Secular ethics ought to be prioritized over religious ethics in the legislative process.

2. Pro does not at all understand Biblical Law. Obviously, as I have stated before, because she has never read the Bible, at least not actively in pursuit of actual knowledge. I quote myself: "If you had read the Bible, you would know that Christ came in a few thousand years later and rescinded the Law of Moses, replacing it with the higher law of Christ. " That's why Christian religions today don't 100% practice the Law of Moses, because Christ told them that it was no longer necessary. This negates Pro's futile attempt to assert an inconsistency in Christian values. I was simply using Christian ethics as an example, as you did in your original case. 3. So, no one during or before Aristotle's time ever used any kind of secular reasoning to deduce anything? Okay, everything during or before Aristotle's time should be discredited, simply because the "traditional standards and rules of logic" that my opponent assures us all is necessary for any kind of reasoning, weren't in existence. 4. I did not say that at all. Only that you would have to prove every secular philosophy beyond a doubt for me to AGREE with you, since you obviously can't agree with me unless I prove God's existence. 5. My opponent assumes that I have to debate all of her answers to my questions. That is completely absurd. The point of asking questions in debate is to clarify your opponent's case, not to simply create new arguments. 6. Refer to #5. 7. My opponent introduced evolution as an example (therefore MAKING it part of this debate), and I negated it. She refused to give a refutation to my negation, so I must win on that point. BTY, Pro, you can't refute this again in your rebuttal, since you refused to do it in your speech. Basic debate conduct. 9. You accuse me of having bad conduct? I'm going to quote Pro: "Isn't it POSSIBLE that you're a flaming homosexual and haven't realized it yet? " Anyway, once again my opponent does not understand my statement, despite me highlighting the verbs for her. You assume the choice is between killing 9,999 and killing 10,000. It's not. It's between killing 9,999 OR LETTING 10,000 die. Let me ask Pro a question: Would you actively kill 9,999 people to prevent the deaths of 10,000? No, you wouldn't. If you did, then you would be a homicidal maniac with no grip on ethics whatsoever. Response to my arguments: 1. Please quote the Constitution for me, showing me where it says that the people should ignore their religion. In the overall topic, my opponent is claiming that, on principle, no one can ‘mandate' (or in context) ‘have an opinion' that limits someone else's supposed freedoms. Well, if those ‘freedoms' conflict with your ethics, you are 100% within your rights to have an opinion against that ‘freedom. ' Say you knew someone who was going to kill someone else. You are obligated to, in some way, prevent that murder. It is the same with a breach of ethics. This is what I have been advocating for the length of this debate. Pro apparently doesn't understand a lot of things. Like what I advocate, for instance. In my case, I offer two ways (or instances) wherein religious ethics should be prioritized over secular ethics in the legislative process. One is choice. You are free to choose as you wish, but it is unethical to ignore your religious beliefs when you make that choice. 2. The second instance I offer is one of assured destruction, in a sense. My opponent links this argument to some random theory that I have never heard of, and then arbitrarily claims that I plagiarized my entire case. While I can see my opponent's link, it is a very shoddy and ridiculous one. I thought of and processed this argument on my own, with no help from any source or person. Is it entirely inconceivable that I came to the same conclusion someone else did, only he got there first? In refuting this, my opponent says that there have already been a lot of criticisms of this, though he only mentioned one. "He hasn't proven why it's moral to impose that standard upon other individuals who might want to "take their chances. " Yes I have, and if you had read my argument more carefully you would understand, which seems to be an issue with you. The people who make the laws in this country (elected officials, and this country is only an example) have an obligation to do the greatest good they can to their citizens. Therefore, religious ethics should be imposed to ensure the eternal life of the citizens of this country. Response to Pro's Conclusion 1. I've already refuted this, and apparently my opponent is desperate to discredit me, and it is severely disappointing to see my opponent attempting such low and pathetic blows in order to win this debate. 2. I used D. T. O. E. in a context, only to refute one of your claims in an answer to one of my questions. It isn't part of my case. 3. Also ironically, in making such a point, you also negate your own premise. You can't tell anyone that they ought to prioritize secular ethics. I guess this resolution is moot point, since neither of us can argue our side of the resolution if you insist on making this point. 4. Yes it does. You just don't understand (again, with the coherence problems =). It attaches to my first contention that people's choices shouldn't conflict with their own beliefs or morals. Yet, that is what you advocate through your entire case, that someone's choices should conflict with their beliefs and morals. Since you never argued that the actor of this resolution is the individual, we must treat the resolution as such. My opponent assumes through her entire case that the Government is the actor of this resolution. It is not. 5. So, I have to advocate every single religion's ethics, but you only need to advocate only tiny aspect of secular ethics? That is incredibly unreasonable. If my opponent will force me to advocate all religion's ethics, then I will force her to advocate every secular ethic. ‘Ethics' is a plural, not a singular. Pro doesn't seem to understand that different secular ethics conflict just as much as different religions do. Both claims have warrants, as I have proved above. Answers to questions: 1. This is a moot point. Pro should have caught this by now. I cannot advocate all religions, and Pro cannot advocate all secular ethics. If my opponent asks me to do this, I ask her the same thing, but with secular ethics. 2. We can't prove that Bible or the Quran or any other religious book anymore than we can prove God exists. We believe things. It's like morality. You can't PROVE what is moral and what is not; it depends on what you believe. So, any person, group, government, etc. can believe something and then act upon it. If Pro believes that the Pegasus Galaxy exists, he should prove it, right? Well, Pro doesn't know how to prove that, so he looks up people he can go ask to prove that the Pegasus Galaxy exists. He takes the word of scientists that the Pegasus Galaxy exists. Similarly, believers of different faiths take the words of the prophets or of people who knew the prophets, and witnessed the miraculous things they performed. All ‘facts' are about trust; you can only prove very little. Conclusions 1. My opponent's case is entirely refuted, boxed, wrapped, and thrown into the flames where it belongs. For one, the crux of my opponent's case was that the actor of this resolution is the government, which it is not. Second, she only refuted one of the ten claims she listed as her arguments. I refuted them all, and she never responded. She has dropped all ten of her *contentions. * Whereas I have not. Therefore, you must vote Con, because Pro doesn't seem to like her case anymore. (Note to Pro, you can't try and defend your case because you never talked about it in your second speech. If you did, I wouldn't be able to refute again, which is unfair. 2.