Instigator

Is Christianity A Good Moral System To Follow?

Debating

Waiting for contender's argument

The round will be automatically forfeited in:
00:00:00:00
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Religion
Time for argument
Two weeks
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
15,000
Contender
Description
-- INTRO --
This is about whether Christianity is a good moral system to follow or not. It is focused on the New Testament and it's teachings, as it is called CHRISTianity for a reason, that reason being that it focuses on Jesus Christ and his teachings. Therefore, all arguments should center primarily around Jesus Christ/the New Testament. Secondly, there is no objective Christian standpoint, and what is truly taught for Christians should really be up for debate as well.
-- STRUCTURE --
1. Opening
2. Rebuttals
3. Rejoinders
4. Rebuttals/Close
-- DEBATER OBJECTIVES --
Pro - must sufficiently prove that Christianity is a good moral system while simultaneously disproving Con's arguments.
Con - must sufficiently prove that Christianity is a bad moral system while simultaneously disproving Pro's arguments.
-- DEFINITIONS --
Christianity - the religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, or its beliefs and practices.
Good - to be desired or approved of.
Moral system - a system of coherent, systematic, and reasonable principles, rules, ideals, and values which work to form one's overall perspective.
Follow - act according to (an instruction or precept).
-- 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 burden of proof is shared; Pro must show why Christianity is a good moral system to follow, and Con must show why it is a bad moral system to follow. Simply rebutting one's opponent's arguments is not sufficient to win the debate.
9. Violation of any of these rules merits a loss.
Round 1
Published:
Many thanks to my opponent for this debate! For space, I will incorporate quotes only for main points. For minor parts of broad points I will simply provide citations. Bible version will be NIV unless otherwise stated.

0.) Definitionapalooza

0.1) What is a “Good moral system”.

To determine whether the moral system is good or bad, we have to establish a method of assessing the framework. I offer the following rules for voters to assess the Christian Moral Framework (CMF):

A.) It must not claim actions or behaviours are moral that are immoral or vice versa.

B.) Is must not be overly detrimental if you adhere to it.

C.) It must be possible to be follow?

D.) It must be reasonable, coherent and consistent.

Failure in many, or all of these aspects would clearly render a moral framework “bad” and thus would negate the resolution.

0.2) Following Christianity

One would not consider someone as “following the law” if they frequently robbed people - even though they may not be breaking any other laws.

Likewise following The CMF necessitates trying to follow all the moral laws and codes that Christianity lays down. Picking and choosing what to follow is therefore not “following” the CMF.

1.) CMF is too open to Interpretation.

The Bible, and the CMF has been regularly used to justify such atrocities and horrible acts - from the west borough Baptist Church, the crusades to the Salem
witch Trials. This clearly shows at least someinterpretations of CMF are odious and horrible - violating rule A.

Pro acknowledges that there is no objectively correct version of Christianity in the description - but pros admission here leads to three possibilities when trying to interpret the Bible:

I.) You interpret the bible based on your own moral values: this is not following the CMF- thus is just rationalizing your own morality with the Bible. 

II.) You rely on experts to help you interpret the Bible: this is also not following the CMF:this is following an experts interpretation, is dependent on the moral character of the authority, and is exactly why so much cruelty has come from Christianity.

III.) You become an expert in ancient Hebrew gain access to the underlying texts, and hope that you can translate with the appropriate context and determine that the originals can only really have one meaning. This is not practical.

In all cases: one cannot consider such a subjective and open to interpretation framework as “Good” due to the violation of the rules, or the fact it’s not really following the CMF.

Pro may attempt to show his interpretation is correct, but this is inherently problematic as shown above. Good people who believe in the Bible will rationalize what is good and bad to mirror their own morality : they are making the Bible follow their morals; rather than the other way around.

While pro can show interpretations of the Bible - these should only be accepted if there is no possible way a rational and reasonable human could interpret the line any other way.

As a result of the issues abide, the remainder of my arguments will be using a mostly literal reading of the Bible - I will use what it says.

2.) Morally odious, and irrelevant commands

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”
https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-17.htm

The law of the Prophets includes rules about not eating shellfish, selling your children into slavery and stoning homosexuals. ( https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+20&version=NLT&interface=amp).

Even if you ignore Jesus admission that the law is not abolished: there are still weird moral edicts in the NT: telling slaves to be obedient[9], for women not to talk in church[6] - and to cover their head[8], and outlawing homosexuality as immoral[11]: none of these square with any reasonable human beings interpretation of morality. Violating rule A.

Then there’s the Ten Commandments, however are important as they are ten major moral edicts of Christianity : among the list of major moral crimes you shouldn’t commit:

  • Don’t Worship other Gods
  • Don’t work on Saturday
  • Don’t use the lords name in vain
  • Don’t be Jealous of your peers
  • Don’t Dishonour your mother of father.

(https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+20&version=NIV)

The first four violate rule A. There appears to be nothing overtly or inherently immoral when assessed by our own moral standards today.

For the fifth: it violates rule D and rule B. For example: Joseph Fritzl imprisoned and raped his daughter over a period of decades[1]. The major moral edict he violated was “don’t commit adultery”, his daughter, however would be guilty of dishonouring her father if she tried to escape, or ran away.

A moral system in which the most significant commands can lead to such a grotesque moral decision is not a coherent or good system. Worse, when 50% of these commands don’t even appear prima Facia immoral, your system cannot be considered good either 

3.) Pacifism.

Jesus promotes outright pacifism:

“But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.”
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5%3A38-40&version=NIV

Turning the other cheek - also called Appeasement - was an approach taken by western allies with Hitler prior to the outbreak of WW2[2]. Given the atrocities committed by Hitler, our innate morality tells us the at even the horror of war are justified to avert even bigger horrors.

The CMF tells us it is inherently immoral for us to have fought world war 2. This violates rule B and C, as it is clearly reasonable to fight some wars in some situations.

