Instigator / Con
12
1650
rating
44
debates
77.27%
won
Topic

Is Christianity A Good Moral System To Follow?

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
0
9
Sources points
6
6
Spelling and grammar points
3
3
Conduct points
3
1

With 3 votes and 7 points ahead, the winner is ...

Speedrace
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Philosophy
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender / Pro
19
1623
rating
59
debates
66.1%
won
Description
~ 2,190 / 5,000

-- 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.

KJV Bible as the source we are agreeing to use.

-- STRUCTURE --
1. Opening (State your positions. No rebuttals.)
2. Rebuttals (Attempt to debunk opponents augments)
3. Rejoinders (Attempt to defend your case with the rebuttals given)
4. Rebuttals/Close (Rebuttals and conclusion)

When I say attempt. That is the bare minimum. You can do more and would help your case a lot.

-- DEBATER OBJECTIVES --
Pro - must sufficiently prove that Christianity is a good moral system while simultaneously disproving Con's arguments. (Basically Christianity is good and demonstrate it)
Con - must sufficiently prove that Christianity is a bad moral system while simultaneously disproving Pro's arguments. (Basically Christianity is bad and demonstrate it)

-- 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 irresolution 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
Con
I thank Speedrace for accepting. 

To get an idea of what a good moral system is. I will simply give some things I would consider to be a good one.
 
  • Doesn't exclude people and stating they will go to hell 
  • Tries to condemn wrongs in order for change to occur to make people's live better
  • Advocate for equality so that people are treated fairly
Basically what I am going at is it tries to make people happy.
 
I'll stick to that. This might not seem like a lot but it is enough in my book to consider Christianity a bad moral system to follow.
 
Homosexuality
 
Homosexuality: is romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender.
 
Homosexuality is condemned in the Bible. I don't think I need to show Bible quotes to show this but I will. I will also mention saying homosexuality is a sin is you pretty much saying if they carry on with their lifestyle they will go to hell. So basically a Christian has openly allowed their God to punish gays in hellfire for eternity for something that could've only occurred for 40 years. The hyperlink I added before this specifically talks about gays being sentenced to an eternal fire.
 
Romans 1:26-27:  For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
 
The Bible call both instances of same sex actions "vile affections". Given this I am safe to assume this is sinful. This would mean they eventually given a gays lifestyle will be punished forever in hell. Christianity permits torture of people forever for something that happened for a limited amount of time compared to being hellfire for eternity. This is of course is bad because there is no way of gays to simply leave hell and not be tortured forever. They are there forever for something as a society we have agreed upon is not something that can be changed on a whim.
 
Given that a good moral system is implied to be followed by everyone. If this was implemented in the US 3.5 percent of the population in 2011 are gay, lesbian or bisexual.
 
Slavery
 
Slavery is never really stated whether it is allowed or not. It does state how to treat your slaves. This to me means slavery is an assumption of Christianity and they are building upon that foundation.
1 Timothy 6:1-2
Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.
 
This source states the servants of the master should treat them with honour. Since there were less liberal societal norms back in the day. People had less choice to change things in their life. Given this a servant back when this was written would be considered human property whereas now it wouldn’t be the same given the lesser importance Christianity has and more rights people have been given. Since Christianity was around during slavery. The Bible told servants to be submissive to their masters not try to get their freedom. This is bad because controlling people doesn’t lead to happiness since the necessity of control requires the person to be restricted in what they can do. If they are restricted, they have less choices that can lead to happiness.
 
Given that a good moral system is implied to be followed by everyone. If this was implemented 12.5 million blacks who were would have been told to obey their masters not to see their freedom.
 
Women
 
I left the best for last. If it wasn’t clear already that Christianity is not good moral system as in attempts to make people happy then these quotes would be enlightening. Freedom can lead to happiness and given the lack of freedom women are given, women would have to find happiness in control which I don’t think is fair given men are not held to the same standard.
 
