The link you sent was to Leviticus 20. While this response I gave to TheUnderdog about Leviticus 18:22 is probably still applicable, I'm not sure. I'll paste it here anyways.
Leviticus 18:22 is possibly the most cited bible verse that is supposedly against homosexuality, second only to perhaps Sodom and Gomorrah, and while it has the problem of being taken out of context as well, it has a problem of dishonest translation much more so. Hebrew is a VERY complex language relative to English, and it's one that we have only very recently, if we have at all, begun to fully understand. Let's go through each problem with the homophobic interpretation
Problem #1: The phrase that is translated to 'as one lies with' is seen in 5 other verses, and 4 of those times it refers to a place and literally in relation to lying there. A woman's bed was considered sacred in the time Leviticus was written as far as I know.
Problem #2: English translators have taken significant liberties in translating the verse so that it sounds appropriate for an English audience, which then worsens efforts at interpretation significantly. The verse, translated directly, would be translated by some to say "And with a male you shall lie down the lyings of a woman." Obviously that doesn't make any sense to English speakers, but we can only understand what it means if we look at what it actually is, not what would be most convenient to read.
Problem #3: The word 'lyings' only appears twice in the bible, once in Leviticus 18:22 and second in Genesis 49:4. What does Genesis 49:4 condemn? Incest.
Problem #4: Leviticus 18 is almost entirely about condemning incest, basically going down the list of "Don't sleep with your mother. Don't sleep with your sister. etc..." When combined with the understanding that 'lyings' in Genesis 49:4 refers to incest, homosexuality is only one of the many possible interpretations one could have of this story, which I believe that, when combined with the stories of David and Jonathan and the other facts I mentioned, is the least likely of them all.
You can find all this info here: https://blog.smu.edu/ot8317/2016/05/11/leviticus-1822/#_ednref8 . I would've loved to use more direct citations, but unfortunately the most
Thank you very much, my friend! I sincerely appreciate it, and I must say you've done quite well yourself. For as steadfast as I may be in my belief here, you caused me to question myself more than once. I hope I delivered on your expectations, haha.
Indeed so, haha. While of course I can't show research that goes against my position, in a lot of debates I've had to avoid dismissing such research for the sake of my personal understanding.
That is true, but I say that based on what I experienced from the Canadian school system (that I imagine would have similar or better funding than American schools). The highschool I'm in now, for example, would only have enough laptops/computers for about 60-120 students out of 1000.
As well, I don't think the point of "this costs so much money" is sufficient; I've never won a single debate tournament match where I made that argument lmao. Rather, in con's position, I would've argued that the cost could have greater benefit to society if spent elsewhere.
I agree. Con would've easily won had they developed their argument around the cost. As mentioned in the doc I linked, pro never actually firmly establishes that the large cost would be worth it for the benefit it would bring.
In typical Nyxified fashion, I have elected to do this in the longest and most complex way humanly possible: writing an analysis of the debate that has more characters in it than the entire debate does! https://docs.google.com/document/d/1a3gH1_4gr7KGLNp6PTHNLpl5XOCVnTuf1icReBbgsZs/edit?usp=sharing (dm me if the link doesn't work).
TL;DR con won in terms of arguments, imo, because they just gave more reasons to believe their position. While pro gave better reasons, especially in the earlier rounds, both sides failed to adequately refute each other, especially so for pro. I threw this whole thing together fairly quickly so don't expect it to be very objective or anything lmao. It's very hard to work with a 3,000 character debate is all I have to say.
Yes, it is a language that has continued to exist since the days of the old testament, but I have been led to believe at least that it was largely displaced in favour of other languages as Israel came to be ruled by other empires (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_language#Displacement_by_Aramaic ). My presumption was that this meant that Hebrew was a language that would have been difficult to understand given how rare I thought that it was, but I've come to find that I was incorrect when looking further into it.
I felt that at the very least biblical translators didn't understand the language themselves, seeing how obviously and often they failed to properly translate things. Whether this is true or not, I don't know, but some people would say it is (https://www.ancient-hebrew.org/bibles-translations/truth-about-bible-translations.htm and https://www.christianforums.com/threads/nwt-translators-did-not-know-biblical-hebrew-or-greek.8010766/ ). While nonetheless I would stand by saying Hebrew is a language that in large part has aspects that can not be translated into English without understanding of said Hebrew, I shouldn't have simply ran with what I had been told by others. My mistake.