If the CMF had been followed, it would have led to Japan, Germany winning WW2 and the deaths of multiple tens of millions of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals with the likely realization of Germany’s final solution.

4.) Communism / Money

“Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
“No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.”
“Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will never fail, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys.”
“John answered, “Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same.”
“And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need. 
https://www.biblestudytools.com/acts/4.html

Jesus’ moral commands show an outright hostility to money, above and beyond simply advocating against greed. The passages above show that Jesus advocated to shed one’s wealth and give to the poor, and that you should not aim for wealth at all in your life.

This clearly violates rule A, and rule B. It does not appear immoral to want success and money, provided you’re not greedy, or hurt others in doing it.

Bill Gates has arguably helped save more lives and improve the world through his wealth than 10,000 Mother Teresa’s[3], and yet his life would be considered immoral based upon CMF.

The benefit given to the world by Market capitalism would largely be eradicated by adhering to this CMF: and would mean we would spend our time comforting the sick and dying; but not acquiring and capitalizing upon our great wealth to save billions of lives through technology to eradicate child mortality, famine and sickness.

5.) Love your neighbour / enemy.

Both Jesus and Paul advocates for loving your neighbour and your enemy unconditionally:

“But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you”
“But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked.”
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+6%3A35&version=NIV

While I’m sure we can agree that having empathy for others, and the struggles for others is a good thing; the moral command to go further and love murderers, rapists, the evil, dictators, and horrifying human beings is too much. It’s neither practical nor a coherent part of a moral framework.

There is no moral necessity to love serial killers, or child rapists. Viewed as humans, and with whatever empathy one can muster, yes: but it is not immoral to detest those who harm others, and it is not reasonable to have a moral command to ignore that understandable - and justifiable emotion.

6.) The Crux.

The Bible primarily consists of one good moral message paraphrased as “don’t be d**ks to each other”. The remainder of the CMF is arbitrary, irrelevant or morally odious.

To follow the CMF as taught by Jesus, you must be a full communist, full pacifist, adhere to 5 arbitrary commandments, try and uphold impossible arbitrary and a whole host of other edicts.

Thought crime is immoral[4][5], don’t make crass jokes or have sex before marriage[13], don’t have long hair as a guy, cover your hair if your a woman[6], no divorce, [7] no speaking in church if your a woman[8], slaves should not be disobedient[9], neither gay sex nor lesbian sex is allowed.[10] - as for jewelry and elaborate hairstyles: that’s a no no too[11]

Struggling with all these immoral acts or thought crime? Just cut off your hands and feet if they’re causing this immorality; it’s better than the impure thoughts![12]

This is the crux: for this to be a good moral framework, must interpret away or ignore all inconvenient or irrelevant passages to be a good person, or for the morality to make sense. Which is by definition - not following the CMF.

As a result of the above, the resolution is clearly false.

Sources:

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritzl_case
[2] https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/how-britain-hoped-to-avoid-war-with-germany-in-the-1930s
[3]https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/14/bill-gates-philanthropy-warren-buffett-vaccines-infant-mortality
[4] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5%3A27-28&version=NKJV
[5] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5%3A21-26&version=NIV
[6] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+11&version=NIV
[7] https://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/passage/?q=matthew+5:31-32
[8] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+14%3A34-36&version=NIV
[9] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+6&version=NIV(6-9)
[10] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1%3A26-27&version=NIV
[11] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%202:9&version=NIV
[12]https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5%3A30&version=NIV
[13] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+5%3A4&version=NIV

Published:
OPENING

Firstly, I want to look at my opponent's rules for evaluating the CMF.

To determine whether the moral system is good or bad, we have to establish a method of assessing the framework. I offer the following rules for voters to assess the Christian Moral Framework (CMF):

A.) It must not claim actions or behaviours are moral that are immoral or vice versa.

B.) Is must not be overly detrimental if you adhere to it.

C.) It must be possible to be follow?

D.) It must be reasonable, coherent and consistent.

Failure in many, or all of these aspects would clearly render a moral framework “bad” and thus would negate the resolution.
I think that these are all reasonable. However, I would like to modify rule C. Yes, it must be possible to follow, but slip-ups are ok. If someone has a moral code that prohibits lying, but one time they do lie, are they instantly morally corrupt? No; at least that is what most people would say. They simply made a mistake.

I also think that rule D requires modifying. Yes, it must be reasonable, but that shouldn't prohibit nuanced arguments or be used as an excuse to call something morally wrong just because one is too lazy to fully interpret it beyond what is actually said (this may pre-rebut some of my opponent's arguments; that is not intentional). There is nothing wrong with figurative language.


A good moral system simply outlines how people should live and act in an orderly fashion and manner. The great thing is that the Bible does this for us!

Galatians 5:14: "For the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."

Clearly, anything that is moral and part of the law is covered by love. So we know that we are acting right, according to the Bible, if we are loving others. Is stealing loving? No, so don't do it. Is giving someone cash when they need it loving? Yes.

Now, of course, to anticipate some rebuttals, yes, the law is there in the Bible, all 613 commandments. And yes, Jesus said that he didn't come to abolish the law in Matthew 5:17. However, he never said that the law is still binding upon Christians. Read the following:

Romans 6:14: "For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace."

Galatians 3:23-25: “We were held in custody under the Law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the Law became our guardian to lead us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian”

The law was put in place to show us that we were not perfect, and therefore that we need a perfect savior, Jesus. Once we accepted him, we no longer became under the law, and that is when we became under the Law of Love.

If the only requirement is to love others, then the resolution has clearly been met.
Round 2
Published:
I thank my opponent for his response

0.1.) what is a good moral system

C: impossible to follow

I agree that Morality is often something to strive for rather than something for an individual to always achieve, so this point mostly considers pros concerns. This point is not that all humans must have the capacity to be moral at all times; but that the framework doesn’t add over the top an impossible to fulfill mandates

I will specifically take issue with Pros example to elaborate:

If a moral framework says that lying is always and invariably wrong - if you lie - you are being immoral. If you can’t help lying in some situations, then the repeated violations of this framework would absolutely make you morality corrupt as per the framework.

