ok in EVERY single context. Finding one exception doesn't make or break the entire system unless it's a huge one.

2. See previous comment, if the moral system works the majority of the time than it's consistent. If it only works in a few scenarios it isn't.

I'll be examining this in my 1st rebuttal and going into detail on this however each moral system has one or two exceptions depending on the person, however generally these don't it.

3. I am discarding the Bible not because of one or two arbitrary scenarios of why it's inconsistent. I'll go into more detail in my first rebuttal however the Bible has huge inconsistencies which I'll bring up soon.

As we will examine later, there is a difference between one or two minor inconsistencies depending on the person and HUGE inconsistencies on the moral system.

Besides this is assuming the scenarios you've brought up prove my system is inconsistent, all of the scenarios you've brought up don't so you still haven't proven my moral system is inconsistent.

-->
@Pinkfreud08

A few more questions, if I may be so bold:

1. You state "The goal of a moral system is to find a system which is logically consistent.". How would you define "consistent"?
2. In your comment below, you state "really you found a moral system that is 100 % consistent, that holds up in ANY scenario, ok share it with me." I take this comment to mean that you believe there is not a moral system that is 100% consistent? If something is not 100% consistent, doesn't that by definition mean it's inconsistent? If so then what would be debatable is it's "level" of inconsistency? Put another way, do you believe all moral systems are inconsistent to a certain degree? Or perhaps a 100% consistent moral system exists, we just haven't found it yet-- so we make do with what we got....a moral system that is inconsistent?
3. Aren't you using the Bible's "inconsistency" as a basis, your foundation, for discarding it as a moral system (a moral compass)? But then aren't other moral systems inconsistent to certain degrees (isn't that what you implied in your "100% comment"?). So, by your comments, you're basically trading one inconsistent moral system (the Bible) for another inconsistent moral system (how it benefits society).

I mean if you really wanted to be, dare I say it, "consistent", you'd be discarding pretty much other moral systems for their "inconsistencies"?

So am I correct to assume then that you are not discarding the Bible because it has "inconsistencies" (all moral systems are inconsistent if I understand your comment correctly), but rather you seem to believe that other moral systems are more "consistent" then the Bible?

-->
@Pinkfreud08

Let me make sure I have this straight. Let's recap. From your perspective

1. The yard-stick (standard) you use for determining something as "good" or "bad" is the impact to society (is it "good" or "bad" for society).
2. In General, the government/society determines whether or not something is beneficial to said society. However, you also make the assessment of whether or something is "good" or "bad" for society. If you and Society differ on what, then you will stand firm in your belief (generally). In other words,
a) If "Society" says "X" is "good" for society, but you disagree-- you will stand firm and regard it as "bad"
b) If "Society" says "X" is "bad" for society, but you disagree-- you will stand firm and regard it as "good"

If the above is incorrect, please correct me.

-->
@GuitarSlinger

" I would argue that a good moral system should hold up to any scenario.....ANY (otherwise, it's not consistent, right?). "

- Firstly, really you found a moral system that is 100 % consistent, that holds up in ANY scenario, ok share it with me.

Secondly, you're conflating consistency with the guidelines the moral system has.

Thirdly, I am not just dismissing them because they're extreme, I am also dismissing them since they are straw-manning the moral system since the scenarios you've brought up so far don't benefit society.

-->
@GuitarSlinger

Regarding your points on MLK, they're irrelevant.

Holocausting jews was very obviously not beneficial to society. Not to mention the fact that it ruins the society since a good portion of Germans disagreed with Hitlers views but were forced to go along with them out of fear.

And again, murdering a portion of the population ruins everyone's commitment to that society since the vast majority of people aren't psychopaths.

-->
@GuitarSlinger

A. Depends on the circumstance, generally the government/society decides. Now will their moral system be good for society? Possibly but generally the governments values are beneficial towards society however again context matters and I don't believe the government is perfect. The times where are values align is pure coincidence.

B. If society deemed X to be good but I don't believe it's, I'd consider it to be bad.

For instance many people believe gun control is beneficial to society, I disagree since I don't believe it's.

C. Like B, if Society deemed gun rights as bad I'd disagree since I believe it's important and beneficial towards society.

My moral system is dictated by me.

-->
@Pinkfreud08

You may cast aside what I say as "reductio ad absurdum" fallacy. Maybe...Maybe not. Some of the things you mention were at some point deemed "acceptable" by their society. As MLK points out in his "Letter from a Birmingham Jail", let's not forget that what Hitler did was considered "legal" ("OK") in their society.

I would argue that a good moral system should hold up to any scenario.....ANY (otherwise, it's not consistent, right?). While you might dismiss some scenarios as "extreme", but I think it highlights the shortcomings of such a moral system. YOu get enough people to agree on something, even the most "extreme" scenarios could, eventually, be put in place.

-->
@Pinkfreud08

Relax. I don't think you're a psycho or socio-path. I was simply using your words. You didn't necessarily provide context-- you just said a good moral system is one that is logically consistent and gives you results you like.

But now...I'm confused. I need you to clarify on what exactly a "good moral system" is. Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to you a Moral System should be

1. Logically consistent
2. Impact on society (good or bad for society)
3. Lines up with your views

When I first read your comment back, I thought it was just 1 and 2...and then you added #3. I'm not going to dispute #1, I tend to agree with that. But this now begs the question(s):

A. Who says/dictates what's "Good"/"Bad" for society-- you alone? You and someone else? Or does society as a whole do that? Is it done by popular vote?
B. What, if society deems X to be "Good" (or "Bad") for Society, but you don't happen to agree with it. Would you consider it as "Good" (or "Bad"), or would you go along and change your mindset to agree to it as "Good" (or "Bad") because Society says so?
C. Conversely, what if you think something is "Good" or "Bad", but society renders it the opposite-- would you go along with what Society says?