You're absolutely right. My claim is not that it wasn't mentioned many times, but only that a specific word or phrase appeared more than once and that what the claim meant when it appeared can tell us what it means when we look at it this time. I apologize if what I said came off otherwise or I said otherwise. I stand by what I said about the 6 clobber passages allegedly against homosexuality.
Well, as I said, the verse more accurately says "And with a male you shall lie down the lyings of a woman." Hebrew is an incredibly complicated language, one that is very different from English, and one we did not fully understand until recently if we have even at all. Translators took liberties to suit their own agendas, beliefs, and desire for the bible to be actually legible to English speakers. The bible only began to be translated into English during the age of reformation when the Catholic Church had already propagated the belief that homosexuality was a sin. With all these factors in mind, it doesn't seem particularly unlikely to me that only 6 verses in the bible, a book with thousands and thousands of verses, even vaguely allude to condemnation of homosexuality.
I respect your faith and the lack thereof, and in no way do I mean to come off as though I am accusing you of hating LGBTQ+ people. Nonetheless, I don't believe that religion, nor Christianity specifically, is irreconcilable with the LGBTQ+ community.
In concurrence with fauxlaw, there isn't enough information. What's your definition of 'justified'? What requirements are there to consider a decision to be justified? I would love to accept this debate if you could give that info!
If you'd like a more in-depth explanation or an analysis of any other verses, I'd be happy to discuss them through dm! I just don't want to end up clogging the comments section as I did with the debate between Wylted and I, haha.
Leviticus 18:22 is possibly the most cited bible verse that is supposedly against homosexuality, second only to perhaps Sodom and Gomorrah, and while it has the problem of being taken out of context as well, it has a problem of dishonest translation much more so. Hebrew is a VERY complex language relative to English, and it's one that we have only very recently, if we have at all, begun to fully understand. Let's go through each problem with the homophobic interpretation
Problem #1: The phrase that is translated to 'as one lies with' is seen in 5 other verses, and 4 of those times it refers to a place and literally in relation to lying there. A woman's bed was considered sacred in the time Leviticus was written as far as I know.
Problem #2: English translators have taken significant liberties in translating the verse so that it sounds appropriate for an English audience, which then worsens efforts at interpretation significantly. The verse, translated directly, would be translated by some to say "And with a male you shall lie down the lyings of a woman." Obviously that doesn't make any sense to English speakers, but we can only understand what it means if we look at what it actually is, not what would be most convenient to read.
Problem #3: The word 'lyings' only appears twice in the bible, once in Leviticus 18:22 and second in Genesis 49:4. What does Genesis 49:4 condemn? Incest.
Problem #4: Leviticus 18 is almost entirely about condemning incest, basically going down the list of "Don't sleep with your mother. Don't sleep with your sister. etc..." When combined with the understanding that 'lyings' in Genesis 49:4 refers to incest, homosexuality is only one of the many possible interpretations one could have of this story, which I believe that, when combined with the stories of David and Jonathan and the other facts I mentioned, is the least likely of them all.
You can find all this info here: https://blog.smu.edu/ot8317/2016/05/11/leviticus-1822/#_ednref8 . I would've loved to use more direct citations, but unfortunately the most important one is paywalled, so this is the best I can do.
In all of my real life debating experience, pro is always the side that goes first. Per my debate coaches teaching, resolutions that are negative generally should be reworded to become positive. Moreover, con's position, from my point of view (not to say this is factual or unworkable), is very rebuttal focused and has little constructive arguments that can be made. If I could just set con to start second, I would.
I see no need to refer to me as a coward, what you're describing is far from a trend in my debates. However, you do bring up an important idea. The person instigating a debate often times should be the one who presents their arguments first. It would be weird to make a claim and insist that anyone who disagrees make their claims first. It's something I'll try to take to heart in the future.
I apologize if I failed to address this in the previous debate. I just created a debate that related to my beliefs. I'd welcome a more specific definition if you have one better than what I've proposed!
If the original Hebrew in the bible says something different from the English translation, the Hebrew takes precedence.
Drlebronski is correct. The previous debate, for the reasons in the description, is highly likely to be a FF, so I've remade it.
I'm also con in this debate, but if you mean to say that you do believe the bible condemns homosexuality, then by all means, I'd be happy to debate this with you if you become more motivated in the future!
Well, I would argue that it doesn't in certain cases. As much as I personally do not like the "If it ain't broken, don't fix it" mentality, you aren't wrong!