If not lying in any scenario is a major component of the moral framework then it is, indeed, impossible to follow.

If the moral framework stated to do your best not to lie, or not lie in specific circumstances; than this would not be impossible, and would not violate this rule.

However, the impractical nature of the demand not to lie, would be a bad aspect of the framework; with the only arguable portion being exactly how bad this makes the framework.

D: Must be Reasonable, Coherence and consistent.

Pro states that this rule: 

“shouldn't prohibit nuanced arguments or be used as an excuse to call something morally wrong just because one is too lazy to fully interpret it beyond what is actually said”

Pro is implying that if a moral framework says something incoherent, what it actually says should be ignored in favour of a beneficial way in which that framework can be interpreted.

As covered inRound 1 - (1), in this case you diverge from the framework and are relying on your own morality, biases and opinion to determine what you want to follow.

The only objective way to use a moral framework is to use what it is “actually said”: if you can’t do that without the framework being incoherent or immoral - then the framework is bad.

1.) Open to interpretation

Pro claims there is only one rule to be followed.

As noted. Jesus claimed he is not abolishing the law. Paul of Tarsus claims that the law is non binding on Christians. This means that I can either claim that ALL of the law applies, or none of it applies based upon how I chose to interpret this: as Jesus didn’t explicitly say the laws didn’t apply.

This means Pro is simply preferentially choosing Paul over Jesus; and preferentially ignoring Paul’s other odious moral commands.

This is not following the CMF, but picking and choosing via interpretation based upon his own moral compass and guidelines. This is covered in detail in Point 1.

For example; I could interpret Paul’s comment about the one law as a rhetorical device showing how important it is - one could interpret the context of Paul’s letters about the law as indicating not that fornication, adultery, murder, honouring your father, etc is now moral, but that we may not need to keep the sabbath holy, or be circumcised.

This makes more sense if we take acts:

“It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath”

In this case, the apostles clearly indicated that the mosaic law was to be followed, though it shouldn’t be made too hard.

I can go further. Take open marriages. Moral or not?

According to Jesus, and the Ten Commandments: immoral.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

According to Paul’s condemnation of sexual deviance: wrong. According to acts: wrong.

According to the “one rule” pro state - it should  be considered fine.

This clearly refutes pros position - if there was only one rule as pro suggests, this form of adultery could be morally acceptable. However as Jesus specifically references the Ten Commandments and indicates adultery is immoral - it clearly shows there is more than simply this one rule.

A framework which you can use both to justify stoning people to death for engaging in an open marriage - and declaring it A.O.K depending on how you chose to interpret it - is not a good system.

5.) Love thy Neighbour.

Pro argues the biggest boon of the CMF that makes it good is the challenge to love one another. As specified in R1, this is actually an aspect that makes it bad; as it is largely unnecessary and unachievable.

If the Bible stated “be as good as you can to each other”, or “appreciate that other humans are people too, and you should appreciate we all have our own struggles, and try and do right by others though you may hate their guts”, I would agree; but loving one another in all circumstances is contrary to human nature, and largely a superfluous command. 

This is covered in detailed in Point 5.

7.) To love is the only Command.

If “loving each other” is the only command, then the following acts would arguably not be immoral:

Beastiality
Consenting Drug fuelled sex orgies
Statutory rape (if genuine consent is given)
Prostitution
Necrophilia
Adultery (If other spouse consents)

In addition, the moral code expressed merely states that one should love each other - the rule cited doesn’t specify actual behaviour that is acceptable or not.

Is it okay to beat my wife and children if they misbehave - out of love? Is rape okay if you’re married, and you really want it?

It’s not clear - because it is not clear this can mean mostly what you want it to mean.

Even in pros examples: theft is also acceptable in many scenarios, as long as the theft is not personally hurtful to anyone. 

Stealing cash from dead people, DVDs from Walmart, etc do not go against “love one another”, as they do no appreciable harm to anyone.

This clearly is not coherent (Rule D), and clearly allows one to justify behaviour that one would consider immoral (Rule A)
Published:
0.1) What is a “Good moral system”.

A.) It must not claim actions or behaviours are moral that are immoral or vice versa.

B.) Is must not be overly detrimental if you adhere to it.

C.) It must be possible to be follow?

D.) It must be reasonable, coherent and consistent.
I think that these are all reasonable. However, I would like to modify rule C. Yes, it must be possible to follow, but slip-ups are ok. If someone has a moral code that prohibits lying, but one time they do lie, are they instantly morally corrupt? No; at least that is what most people would say. They simply made a mistake.

I also think that rule D requires modifying. Yes, it must be reasonable, but that shouldn't prohibit nuanced arguments or be used as an excuse to call something morally wrong just because one is too lazy to fully interpret it beyond what is actually said (this may pre-rebut some of my opponent's arguments; that is not intentional). There is nothing wrong with figurative language.


0.2) Following Christianity
 
Likewise following The CMF necessitates trying to follow all the moral laws and codes that Christianity lays down. Picking and choosing what to follow is therefore not “following” the CMF.
How is this the case? If one has a moral code against lying, but one day slips up and lies, are they suddenly a moral monster? Of course not, because that is not necessitated by one mistake. No rational person would make such an argument.
 
1.) CMF is too open to Interpretation.
 
This clearly shows at least someinterpretations of CMF are odious and horrible - violating rule A.
This is a non-unique argument because it applies to literally everything. Anything and everything can be twisted to be "odious and horrible," but that doesn't make the source material such. This is like saying one person saying Harry Potter is evil for killing Voldemort, and ignoring the reason for which he did it. Is Harry Potter now suddenly to be considered "odious and horrible" as said by that one person? Of course not.
 
Pro acknowledges that there is no objectively correct version of Christianity in the description - but pros admission here leads to three possibilities when trying to interpret the Bible:
I do no such thing because the debate was created by Con. Everything that is apart of my argument is in my debate rounds and nowhere else.
 