-->
@GuitarSlinger

2A: Moral systems don't take into account context, therefore it depends on the context. Moral systems are mostly meant to be guidelines rather than set in stone rules generally.

Secondly, you're taking me completely out of context. When I meant by giving me results I like I meant by results that line up with my views.

Obviously, I am not a fascist or a psychopath like you're acting like. What I meant is I use moral systems which give me results that line up with my views.

Thirdly this is known as a reductio ad absurdum fallacy since you're reducing my entire moral system down to ignorant levels.

Also, this analogy fails since completely redistributing peoples property no matter what the level would reduce everyone's commitment towards that society.

For instance, one trolley scenario is whether or not you'd harvest the organs from 3 people to save 10 people.

Well according to my views this would be bad since it'd ruin the society since I'm fairly certain people wouldn't show up to hospitals knowing that their organs could be ripped from them at a moments notice.

In this case there would be literally zero incentive to work harder which would thus ruin the society.

-->
@GuitarSlinger

I enjoyed your arguments. You did a fine job! I would recommend specifically citing passages from an online Bible if possible. Judges get a little angsty about that.

-->
@Pinkfreud08

Thanks, I am now going to do a table of contents for my argument, I am trying to improve as a debator, and this is one thing I will do

-->
@Pinkfreud08

2A. You are basically saying you judge something as "good" or "bad" based on it's benefit to society as a whole and is morally consistent. In other words, you judge something as "good" or "bad" based on whether or not it's "good" or "bad" for society.

But again this begs the futher question, how you do determine the "goodness for society" (or "badness"). In other words you have action X, how do you judge if action X is "good for society" if the measure/yardstick you use is whether or not iit's "good for society"? That really doesn't make no sense. That's like saying, I"m going to judge if this action is good for me based on whether or not it's good for me.

**A good moral system should be one that's logically consistent and gives me results I like.**

This is very telling. While I agree it should be logically consistent, giving you "results you like" should not be the basis for whether or not something is good/bad, and quite honestly this should frighten the hell out of everyone around you. lol Just because you like the results should not determine if it's right or wrong, good or bad.

I would also argue that "benefiting society" should not be the basis (or at least the sole basis) for morality. I'm pretty confident that if Society says it's ok to take everything you own (AND I DO MEAN EVERYTHING) and distribute it to the rest of the society, you'd probably be the first to argue "NOT FAIR!". After all, this does benefit society-- everyone in society is just a little bit richer by your forced generosity.

-->
@GuitarSlinger

1. What I mean by this is that God's morality in most religions is objective morality. If for this debate we assumed God's morality is objective and 100 % correct, no matter how much I provide to you the repulsive nature of the bible, you could just point out that it's objective and 100 % correct anyways.

If we assume it's subjective, there is room to argue that God's subjective morality is incorrect. Hope this clarifies.

2. I mean by a moral system which is a system by which you judge decisions as either morally good, bad, or neutral.

A) The system I use is whether or not the moral system benefits society as a whole and is morally consistent.

A good moral system should be one that's logically consistent and gives me results I like.

In the case of the Bible, I'll mostly be examining how it's immoral based upon basic morality.

While I and you may have different systems, we can agree on most things.

For example, I am sure we can both agree with slavery, the genocide of innocents, and sexism is immoral.

3. Whether or not the morality benefits society and if it's consistent.

-->
@Pinkfreud08

I'd be interested in debating. Can you clarify:

1. **This debate is going to assume that Gods version of morality is subjective and not objective morality ** What exactly do you mean by this. are you saying that what we believe to be God's morality is actually our own subjective idea of what God's morality is? I just want to be sure.

2. WHen you use the term "moral" in "moral compass", what do you mean? Are you using "moral" in terms of "Good" or "Bad", i.e. determining something (an action) as "good" or "bad"?
a) When we judge things as "moral", we are in essence measuring them against a "standard" by which we then judge it as "good" or "bad". So the heart of your debate is basically asking "Should the Bible be used to judge actions as "good" or "bad"?". Or put another way, you are asking "Is the Bible a "good" standard to judge actions against or is it a "bad" standard?" Which begs the question, what is the standard against which you would be judging the Bible as "good" or "bad" when it comes to being a "moral compass" (standard)?

3. When judging the Bible's morailty (good or bad), what will you be measuring or comparing to as a standard, to determine if a specific passage is moral or not (i.e. good or bad)?

-->
@bmdrocks21

I was a bit vague so I clarified in the description.

-->
@Cogent_Cognizer

Sure, though I think with a question, it could either way, I would agree that a title saying-The Bible should be used as a moral compass, and then he was con would be weird

-->
@Dr.Franklin

True. I suppose I worded my comment funny. Should change "Normally I'd assume the instigator is arguing the proposition stated in the title" to "Normally I'd assume the instigator is arguing for the pro-position of the topic in the title" and same for my last sentence to change to saying something like that.

-->
@Cogent_Cognizer

That's a good point but this is a question,

It might be a good idea to more clearly indicate you're arguing that the bible should not be used as a moral compass. Normally I'd assume the instigator is arguing the proposition stated in the title, and I read your description and context clues indicate you're arguing it is not. Not everyone will pick up on that though, but I suppose if you only want intelligent debaters that's how to do it. Still, could have someone accept who doesn't realize you're arguing against the proposition stated in the title.

-->
@Pinkfreud08

I'm guessing people would have to defend both the Old and New Testaments?