Instigator / Con
28
1593
rating
21
debates
66.67%
won
Topic
#3179

(Remake) THBT The Bible Condemns Homosexuality

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
12
0
Better sources
8
0
Better legibility
4
0
Better conduct
4
0

After 4 votes and with 28 points ahead, the winner is...

Nyxified
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
25,000
Voting period
Two months
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
0
1486
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Description

Remake of ( https://www.debateart.com/debates/3160-thbt-the-bible-condemns-homosexuality ) this debate because my opponent created an account on the day of accepting, forfeit the first round, has not been active on the forum nor accepted my friend request. This makes me fairly certain they will not be coming back any time soon.

The Bible: A book composed of only the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New Testament

Homosexuality: In this context can refer to a person who is attracted to the same gender that they are, romantic/sexual relationships between homosexuals of the same gender, romantic/sexual acts between two homosexuals of the same gender, etc...

Condemned: Stated or implied to be a sin, and/or weakening your relationship with the Christian deity, and/or implying future punishment, and/or stated or implied to be immoral/very bad.

Any argument made with regards to the condemnation of homosexuality can not apply to heterosexuality as well (i.e. a condemnation of all human sexuality or of actions not exclusive to homosexuality are not applicable).

Pro must prove the bible likely/on balance condemns homosexuality whereas con only needs to prove it is unlikely the bible condemns homosexuality and/or that, on balance, there is no good reason to believe it does. Con doesn't have to prove the counterfactual (i.e. The bible supports homosexuality/doesn't condemn it). The reasoning for this is fairly self-evident, as things are only considered sins in Christianity if there is good reason to believe it is. If there is no good reason to believe that it is, defending it or finding a biblical basis for it is not necessary for it to not be considered a sin. Things that aren't sins don't need to 'prove' that they aren't sins and we can reasonably conclude it is not condemned.

Please comment for questions or requests for changes. This is (or it was when I first made it lmao) the first debate I am creating, so constructive feedback is welcomed as well.

As I am con, I forfeit the first argument, pro forfeits the last argument.

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

Full forfeit

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

Full forfeit

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

Pro never engaged the debate, fully forfeiting all rounds.

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

Pro's case was eerily similar to the evidence of Jesus' statements against homosexuals...