Pro may attempt to show his interpretation is correct, but this is inherently problematic as shown above. Good people who believe in the Bible will rationalize what is good and bad to mirror their own morality : they are making the Bible follow their morals; rather than the other way around.
Con seems to be oblivious to his own hypocrisy. He says one cannot make a system follow their own morals, yet he literally does that EXACT THING when he compares the CMF to a “reasonable human being’s morals” throughout his entire argument. One’s own morals are always the basis, as my opponent himself proves.
 
2.) Morally odious, and irrelevant commands
 
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”
Fulfill: bring to completion or reality; achieve or realize (something desired, promised, or predicted).
 
Firstly, fulfill means to bring to completion, which is what Jesus did. Secondly, this scripture is taken out of context. The Bible itself says “We were held in custody under the Law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the Law became our guardian to lead us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian” (Galatians 3:23-25). We can see from this that there is still a purpose for the law, as described, but that it is no longer bearing on Christians. It wasn’t abolished simply because it still served a purpose, but that doesn’t mean that it is applicable to Christians.
 
The law of the Prophets includes rules about not eating shellfish, selling your children into slavery and stoning homosexuals. ( https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+20&version=NLT&interface=amp).

Even if you ignore Jesus admission that the law is not abolished: there are still weird moral edicts in the NT: telling slaves to be obedient[9], for women not to talk in church[6] - and to cover their head[8], and outlawing homosexuality as immoral[11]: none of these square with any reasonable human beings interpretation of morality. Violating rule A.

  • Don't Worship other Gods
  • Don’t work on Saturday
  • Don’t use the lords name in vain
  • Don’t be Jealous of your peers
  • Don’t Dishonour your mother of father.
  • See above response. However, I really want to respond to the last one because it is an especially lazy argument:

    Can Con please tell me in what way self-defense is equivalent to dishonor? I’m assuming Con was told not to hit girls growing up. With that in mind, would Con allow a female to stab and/or severely injure him for fear of breaking this law? Of course not (or at least I hope not)! It is then hypocritical to consider honour and self-defense to be mutually exclusive when they are clearly not. This is intellectual dishonesty.
     
    3.) Pacifism.
     
    This isn’t promotion of pacifism, it’s a discouragement of personal vengeance. Jesus himself spoke out when he was unlawfully abused[1], which gives us context for this statement. Con, many little boys are raised by their parents and told not to hit females. So, by your own logic, doesn’t that then mean females are allowed to run around committing whatever horrendous crimes they want without repercussions (at least from males)? Of course not! That’s ludicrous and obviously ridiculous. Just because you are too intellectually lazy to add context to a statement doesn’t mean you can get away with just saying any random thing.
     
    The CMF tells us it is inherently immoral for us to have fought world war 2.
    That is a HUGE non-sequitur. Isaiah 1:17 and Proverbs 24:11 both tell us to protect those who are defenseless and going to their deaths, and Ecclesiastes 3:8 says that there is a time for war.
     
    4.) Communism / Money
     
    Jesus’ moral commands show an outright hostility to money, above and beyond simply advocating against greed. The passages above show that Jesus advocated to shed one’s wealth and give to the poor, and that you should not aim for wealth at all in your life.
    It hurts me how lazy and ridiculous this argument is. It holds no water at all.

    “Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
    Firstly, this was a command to one person, not multiple. Secondly, READ THE CHAPTER. The whole point of it is to show the dude in question that he isn’t perfect like he claims to be.
     
    “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.”
    My opponent is equating serving “money” with making money. The two are obviously not the same. This is equivalent to serving sex or alcohol, AKA having an addiction. Since when was the last time you heard your coworker say "gotta get out her and start serving money"? Serving money is the same as money being one's master, which is quite obviously a bad thing.
     
    “John answered, “Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same.”
    Firstly, this was John, not Jesus. Secondly, SINCE WHEN IS IT HOSTILE TO MONEY AND HELP TO GIVE TO OTHERS? Like seriously, how much lazier can this argument possibly get?
     
    “And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need. 
    This isn’t even a command, it’s people doing stuff OF THEIR OWN VOLITION AND WILL. This is like me saying “Lucy decided to give her bike to the kid across the street” to my son (hypothetical I don't have one lol), and then him deciding to go give his bike away as well. Did I tell him to? No! I simply told a narrative, just like this one.

    5.) Love your neighbour / enemy.
     
    While I’m sure we can agree that having empathy for others, and the struggles for others is a good thing; the moral command to go further and love murderers, rapists, the evil, dictators, and horrifying human beings is too much.
    Is my opponent aware that there are multiple meanings to the verb “love?” This is like saying “love your wife” is the same thing as “love your second cousin first-removed.” Those are obviously two VERY different things.

    That said, loving your enemy is just as my opponent describes it, showing them compassion and empathy. I’m not sure how he thinks calling it “love” is any deeper than that.
     
    but it is not immoral to detest those who harm others
    Where did it say we can’t be horrified by the terrible deeds people do? A mother can love her son while simultaneously being horrified that he murdered someone or something along those lines.

    6.) The Crux.
     
    This is the crux: for this to be a good moral framework, must interpret away or ignore all inconvenient or irrelevant passages to be a good person, or for the morality to make sense. Which is by definition - not following the CMF.
    This is incorrect. My opponent simply decides to cherry-pick certain verses that he believes supports his view and ignore the context surrounding them. That is completely different. Not one of his arguments holds any water and they all lack any real type of evidence to back them up.
     
    Sources
     
    [1] https://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/John%2018.22-23
     

    Round 3
    Published:
    0.1.) Rules

    Pro repeats the issue he raised from the last round to which a rebuttal has already been provided. I extend.

    0.2.) Following Christianity.

    To follow Christianity requires you to attempt to follow all its laws. Pro mistakes this with the claim that to follow Christianity, you must inerrantly follow those laws: this is not what I said, and thus pros attack here is a straw man.