1 Corinthians 11:3
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
 
1 Timothy 2:11-12
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
Colossians 3:18
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.
1 Corinthians 14:34-35
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
 
I have painted a real clear picture that women should be treated, if we follow the Bible, submissive to their husband while other things. Not being allowed to speak in Church to name one. This is bad because a moral system if good should treat people equally given that it means people are not given unfair rulings or judgements.
 
Given that a good moral system is implied to be followed by everyone. If this was implemented across the world 49.5% of the population will be treated differently than the remaining number.

Pro
Forfeited
Round 2
Con
"1. No forfeits"

Guess I win.
Pro
FORFEIT

Yes, I forfeited. However, as many of you know, I'm very busy as a student. I thought I had two weeks to post this and could finish over the weekend, but I woke up on Saturday to an email saying I had forfeited. However, I can still easily complete the debate by posting both my opening and my rebuttal (which I fully intend to do).

And yes, the description does say that forfeits should merit a loss, but nowhere in the COC does it say that debate descriptions are binding upon voters. In fact, nothing is, except the COC itself and sometimes mods and admins. In many debates, such as this one, voters only take the conduct point for forfeitseven though the debate description has the same policy on losses for forfeits.

In the end, nothing the description nor I nor omar can say can force you, the voters, to do anything. However, I am sincerely asking you to take all of this into consideration and to give me a chance. Now I hope you enjoy the rest of the debate.

OPENING

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.

REBUTTAL

Homosexuality

All I have to say to this is that the Law, which this is under, doesn't apply to Christians, the Law of Love does. And where is this under the Law of Love? I would ask my opponent to find it.

Slavery

1 Timothy 6:1-2 clearly says "servants," not slaves. I don't see slavery being discussed anywhere near here. Secondly, servants were not treated badly.

ebed is translated as 'slave' in some cases and 'servant' in others... 'Servant' and 'slave' used to overlap much more in meaning, but now have different meanings. Servants are no longer seen as slaves. The meaning of the word ‘ebed is not inherently negative, but relates to work. The word identifies someone as dependent on someone else with whom they stand in some sort of relation. Being an ‘ebed could be a position of honour. Everyone is a servant / slave of someone else. The majority meaning of ‘ebed is 'servant', but can also be translated 'slave'. It is not an inherently negative term, and is related to work. The term shows the person is subservient to another. All subjects of Israel are servants of the king. The king himself is a servant of their God. So in the time of the Old Testament, no-one is free – everyone is subservient to, an ‘ebed of, someone else. Translating ‘ebed as 'slave' is problematic because of its negative connotations, which were not originally there but we associate from other historical contexts. This generally leads to inconsistency in translation and it becomes hard for readers not to read into the word ideas from subsequent, very different systems of slavery (eg. in Greece, Rome and North America). [1]
So, obviously "servants" doesn't translate to slave. You can also check out this graphic to see how supposed "slaves" were treated. It was not badly at all.


Also, Deuteronomy 23:15-16 forbids returning runaway slaves to their masters. That is much different than the conditions we think of.

Women

1 Corinthians 11:3 (But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.)

Firstly, this was from Paul. However, we already know that he had been spreading a message of love all over the place.

Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female"
Acts 2:18: "Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy."

So we already know that Paul was trying to promote equality. So why did he say what he said?

"Head" as used in greek means someone's literal head or the metaphorical source of something. [2] It doesn't indicate dominance over anyone.

Firstly, this isn't his first letter to the Corinthians. This is Peter's response to their response to his letter. He is spending this letter (more than just 1 Corinthians 11) correcting abusive applications of his teachings. Corinthian women had not only been taking a part in equality in the church, but had also been taking off their veils in public. That is not to say that this was bad, but it was, in a way, disrespectful to the other members of society.

This is kind of like arguing that you should respect your grandmother. No one would argue that your grandmother is more important than you, or should have authority over you, and yet most of us would think it’s tasteful to show some kind of deference to the fact that she helped bring you into existence.
I don’t know about you, but when I spend time with my grandmother, I try not to embarrass her in public. If we’re in a store, or walking somewhere, I don’t feel the need to constantly point out that I’m a grown man and can do whatever I want. I don’t wear clothes that she’ll find terribly offensive, or do some of the ridiculous things that I might feel comfortable with, but would make her nervous. [2]
Paul is saying not to get the husband's mocked by the rest of the community, and certainly not to cause a ruckus that is unnecessary. This is like someone telling slaves recently freed after the Civil War not to go drink at white fountains. Even though it may be right, they'll still be targeted by racists and what-not.