I feel like the definition of free will is a bit too kind to pro for this debate. If free will is nothing more than the ability to choose between good and evil, then evil is required for free will by definition.
Apologies if I'm missing something or coming off as needlessly pedantic.
How so? I apologize if it is, it was not my intention to mislead. I wrote it as I did because I wanted to avoid a con argument that the LLT was the considerably more likely theory and I figured the only other option was that it was less likely, so thus I said that's what con would need to prove.
Well, it's entirely possible that, over the years, the words in the bible were changed as it was copied and written down, but we can't really have a debate around what we don't know. We have no way of knowing what the bible did say when all of the books within it were made, but we can at least look at the Hebrew that we do have and ask if the translation is correct/reasonable or not.
I understand my mistake now. All my research of the bible has been very fragmented, not going from start to finish as I perhaps should have and rather going to verses that relate to specific problems or issues. Stupid of a mistake as it may be, I thought that all 27 books were just sections of the 4 gospels, eheh. I'll update the description accordingly. Thank you for your help!
I don't remember the exact chapter/verse, but I believe I'm thinking of the same thing you're thinking. There is a story that condemns sex between two men, but I am led to believe that, within the context, it was because people (who were following a cult and engaged in some sort of gathering) were so drunk and/or depraved that they were having homosexual sex while being heterosexual themselves.
I think that mistranslations are going to be ~fun~ in this debate, haha. It's too easy to forget about the Hebrew.
I am aware that there are many gospels that existed around the time the time the new testament was made, (I believe), but I was always under the impression they weren't considered to be a part of the bible. Thanks for letting me know about the old testament as well, since I wasn't aware of that much.
As much as I would like to, my knowledge only ends beyond those 4 gospels, so I can't have a debate about anything more than that while still being confident in my position or my ability to argue for it. I'm also led to believe those 4 gospels were chosen because they were the most reflective of the opinions of their saviour, made by those closest to him, and made soonest after his death.
That's true, and I will add that to the description right now. I thought that the bible was commonly accepted to be only those 4 gospels and the old testament? Forgive me if I am wrong.
Oh, and also I forgot to mention this part. While yes, there are many gospels that were not included in the new testament, those wouldn't be applicable as they aren't included in the bible. Only the old testament and the 4 gospels of the new testament are allowed.
I personally believe it doesn't. The word 'homosexuality' didn't appear once in the bible, yes, but it doesn't necessarily have to in order for it to condemn homosexuality. I'm very confident in my arguments and I want to see if my confidence is justified.
I see where you're coming from. My initial thoughts were relating to if something may, by some interpretations, condemn homosexuality, I wanted to leave a bit of wiggle room so that way it wasn't necessary to prove it without a doubt. I don't see it causing much of an issue if, as you say, it does or it does not, since it would fall under the likely or unlikely camp nonetheless, but if you would prefer that change to the resolution, I can do that. I'm curious for your thoughts.
I would argue that religion holds the same function that it has always held, that being providing spiritual enlightenment, guidance on how to live a just life, and answers to existential questions. Even if what is considered 'just' by any given religion is enforced upon a society at large, that does not relate to the function of religion as much as it does relate to people enforcing their beliefs onto others. Would you say this argument is consistent with the resolution?
Also I'd recommend changing the title to something more like "Society No Longer Needs Religion" so it more accurately reflects the debate.
This is, quite possibly, the most interesting resolution I've seen before. Not sure if I'd be able to debate it myself, but how fast is the trolley going? How much does the trolley weigh?
Well, I've never seen that one before. It's a good example of how breaking the skull/segments of the skull isn't a once in a lifetime thing in MMA, though
My goodness! R0???
Just what have I gotten myself into...
I'm climate chamge????????????????????????? (NOT CLICKBAIT)
This debate is a bruh moment from con
At what point are you just trolling
How old are you?
The link you sent was to Leviticus 20. While this response I gave to TheUnderdog about Leviticus 18:22 is probably still applicable, I'm not sure. I'll paste it here anyways.
Leviticus 18:22 is possibly the most cited bible verse that is supposedly against homosexuality, second only to perhaps Sodom and Gomorrah, and while it has the problem of being taken out of context as well, it has a problem of dishonest translation much more so. Hebrew is a VERY complex language relative to English, and it's one that we have only very recently, if we have at all, begun to fully understand. Let's go through each problem with the homophobic interpretation
Problem #1: The phrase that is translated to 'as one lies with' is seen in 5 other verses, and 4 of those times it refers to a place and literally in relation to lying there. A woman's bed was considered sacred in the time Leviticus was written as far as I know.