    1.) Tooopen to interpretation 

    My R1.1 covered two broad points: 

    First, That the bible is far too open to interpretation to be a meaningful moral guide. In this case, I used examples of some of the potential interpretations - slavery, genocide, stoning homosexuals, etc.

    Pro appears to concede that this such an interpretation would be odious: but argues it applies to all moral frameworks.

    Pros response has three issues:

    • It’s not that Christianity is open to a little interpretation; but that it’s far too open to interpretation.
    • Pros counter doesn’t show the CMF is good, only that other moral systems may be equally as bad.
    • It’s false. Utilitarianism, which is about maximizing utility on all humans, cannot be interpreted as minimizing utility on all humans. Thus cannot be used to both justify genocide as acceptable and not depending on your interpretation of utilitarianism.
    Considering the above, even if we accept pros argument on its face - it doesn’t rebut that the CMF is still a bad framework to follow.

    The Second broad point is that picking and choosing which parts of the bible to follow literally, and which to appeal to context, or to ignore in favour of other parts, or to argue the bible doesn’t mean what it explicitly says is advocating for your personal moral framework - not advocating the CMF.

    Pro even appears to concede this is the case: 

    “He says one cannot make a system follow their own morals”
    “One’s own morals are always the basis.”
    If you make a system follow your own morals : you are following your own morals - not the system.

    The moral framework pro is advocating is therefore not the CMF - but his own moral framework. Such a framework may well be good, but it is not the CMF of the resolution.

    As pro effectively concedes this whole argument by admitting that he is effectively advocating his own morality: I extend this point.

    1.1.) Definition and rules

    Pro claims the rules and definitions of this debate are mine. 

    This debate is a copy of a debate started by pro - which was deleted and restarted on pros request. Claiming these rules are mine, is not just wholly disingenuous and dishonest, but is clearly a violation of the sportsmanship rules of this debate.

    1.2.) Charge of Hypocrisy.

    To show the CMF is good or bad, it must be held to a particular standard. The standard I chose is that of a reasonable human being. Pro has not suggested a better one.

    To follow the CMF, the CMF must be used as a basis of morality, not some other source. If you follow some other source as the core basis for morality, you’re not following the CMF.

    These are two different aspects of the debate. It is not hypocritical to compare the CMF to a standard, and also claim that your not following the CMF if you’re following your own morality.

    2/3/4/5.) Odious Commands / Pacifism / Communism / Love your neighbour 

    I will cover these points together - as they are all similar.

    First, the slew of Ad-hominemattacks pro makes should be noted: pro calls multiple of my previous arguments “lazy”, and in one case “intellectually dishonest”. This also violates the good conduct portion of this debate, and is extremely disappointing.

    Second, in section 2: a list of clearly morally odious commands from Paul in the New Testament were raised - which pro  dropsI extend - these clearly show obnoxious moral commands violating Rule A.

    Pro’s approach on all these points is simply to provide his own interpretation of what the Bible says by either caveating one part against another, using one part in preference to another, or presenting a personally asserted caveat to allow him to ignore what was said all together.

    For example:

    Jesus explicitly said he wasn’t abolishing the law as show : in the original quote Jesus goes on to say: 

    “For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”
    https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-18.htm

    As stated in the previous round: Paul is also ambiguous on the matter, saying the law doesn’t apply: then repeatedly teaching aspects of the law that apply:

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+6%3A1-3&version=NIV 

    Claiming that the mosaic law is holy, righteous and good: 
    https://biblehub.com/romans/7-12.htm

    And claiming the law should still be upheld:
    https://biblehub.com/romans/3-31.htm

    One interpretation is that the law has been fulfilled and so still stands; however It could also equallybe interpreted as unfulfilled until such time the kingdom of heaven arrives on earth - so mosaic law still stands.

    Pros reasoning for taking one over the other: is neither objective nor specifically biblical - pro simply asserts that the law is fulfilled. The source material, on the other hand is not clear on the matter. Pro is just cherry picking.

    For Pacifism - Jesus again unequivocally stated that violence is unacceptable. Pro argues that this is not actually Jesus meant - despite it being what he said - and that we know this is not what he meant due to two citations that do not expressly mention or allow for violence, and an Old Testament poem pro saying that there is a time for war.

    So, in this case pro is ignoring the explicit command of Jesus because of a line in an old Testament Poem for which Pro has no basis to assume is literal.

    Does this mean genocide, beating children and slavery is also acceptable - the Old Testament indicates that when commanded by God, genocide is okay? Do these lines also take precedence over Jesus’ commands? Pro is simply using an arbitrary line to nullify a moral teaching, without a coherent framework.

    For Love - pro argues that Jesus and Paul don’t really mean love, but that they are being more figurative. That love simply means having empathy and compassion.

    But that’s not what the Bible says. The Bible says love. If the Bible didn’t mean love, it should have said empathy and compassion. Yet again, pro simply offers his opinion and interpretation of why what the CMF actually says can be ignored.

    For Communism, pro argues that Jesus answering a question on “how do I be perfect?” was not a general teaching for everyone, but only for the one man involved: that John can be ignored because he’s not Jesus, and that despite Jesus repeatedly talking about the necessity to give any excess to the poor and needyis only talking about being “too greedy”:

    “Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."
    https://biblehub.com/matthew/19-24.htm

    Jesus is pretty emphatic about rich people and money, the examples I cited clearly shows the Bibles position on money, and clearly shows both John and Jesus stating that to be perfect you must give away all your excess money.

    Pro inserts his own arguments for why we should largely ignore what Jesus teaches, and vehemently asserts his own interpretation and declares what the Bible actually means - despite it being contrary to what the Bible actually says.

    Summary of Pros rebuttal.

    The issues with pros arguments here are simple: pro is simply using “spin” to make the CMF sound like a reasonable, and justifiable framework by inserting his own interpretation, caveats and adjustments.

    Pro does this with ad-hoc reasoning, and an inconsistent methodology.