Paul continues this argument in verse 6: "For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered."

What he's saying here is that, if they don't care about what people think, go ALL the way. Shave your head! But if they can't bring themselves to shave their head, that means that they DO care what others think, and therefore they should also cover their head as well to respect the community guidelines.

But Paul still goes on to say that women and men are equal! 

1 Corinthians 11:11-12: "Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God."

He also says that women, in the end, have the choice of whether they want to do this or not (verse 10): "For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels."

So no, this was not sexism, simply a verse grossly taken out of context.

1 Timothy 2:11-12 (Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.)

Firstly, the imperative here is "to learn." In this culture, women were told not to learn, so this is progressive firstly. Secondly, when it is said to go "quietly," this is the same term as in verse 2 of this chapter. "Quietly" simply means "without turmoil." They are being told not to be disruptive. However, they can still participate and what-not, as Paul said in 1 Corinthians 11 when he said to pray and prophesy! When he says not to usurp authority, he's saying not to overrule the rulers of the church, who were men.

Colossians 3:18 (Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.)

Submit means the following:

"put yourself under, arrange yourself under someone, for a good and proper purpose." It is a totally voluntary action.
How is that sexist? Plus, the next verse literally tells husbands to love their wives and not to be bitter towards them.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35

The same argument for 1 Timothy applies here.

Sources

Round 3
Con
"-- RULES --
1. No forfeits"

"9. Violation of any of these rules merits a loss."

Pro
My opponent did not extend his arguments, or try to further his case at all in this round. That sounds like a forfeit to me. Then, by my opponent's own argument, he deserves a loss.

In that case, if voters are taking the loss for forfeits seriously, then me in my opponent are tied in forfeits, and therefore no points should be taken off for them.

However, remember, nowhere in the voter guidelines does it say that voters are binded by the debate description. In fact, the word "description" isn't even mentioned in the COC. So losses don't have to be given for forfeits of you, the voters, don't feel that it is right to do so.

As no rebuttal was given from my opponent to defend, I extend my arguments.

Round 4
Con
"-- RULES --
1. No forfeits"

"9. Violation of any of these rules merits a loss."

"6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)"

This rule was broken at the start of Round 2 and Round 3. You are supposed to accept the resolution as in rules not question them during the debate.

Not accepting the resolution questioning it:

"However, remember, nowhere in the voter guidelines does it say that voters are binded by the debate description. In fact, the word "description" isn't even mentioned in the COC. So losses don't have to be given for forfeits of you, the voters, don't feel that it is right to do so."

If it wasn't clear Speedrace did not follow 2 rules which resulted in the entire debate structure being ruined. This if it wasn't clear already merits a loss because of Speedrace's non-argument in Round 1. 

Pro
"6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)"

This rule was broken at the start of Round 2 and Round 3. You are supposed to accept the resolution as in rules not question them during the debate.
The "resolution" is the topic in the title. A kritik would be something like me saying "Christianity doesn't even exist," or something along those lines. It has nothing to do with the debate description.

This if it wasn't clear already merits a loss because of Speedrace's non-argument in Round 1.
My opponent himself defines a forfeit as a "non-argument." By that logic, both his round 3 and round 4 are forfeits, because neither had any arguments pertaining to the debate resolution. That means that he has more forfeits than me, by his own logic.

Besides that, as I have stressed so much, rule 9 is not binding on you, the voters, so you can do almost anything you want in the end as long as it complies with the COC.

Conclusion

All I have to say is that I showed that Christianity is based entirely on love. I also showed how the arguments my opponent presented from the Bible were either misinterpreted or nuanced arguments for something else. In the end, I believe that a moral system based on love is a pretty good moral system.

All previous arguments extended.