Problem #2: English translators have taken significant liberties in translating the verse so that it sounds appropriate for an English audience, which then worsens efforts at interpretation significantly. The verse, translated directly, would be translated by some to say "And with a male you shall lie down the lyings of a woman." Obviously that doesn't make any sense to English speakers, but we can only understand what it means if we look at what it actually is, not what would be most convenient to read.
Problem #3: The word 'lyings' only appears twice in the bible, once in Leviticus 18:22 and second in Genesis 49:4. What does Genesis 49:4 condemn? Incest.
Problem #4: Leviticus 18 is almost entirely about condemning incest, basically going down the list of "Don't sleep with your mother. Don't sleep with your sister. etc..." When combined with the understanding that 'lyings' in Genesis 49:4 refers to incest, homosexuality is only one of the many possible interpretations one could have of this story, which I believe that, when combined with the stories of David and Jonathan and the other facts I mentioned, is the least likely of them all.
You can find all this info here: https://blog.smu.edu/ot8317/2016/05/11/leviticus-1822/#_ednref8 . I would've loved to use more direct citations, but unfortunately the most
You're not giving me a lot of confidence LOL.
But I'm sure I can cook something up >:3c
I'm not knowledgeable on this subject, but I think I know enough to be able to take a stab at it.
Hey, just wanted to say thanks! I appreciate what you said in your vote <3
Thank you very much, my friend! I sincerely appreciate it, and I must say you've done quite well yourself. For as steadfast as I may be in my belief here, you caused me to question myself more than once. I hope I delivered on your expectations, haha.
Indeed so, haha. While of course I can't show research that goes against my position, in a lot of debates I've had to avoid dismissing such research for the sake of my personal understanding.
That is true, but I say that based on what I experienced from the Canadian school system (that I imagine would have similar or better funding than American schools). The highschool I'm in now, for example, would only have enough laptops/computers for about 60-120 students out of 1000.
As well, I don't think the point of "this costs so much money" is sufficient; I've never won a single debate tournament match where I made that argument lmao. Rather, in con's position, I would've argued that the cost could have greater benefit to society if spent elsewhere.
I agree. Con would've easily won had they developed their argument around the cost. As mentioned in the doc I linked, pro never actually firmly establishes that the large cost would be worth it for the benefit it would bring.
In typical Nyxified fashion, I have elected to do this in the longest and most complex way humanly possible: writing an analysis of the debate that has more characters in it than the entire debate does! https://docs.google.com/document/d/1a3gH1_4gr7KGLNp6PTHNLpl5XOCVnTuf1icReBbgsZs/edit?usp=sharing (dm me if the link doesn't work).
TL;DR con won in terms of arguments, imo, because they just gave more reasons to believe their position. While pro gave better reasons, especially in the earlier rounds, both sides failed to adequately refute each other, especially so for pro. I threw this whole thing together fairly quickly so don't expect it to be very objective or anything lmao. It's very hard to work with a 3,000 character debate is all I have to say.
Yes, it is a language that has continued to exist since the days of the old testament, but I have been led to believe at least that it was largely displaced in favour of other languages as Israel came to be ruled by other empires (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_language#Displacement_by_Aramaic ). My presumption was that this meant that Hebrew was a language that would have been difficult to understand given how rare I thought that it was, but I've come to find that I was incorrect when looking further into it.
I felt that at the very least biblical translators didn't understand the language themselves, seeing how obviously and often they failed to properly translate things. Whether this is true or not, I don't know, but some people would say it is (https://www.ancient-hebrew.org/bibles-translations/truth-about-bible-translations.htm and https://www.christianforums.com/threads/nwt-translators-did-not-know-biblical-hebrew-or-greek.8010766/ ). While nonetheless I would stand by saying Hebrew is a language that in large part has aspects that can not be translated into English without understanding of said Hebrew, I shouldn't have simply ran with what I had been told by others. My mistake.
You're absolutely right. My claim is not that it wasn't mentioned many times, but only that a specific word or phrase appeared more than once and that what the claim meant when it appeared can tell us what it means when we look at it this time. I apologize if what I said came off otherwise or I said otherwise. I stand by what I said about the 6 clobber passages allegedly against homosexuality.