    He takes Jesus literally in some cases (teaching about money), figuratively in others (love, law) - with no clear standard of when one applies or the other. Pro states that we shouldn’t take the teachings of John over Jesus (money), but happily uses the teachings of Paul over Jesus (law) when it suits is purpose - and ignores Paul when he says morally repugnant things (woman, slavery) or when he appears to argue the law must be followed; pro also takes Jesus over the Old Testament, except where he takes the Old Testament over Jesus (war) - whilst largely ignoring any other negative interpretation of the Old Testament over Jesus (genocide).

    What the bible specifically commands, is in either actual or potential violation of all 4 rules, so is objectively a bad moral framework to follow. 

    Pro isn’t advocating for the CMF he is advocating for his own moral standard by which he uses to retroactively adjust the Bible.

    The source material for the CMF is bad, it justifies atrocities, can be interpreted in any way that you care to chose and makes little practical sense for the reasons stated.

    Pro is essentially admonishing me throughout for not preferentially ignoring the issues, incoherence and immorality of this bad source material.

    2.) Mop up issues.

    Killing, disobeying, or punching one’s parents is prima facia dishonouring them.

    Pro and I likely agree that Joseph Fritzl deserves to be dishonoured by his daughter through violence, disobedience or murder. 

    No matter what either of us believe - Joseph Fritzl and his daughter would have both been in violation of the Ten Commandments had she harmed, murdered or disobeyed him.

    No matter how much Pro objects, or how much pro wishes to make his opinion appear in the Bible - this is what the CMF explicitly states. This violates rule D and rule C.

    Pro appears incredulous that I should point out a failure of the bible and CMF to present a coherent moral framework through the lack of inclusion of any meaningful or reasonable caveats : but this lack of nuance is a failure and omission in the source material itself - not my interpretation of it.

    5.) A Mothers love.

    In the previous round I pointed out that the CMF provides a moral command to love child rapists, murderers, genocidal maniacs, etc. This command is practically unachievable and reasonably unfair.

    Even in terms of his caveat, if we take pros argument on its face - should it really be considered immoral for a human to be unable to have compassion or empathy for a serial child rapist? No.

    The CMF says so: violating rule A and C

    Pros argues that if a mother is able to love their own child that she carried, bore and raised : whilst detesting what that child did, then there is no reason that we should not be able to love a psychopath who raped and murdered a child of ours - despite these people having no familial relationship to us.

    This is clearly an absurd analogy that confuses biologically programmed familial love with how we can conciously chose to feel about strangers.

    It is prima Facia unreasonable to expect us to love child rapists, serial killers; we can probably go so far as to extend the privileges of basic human decency, so no cruel or unusual punishment, torture: but more than that is unreasonable.

    Summary:

    1.) The CMF is way too open to interpretation to be considered good.

    2.) Pro is advocating his own moral system, not the CMF

    3.) The source material for the CMF is terrible, immoral and unreasonable - pro is only able to fix it through manipulation - and the complaining that I am being “lazy” or dishonest by pointing out the issues with what the CMF actually says.

    As a result of the above, it is clear that the CMF is an objectively bad framework as measured by the rules listed.



    Published:
    I'm doing this on mobile so please excuse lack of organization.

    0.1.) Rules

    Pro repeats the issue he raised from the last round to which a rebuttal has already been provided. I extend.

    I didn't respond to these because I was in my rebuttal portion, so I, for all intents and purposes, was ignoring your rebuttal in that specific round.

    0.2.) Following Christianity

    To follow Christianity requires you to attempt to follow all its laws. Pro mistakes this with the claim that to follow Christianity, you must inerrantly follow those laws: this is not what I said, and thus pros attack here is a straw man.
    What? You literally said this in round 2:

    "If you can’t help lying in some situations, then the repeated violations of this framework would absolutely make you morality corrupt as per the framework."

    How is that a straw man in the slightest?

    Onto your rebuttal.

    CMF Rule C: So you're now calling little boys who are told by their parents to never lie instantly immoral when they lie. Where is the sense in that? You're saying that slipping up is wrong; but everyone makes mistakes. Why do mistakes then break the entire moral system? Would you expect those parents to disown their children by breaking a rule ONCE? No; that would be ludicrous. My opponent is saying that breaking a rule makes one morally void; but that is simply not true. If it was, every person who has ever had an encounter with the law would be so. Got a speeding ticket? Guess that means you're evil. If this is really the case, moral systems must be warped to match one's behavior, which is something my opponent said was wrong in his opening!

    CMF Rule D: If that is true, then when parents tell boys not to hit girls, they are saying that it's ok to hit anyone who isn't a girl. So can that boy go out and hit an old woman now? Or another male? And apparently that's ok since it wasn't specified. See the flaw there? My opponent is saying that a moral framework must specify EVERY LITTLE THING. Besides that, if you can't rely on your own morality, that means the people in Nazi Germany were fine because they were just following orders; they're not allowed to interpret beyond what they're told. But that's obviously not true.

    1.) Open to interpretation

    My opponent himself says that we must use what is said literally, and the scriptures LITERALLY say YOU ARE NOT UNDER THE LAW. So he can ignore that when it's convenient? But that's also something he said is wrong. His argument is riddled with holes.

    As noted. Jesus claimed he is not abolishing the law. Paul of Tarsus claims that the law is non binding on Christians. This means that I can either claim that ALL of the law applies, or none of it applies based upon how I chose to interpret this: as Jesus didn’t explicitly say the laws didn’t apply.
    Abolishing the law means it wouldn't exist. Paul says it does exist, but just isn't applicable to Christians. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

    This is not following the CMF, but picking and choosing via interpretation based upon his own moral compass and guidelines. This is covered in detail in Point 1.
    No, it's reading scripture literally, as my opponent himself said we must do.

    This makes more sense if we take acts:

    “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath”
    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+15%3A13-22&version=NIV

    In this case, the apostles clearly indicated that the mosaic law was to be followed, though it shouldn’t be made too hard.
    Wrong, the scripture says that specifically to GENTILES to warn them against doing things that would offend Jewish Christians. Read the MSG version if needed, I'm on mobile and can't paste it though.

