Moral systems rooted in theism are preferable to non-theistic moral systems.

First off I would like to preface that this is my first debate on this platform so I am probably unfamiliar with the customs and how debates are conducted here. Nevertheless I hope that I can provide a fun experience.

On contention 1: while having the morals written down may be useful there is still the issue of interpretation. Disagreements between how holy books should be interpreted would further increase confusion and as is evident by history these disagreements tend to turn violent. 

On contention 2: I do not see how belief in common sense and basic human decency can't be grounded in logic and reasoning. To say belief in anything is a belief in Theism because you believe it's important I think is quite the overstep. Logic and reasoning can provide sufficient grounding for most things. Additionally this detracts from the idea that things are good simply because of their nature and that things are only important due to a god. One can view human life as important without any reference to a god, for example it is in my best interest to preserve the human race as I am a member of it, thus the view that an act that preserves human life is moral seemingly circumvents the need for a god by appealing to logic and reasoning.

On contention 3: I see no reason why the first part "multiple people having a shared moral system is beneficial in building community" could not also apply to a moral system based on logic and reasoning. While Theism may strengthen connections between those of similar beliefs it may also alienate those of different beliefs and lead to conflict. Supposing both sides to be Theists but of different religions both would declare the other side to be completely immoral as they ground their morals in the incorrect text.

(Don't actually know what you call the objections to your point so I'll just call them objections)

Objection 1- Morals presented in Theistic holy books are barbaric and go against logic and reasoning: I'll use Christianity as an example but this can also be applied to other holy books. The Bible is riddled with genocide(1 Samuel 15:3), homophobia (leviticus 18:22), misogyny (1 Timothy 2:11-15) and slavery(leviticus 25:44-46). I'm sure you and I both agree we would not want to live in a society where this kind of stuff is morally acceptable.

Objection 2-holy books are seen as infallible and unchangeable: as holy books are seen as the word of God the moral claims are seen as absolute fact. This may lead to stagnation in societal growth due to morals not evolving. For example a society with its morality based solely on the Bible would never accept homosexual relations as it is seen as a "detestable act". However morals based on logic and reasoning leave room for growth, previous thinkers can be criticised and their ideas thrown out for more favourable ones. This cannot happen if holy books are infallible.

Objection 3-Theistic moral system can lead to an increase in discrimination and hate against those who don't follow that religion: This one seems pretty self explanatory, if 2 groups both believe that they have the one true source of morality then conflict is bound to arise. If morals were based on logic and reasoning it is much easier to solve these kinds of conflicts and they are less likely to escalate to violence.

Objection 4- science disproving the metaphysical claims of religion may undermine the moral claims: I'll once again use Christianity as an example. We know for a fact that the Earth was not made in 6 days so this undermines the trustworthiness of the Bible as a scientific source. An undermining of a holy book as a scientific source may also lead to the morals of the book being undermined as it is seen as less trustworthy leading to confusion as to what is true and what is false.

Objection 5- Theisms methods of enforcing moral behaviour are flawed: the idea that one should be good in order to receive eternal joy and one shouldn't be bad in order to avoid eternal punishment appeals only to human selfishness and detracts from doing the right thing simply because it is right.

If I've formulated my argument in the incorrect way or missed anything please let me know. Any pointers would be greatly appreciated.

Hey, Just Realized Im out of time, Sorry, but here's a quick Go.

1. The contradictions seen in the bible you talk about are not relevant, as it is not what you are being told to do, as well as many people still using moral systems rooted in these theistic beliefs that don't include parts, but they still prefer it. 

2. You talk about how it caused harm to others in theistic societies, yet these people still have their beliefs that they prefer based on a theistic moral system, as well as the people fighting. If we look back to WW2, we see that jewish peoples morals were preferred to be rooted in theism, and while this conflict with the nazis happened, they also believed in a theistic moral system, just different, so this point falls flat as well

As for the formatting help, I honestly don't know. I'm new to this site myself. I posted a few debates in 7th grade when I was just entertaining myself in class, hence why I haven't won. So I think what you did was fine, as long as you get the point across nicely

1. It is the contradiction between logic and reasoning and what is taught by the bible that concerns me. I'll use stances on homosexuality for example the bible states  "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable." (Leviticus 18:21-23 using the NIV translation). It seems logical that we should treat anyone equally no matter their sexual preferences, hope we can both agree. However if we ground our morals in the bible then it explicitly states that homosexual relations between men is detestable which directly contradicts logic.  Additionally you say morals grounded in theism can ignore aspects, how does one decide which morals are good to follow and which are not, my guess would be logic and reasoning. Even so if not everything is considered this leads to greater rifts between groups that ground their morals in theism.

2. I feel you may have mildly missed my point. It is the difference in morals grounded in theism that makes conflicts harder to resolve and more easily escalate to violence. Imagine 2 groups, one grounds their beliefs in theism and holy books and the other grounds their beliefs in logic and reasoning. Which one is more likely to change their belief when confronted with evidence and which one is more likely to escalate the conflict to violence. In short if 2 moral systems are in conflict it is more likely to escalate if they are based in theism as the morals taught by theism are seen and infallible and absolute.

Also I would like to go back to the barbaric morals taught by theism (mostly the bible because that's what I'm familiar with but I can find examples for other religions if you wish) would you prefer to live in a society where things like slavery and misogyny are considered moral? Moreover how does one square these morals with logic and reasoning, as holy books are infallible it seems logic and reasoning must give and I certainly would not prefer a society where books written a good couple thousand years ago trumps logic and reasoning. 

Hopefully I've understood your points well and made mine clear so you also understand mine.

I see you ran out of time so I'll just do a short conclusion basically reiterating most of my points

The morals preached by Theism are downright barbaric and revolting and I'm sure no rational mind would want to live in a society solely grounded on these. While Theism may make it "easier" to ground morals on the surface the matter of interpretation and contradiction with basic logic and reasoning leads to an increase in confusion rather than providing a more stable foundation for morals. Additionally conflicts between groups that ground both their morals in theism would be more likely to last longer and possibly escalate to violence due to the infallible nature of holy books. A further point on the infallible nature of holy books is it may lead to a stagnation of societal morals as these morals are fixed and seen as absolute truth. It seems clear to me that a society that grounded its morals in Theism would be more unstable, more stagnant and definitely a lot less moral than a society that grounded its morals in logic and reasoning.

Anyway I've quite enjoyed this as my first debate, I hope I've been a suitable opponent and I hope you have a good day.