I've been looking forward to the day I can challenge you, haha.
Best of luck! But, knowing you, you won't need it.
Well, as I said, the verse more accurately says "And with a male you shall lie down the lyings of a woman." Hebrew is an incredibly complicated language, one that is very different from English, and one we did not fully understand until recently if we have even at all. Translators took liberties to suit their own agendas, beliefs, and desire for the bible to be actually legible to English speakers. The bible only began to be translated into English during the age of reformation when the Catholic Church had already propagated the belief that homosexuality was a sin. With all these factors in mind, it doesn't seem particularly unlikely to me that only 6 verses in the bible, a book with thousands and thousands of verses, even vaguely allude to condemnation of homosexuality.
I respect your faith and the lack thereof, and in no way do I mean to come off as though I am accusing you of hating LGBTQ+ people. Nonetheless, I don't believe that religion, nor Christianity specifically, is irreconcilable with the LGBTQ+ community.
In concurrence with fauxlaw, there isn't enough information. What's your definition of 'justified'? What requirements are there to consider a decision to be justified? I would love to accept this debate if you could give that info!
I'm honoured to have been one of the first to come to mind! I'll check this out tomorrow if I have time.
If you'd like a more in-depth explanation or an analysis of any other verses, I'd be happy to discuss them through dm! I just don't want to end up clogging the comments section as I did with the debate between Wylted and I, haha.
Leviticus 18:22 is possibly the most cited bible verse that is supposedly against homosexuality, second only to perhaps Sodom and Gomorrah, and while it has the problem of being taken out of context as well, it has a problem of dishonest translation much more so. Hebrew is a VERY complex language relative to English, and it's one that we have only very recently, if we have at all, begun to fully understand. Let's go through each problem with the homophobic interpretation
Problem #1: The phrase that is translated to 'as one lies with' is seen in 5 other verses, and 4 of those times it refers to a place and literally in relation to lying there. A woman's bed was considered sacred in the time Leviticus was written as far as I know.
Problem #2: English translators have taken significant liberties in translating the verse so that it sounds appropriate for an English audience, which then worsens efforts at interpretation significantly. The verse, translated directly, would be translated by some to say "And with a male you shall lie down the lyings of a woman." Obviously that doesn't make any sense to English speakers, but we can only understand what it means if we look at what it actually is, not what would be most convenient to read.
Problem #3: The word 'lyings' only appears twice in the bible, once in Leviticus 18:22 and second in Genesis 49:4. What does Genesis 49:4 condemn? Incest.
Problem #4: Leviticus 18 is almost entirely about condemning incest, basically going down the list of "Don't sleep with your mother. Don't sleep with your sister. etc..." When combined with the understanding that 'lyings' in Genesis 49:4 refers to incest, homosexuality is only one of the many possible interpretations one could have of this story, which I believe that, when combined with the stories of David and Jonathan and the other facts I mentioned, is the least likely of them all.
You can find all this info here: https://blog.smu.edu/ot8317/2016/05/11/leviticus-1822/#_ednref8 . I would've loved to use more direct citations, but unfortunately the most important one is paywalled, so this is the best I can do.
A shame that my opponent forfeit. I was looking forward to this debate.
I'm very incompetent when it comes to philosophical debates, but I'm highly interested in watching how this turns out!
In all of my real life debating experience, pro is always the side that goes first. Per my debate coaches teaching, resolutions that are negative generally should be reworded to become positive. Moreover, con's position, from my point of view (not to say this is factual or unworkable), is very rebuttal focused and has little constructive arguments that can be made. If I could just set con to start second, I would.
I see no need to refer to me as a coward, what you're describing is far from a trend in my debates. However, you do bring up an important idea. The person instigating a debate often times should be the one who presents their arguments first. It would be weird to make a claim and insist that anyone who disagrees make their claims first. It's something I'll try to take to heart in the future.
I apologize if I failed to address this in the previous debate. I just created a debate that related to my beliefs. I'd welcome a more specific definition if you have one better than what I've proposed!
If the original Hebrew in the bible says something different from the English translation, the Hebrew takes precedence.
Drlebronski is correct. The previous debate, for the reasons in the description, is highly likely to be a FF, so I've remade it.
I'm also con in this debate, but if you mean to say that you do believe the bible condemns homosexuality, then by all means, I'd be happy to debate this with you if you become more motivated in the future!
Debate has been remade if either of you are interested in keeping up with it!