    A framework which you can use both to justify stoning people to death for engaging in an open marriage - and declaring it A.O.K depending on how you chose to interpret it - is not a good system.
    Unless open marriage isn't loving; then this rule isn't broken.

    5.) Love thy Neighbour.

    Pro argues the biggest boon of the CMF that makes it good is the challenge to love one another. As specified in R1, this is actually an aspect that makes it bad; as it is largely unnecessary and unachievable.

    If the Bible stated “be as good as you can to each other”, or “appreciate that other humans are people too, and you should appreciate we all have our own struggles, and try and do right by others though you may hate their guts”, I would agree; but loving one another in all circumstances is contrary to human nature, and largely a superfluous command.
    By this logic, every parent who has ever told their child to be nice to their siblings was really evil and giving them an impossible command. Super duper specification is not necessary; save that for legal documents.

    7.) To love is the only Command.

    If “loving each other” is the only command, then the following acts would arguably not be immoral:

    Beastiality
    Consenting Drug fuelled sex orgies
    Statutory rape (if genuine consent is given)
    Prostitution
    Necrophilia
    Adultery (If other spouse consents)
    All of those deal with varying degrees of disrespect, which is obviously not loving. Not gonna touch #2 because I'm 16 so yeah

    In addition, the moral code expressed merely states that one should love each other - the rule cited doesn’t specify actual behaviour that is acceptable or not.

    Is it okay to beat my wife and children if they misbehave - out of love? Is rape okay if you’re married, and you really want it?
    By saying that, you're saying that beatings and rape can be out of love; but they can't. Just because you SAY it's "out of love" doesn't mean it actually is.

    It’s not clear - because it is not clear this can mean mostly what you want it to mean.
    Please show me a majority of people who would ever say that rape can be out of love. Please. 

    Even in pros examples: theft is also acceptable in many scenarios, as long as the theft is not personally hurtful to anyone.

    Stealing cash from dead people, DVDs from Walmart, etc do not go against “love one another”, as they do no appreciable harm to anyone.
    Yes they do; the cash would belong to next of kin, and the DVDs belong to the person who made them. Would you steal from somebody you love? I know I wouldn't. Or look at it this way: would they want you to steal from them? If not, then doing it anyway isn't love. And stealing necessitates that it's theirs, otherwise it's not stealing in the first place. Also, why must there be "appreciable harm?" Do you consider it loving to commit crimes as long as they're small?

    Round 4
    Published:
    Firstly, thanks to pro for the debate; it’s been rather interesting!


    0.1) Rules.

    Rule C: To be “good”, a moral framework must be possible to follow. If there is no hope of possibly being able to follow its commands due to them being outside the scope of human capacity - it’s a bad framework -  as such a framework would condemn people as immoral.

    Pro confuses this with being having the capacity to uphold moral commands, but falling short in some scenarios despite my correcting him.

    Pros only actual objection to this rule was that falling short would make a framework impossible - as I have clearly stated this is not the case: the remainder of his objection is irrelevant.

    Rule D: to be good, a moral framework must be reasonable, coherent, and consistent.

    Pros does not claim that a good moral framework can be unreasonable, incoherent or inconsistent thus is not really contesting the rule. What pro contests is that it is theoretically possible for me to use this rule unfairly.

    As pro is not arguing I have applied the rule unfairly - only that I could; his theoretical objection can be dismissed.

    Pro claims that I am suggesting that rule D indicates framework must specify every little thing. This is a clear and grotesque misrepresentation of my argument and thus can be dismissed as a strawman

    0.2.) following a framework.

    If a framework states lying is immoral - liars are being immoral when they lie - by definition. How immoral they are depends on the severity ascribed by the framework. Parents disowning their children would depend on the framework, and the severity that framework assigned to lying. If you’re a compulsive liar, don’t care and don’t try and stop - in the context of that framework you are morally corrupt.

    Given that not all examples of lying are bad, and low level white lies are mostly necessary to human existence - I would argue that “lying is immoral”, is an inherently bad moral framework as a result as it violates rule A, C and D. 

    Pro responds with a reductio ad absurdum argument. I point out the issues with his example moral framework that commands people not to lie; and pro simply reduces it to a hyperbolically ridiculous extreme - objecting to me stating that lying is immoral in a framework that says lying is immoral ; and claiming that stating as such is the same as demanding parents to disown their children from lying once. This bears almost no relation to what I actually said; thus this is another strawman.

    1.) Too Open to interpretation

    Pro claims the bible:
    “LITERALLY say YOU ARE NOT UNDER THE LAW”
    Pros issue, as shown in 2/3/4/5 in my last round, is that the bible also LITERALLY says you —ARE— under the law too. A framework that is inconsistent and so open to so interpretation you can justify stoning people for being gay if you don’t share pros interpretation of which passages of the bible to ignore - is a bad framework.

    On a passage in acts: pro goes on to claim:
    “Wrong, the scripture says that specifically to GENTILES to warn them against doing things that would offend Jewish Christians”
    The passage reads says:
    “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God”
     
    How did pro make what was said in this passage mean not offending Jewish Christians - this is not what it says. This interpretation barely makes any sense; does the law apply to non gentiles then? Why would Jewish Christians be offended at all if the law no longer applies?

    Pro has dismissed each part of the bible that disagrees with his claims; asserting the primacy of one part over another - without any formal interpretive framework or external justification. This is simply pro picking and choosing which parts to follow - which as established is not following the framework.

    5.) Love thy Neighbour.

    A moral command to love strangers is both wholly unnecessary and falls outside most of our capabilities and is thus as a central tenet - cannot practically be followed. A violation of rule C.

    Pros new rebuttal - that parents teach their children not to be mean to their siblings is a false analogy: a parent telling a child to be nice to siblings, is not the same as telling a person they are violating a moral law if they do love another unrelated random human unconditionally.