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3179-remake-thbt-the-bible-condemns-homosexuality
Well, I would argue that it doesn't in certain cases. As much as I personally do not like the "If it ain't broken, don't fix it" mentality, you aren't wrong!
"The humour wasn't funny enough"
I respect you lmao
Yep. My thoughts exactly.
I feel like the definition of free will is a bit too kind to pro for this debate. If free will is nothing more than the ability to choose between good and evil, then evil is required for free will by definition.
Apologies if I'm missing something or coming off as needlessly pedantic.
It's possible. We'll have to see.
How so? I apologize if it is, it was not my intention to mislead. I wrote it as I did because I wanted to avoid a con argument that the LLT was the considerably more likely theory and I figured the only other option was that it was less likely, so thus I said that's what con would need to prove.
Don't worry. I have no problem making it again if that's the case, haha.
Hoo boy, I managed to submit a solid two minutes before the deadline.
Well, it's entirely possible that, over the years, the words in the bible were changed as it was copied and written down, but we can't really have a debate around what we don't know. We have no way of knowing what the bible did say when all of the books within it were made, but we can at least look at the Hebrew that we do have and ask if the translation is correct/reasonable or not.
I understand. I'll change the resolution to fit that, since I see where you're coming from.
I understand my mistake now. All my research of the bible has been very fragmented, not going from start to finish as I perhaps should have and rather going to verses that relate to specific problems or issues. Stupid of a mistake as it may be, I thought that all 27 books were just sections of the 4 gospels, eheh. I'll update the description accordingly. Thank you for your help!
I don't remember the exact chapter/verse, but I believe I'm thinking of the same thing you're thinking. There is a story that condemns sex between two men, but I am led to believe that, within the context, it was because people (who were following a cult and engaged in some sort of gathering) were so drunk and/or depraved that they were having homosexual sex while being heterosexual themselves.
I think that mistranslations are going to be ~fun~ in this debate, haha. It's too easy to forget about the Hebrew.
I am aware that there are many gospels that existed around the time the time the new testament was made, (I believe), but I was always under the impression they weren't considered to be a part of the bible. Thanks for letting me know about the old testament as well, since I wasn't aware of that much.
As much as I would like to, my knowledge only ends beyond those 4 gospels, so I can't have a debate about anything more than that while still being confident in my position or my ability to argue for it. I'm also led to believe those 4 gospels were chosen because they were the most reflective of the opinions of their saviour, made by those closest to him, and made soonest after his death.
That's true, and I will add that to the description right now. I thought that the bible was commonly accepted to be only those 4 gospels and the old testament? Forgive me if I am wrong.
Thanks!
Oh, and also I forgot to mention this part. While yes, there are many gospels that were not included in the new testament, those wouldn't be applicable as they aren't included in the bible. Only the old testament and the 4 gospels of the new testament are allowed.
I personally believe it doesn't. The word 'homosexuality' didn't appear once in the bible, yes, but it doesn't necessarily have to in order for it to condemn homosexuality. I'm very confident in my arguments and I want to see if my confidence is justified.
I see where you're coming from. My initial thoughts were relating to if something may, by some interpretations, condemn homosexuality, I wanted to leave a bit of wiggle room so that way it wasn't necessary to prove it without a doubt. I don't see it causing much of an issue if, as you say, it does or it does not, since it would fall under the likely or unlikely camp nonetheless, but if you would prefer that change to the resolution, I can do that. I'm curious for your thoughts.
Ah screw it I'm just gonna accept the debate anyways. Don't want someone to snipe it while I wait for a response lol
I would argue that religion holds the same function that it has always held, that being providing spiritual enlightenment, guidance on how to live a just life, and answers to existential questions. Even if what is considered 'just' by any given religion is enforced upon a society at large, that does not relate to the function of religion as much as it does relate to people enforcing their beliefs onto others. Would you say this argument is consistent with the resolution?
Also I'd recommend changing the title to something more like "Society No Longer Needs Religion" so it more accurately reflects the debate.
This is, quite possibly, the most interesting resolution I've seen before. Not sure if I'd be able to debate it myself, but how fast is the trolley going? How much does the trolley weigh?
What's the fighter's name?
Well, I've never seen that one before. It's a good example of how breaking the skull/segments of the skull isn't a once in a lifetime thing in MMA, though
Apologies for the delay in my response, I got considerably sidetracked and wanted to properly analyze the data before making arguments around it.
Nice comeback, by the way.