    For a third time, pro also engages in a misrepresentative strawman: claiming that because such an extreme moral command is not a good command - that I am calling a parental command to be nice evil.

    If a parent gave a command to a child that they must always love their siblings, even if that sibling steals, harms, punches, them; without caveat and that violation of it is immoral - this would clearly be a bad command as it violates rule A and rule B. 

    Pro omits this key issue with the comparison to focus on a straw man.

    7.) To love is the only command 

    As shown, “love one another”, which pro claims is the only rule of Christianity is not sufficient to address moral concerns, and can lead to things that are objectively immoral being treated as okay. This violates rule A.

    Pro appears to agree that his rule is insufficient as a moral standard; and adds a new qualifier of “respect”

    Pro does not explain this qualifier, where it comes from, how to judge it, whether it is part of the Christian Moral framework and how he can tell, nor provides any details of any kind.

    In addition, I argued that the CMF by virtue of pros rules would appear to be permissive of any action that an individual felt was done “out of love.” Pro invokes a No True Scotsman fallacy; by claiming that actions done out of love that are bad, aren’t really done out of love.  

    Both of these arguments are assertions that do not make any attempt to cut to the heart of my rebuttal; merely to reject the points without clear justification.




    Voting issues and summary

    Voters should note that I have no ability to respond to pros points below, so any new arguments should be discarded.

    Arguments: 

    I have grounded this debate with key criteria that voters can use to judge the CMF. 

    I have also clearly defined what it means to follow the CMF: using it as the source and root of your morality.

    I have also grounded, and justified how the Bible should be used to determine what the CMF is. Biblical commands and statement must be taken literally - as there is no other good method of interpreting the bible. 

    There has been almost no actual objection to these three aspects. So voters should use these to judge what the CMF is, and whether it’s good.

    Pros argument revolves around an asserted CMF, that he has not justified is accurate, judged against a qualitative basis he has not defined, that he claims is following the CMF despite pro conceding he is modifying the CMF based on his own separate sense of morality.

    Voters should clearly reject this as invalid.

    In addition, as shown in the last round, Pros entire thesis revolves around a completely inconsistent and ad-hoc interpretation that pro makes no attempt to justify.

    Pro has given no methodology, no analysis and no framework for interpreting the Bible on any count; and has merely declared his interpretation is definitive - and pulled new concepts, ad hoc explanations to justify wherever the Bible can be shown to infer something bad.

    Without any attempt to justify his methodology, we cannot be certain whether pros interpretation is legitimate or not; and given the inconsistencies in his interpretation, pro simply appears to be correcting major issues in the CMF by preferential interpretation rather than this being what the CMF objectively implies.

    As a result, pros argument is not advocating for the CMF - but advocating for his personal morality which he uses to correct the faulty CMF : thus cannot affirm the resolution.

    On the converse side - I have shown that the Bible is clearly too open to interpretation to make the CMF a good framework - as the framework itself is unclear and ambiguous.

    I have shown that the Bibles rejection of money and wealth would have lead to the deaths of millions, as would the Bibles treatment of Pacifism. These are clear and specific harms of the framework.

    The Bible invokes impossible moral edicts that cannot be upheld and are largely meaningless.

    I have also pointed out (and pro has dropped in R1) clear examples of mandated sexism, pro-slavery, and anti homosexual aspects in the New Testament.
     
    All these points - the fundamentals of Christianity - violate the four rules in substantial ways. As such, if you take the CMF without adjusting or modifying it using your own personal morality - it is a bad framework. Pros response has to be to assert that his unsupported interpretation overrules what the CMF actually says. This is clearly invalid.

    Pro has used several examples: From his example of a framework claiming lying is wrong, to a teaching your children to be nice to siblings as justification of how rules or my interpretation fails. In each example, I have pointed out pros key misunderstanding: and demonstrated that contrary to pros assertions - they are actually examples of bad frameworks that one must implicitly adjust and modify to make meaningful - just as pro does with the CMF.

    Pros advocacy here is based upon defending a bad framework by arguing the core parts that make that framework bad should be ignored in favour of your own moral understanding. This definitively refutes the resolution - thus a vote for Con is the only possible outcome of this debate.



    Conduct: Pro made several ad-hom attacks in the last round, and acted in a substantially unsportsmanlike by claiming he didn’t write his own rules. This clearly warrants a conduct mark down as per the rules. 





    Not published yet
    Added:
    This did not finish quite in time for this year's HoF, but I've added it to my list of great debates for future consideration.
    #17
    Added:
    --> @Ragnar
    For real!!
    Contender
    #16
    Added:
    --> @Ramshutu, @Speedrace
    I am very glad to hear this debate will be getting proper closure.
    #15
    Added:
    --> @Ramshutu
    Scratch that, I WON'T BE STOPPED
    Contender
    #14
    Added:
    --> @Ramshutu
    I won't make it in time :/ we're moving houses so really sorry dude I was too busy ugh
    Contender
    #13
    Added:
    --> @Ramshutu
    Alrighty thanks dude
    Contender
    #12
    Added:
    --> @Speedrace
    Will do my best, but can’t promise :/
    Instigator
    #11
    Added:
    --> @Ramshutu
    I know XD I really do and I will this time
    Could you possibly remind me to finish tomorrow night? I'm too busy today
    Contender
    #10
    Added:
    --> @Speedrace
    :(
    You need to write in another app, or program : then transfer when you’re ready to publish.
    Instigator
    #9
    Added:
    --> @Ramshutu
    It was all deleted. Let me go bang my head into a wall right now
    Contender
    #8
    Added:
    --> @Ramshutu
    Below
    Contender
    #7
    Added:
    --> @Speedrace
    6 hours.
    Instigator
    #6
    Added:
    I submitted my argument, why isn't it here?
    Contender
    #5
    Added:
    --> @Ramshutu
    Studying for SAT so I'll probably just squeeze this in tonight
    Contender
    #4
    Added:
    --> @Speedrace
    2 day warning!
    Instigator
    #3
    No votes yet