There is at Least One Person on the Earth Who Believes that Parts of the Bible Are Despicable

It's been fun. Pro's BOPTo win this debate, pro needed to convince you that she wasn't lying when she said she believes that parts of the Bible are despicable. She also stated that what is and isn't despicable must be the same for both her and the people who wrote the Bible. I must admit, I have been using immoral and despicable interchangably in this debate, and my opponent appears to have been doing the same. Despicable means deserving of hatred, which is of course a moral judgement. I'm sorry if that caused any confusion for anybody, but I'm pretty sure hatred is the result of a moral judgement, as opposed to, say, a mathematical judgement or grammatical judgement. Pro continues to state that this is based on perception - and, as is quite typical of pro, she does so without answering my contention - people don't hate Obama because he's a Muslim, because that would logically presuppose that he is a Muslim (just like pro cannot presuppose that the Bible is despicable). I gave a really big analysis of this last round, and pro is just repeating herself with synonyms, so I think I have given enough responses here. My CaseIn round two pro attempted, very poorly, to pre-empt my case. Her rebuttal was, simply put, that the bible writers were liars. I then rebutted this for three paragraphs. My opponent's response, which she highlighted in bold last round, was from round three. In round three I showed, however, that this was just a fancy way of restating what she had said in round one - because her argument was again that the Bible writers were liars. I did not drop or ignore the point. She, however, had completely ignored my analysis of what logically follows if that's true. This is ironic, because she continuously claims I dropped her non-existant counteranalysis - "every word" of it! If you go through point for point, you'll see that the only thing I didn't answer was her claim that the Bible permits lying, for the simple reason that I had already dealt with what happens if it does in round two. Rather than refer you back to round three, therefore, let me refer you back to round two. I asked my opponent if lying was moral. Then I showed that no matter which way she answered that question, she would get an absurd answer unless she was lying. Pro could not answer that question. Therefore pro must be lying. Therefore, no matter what other arguments pro might have, she cannot fulfil her burden. She said the Bible writers thought lying was moral, but continuously repeats that lying is immoral, breaking her rule again (milestone - that's the 30th time she's done that in this debate). And none of this is a new response. It's not even a response - this is all me repeating my argument from round two! That last paragraph is probably the most important paragraph for voters to read in this debate. SlaveryI didn't drop the harm principle analysis. I explained last round in great detail how the harm principle is not violated. I showed last round that her three-time quoted Deuteronomy quote was out of context and misrepresented. She claims it's talking about sex slaves of the master - but why then would the master be freed if he's not enslaved! ? I have given Biblical evidence that refutes my opponent's twisted understanding of the passage - both in round two and three. All this evidence has gone ignored. I also showed that non-Hebrew slaves could not be traded, and while they could be bought, they had to be treated well under Jewish law. They could be kept for life, but if they were treated poorly, they were freed by the same laws, which made no exceptions for foreign slaves. This was much better (from a harm principle perspective) than being poor, as defeated captives inevitably were after the army plundered. This all comes from round two. I also showed that beating a slave led to that slave's freedom. Yes, my opponent DID ignore the freedom part. She substituted that with the word exploitation, which of course makes no sense because I've proven, with references, that the Bible forbids that. What did I say? I said that her round two harm principle justification was not against liberty, but against things she could prove to be harmful. She has not proven that slavery was a bad thing for the slaves. Therefore, she cannot have won the point. The arranged marriage thing was sourced in round two, so please buy into it. I also did not drop the analysis that arranged marriages violate the harm principle, because pro never proves why they're harmful. RapeI didn't say women were never raped. I just said that women always spoke out when it happened. My opponent does not respond to this, so I'm assuming she agrees. She claims I did not source my "having relations" thing (which is true, actually - that just comes from my memory of Hebrew classes at school, but it can be easily verified by anybody with a good Hebrew-English Bible dictionary). She, however, is the one who came up with the "conjecture," and she has provided sources for pretty much none of what she's said, except for, in later rounds, sometimes indicating what Bible verse she is hypothesizing about. A quick glance at both the quantity and quality of sources we've both used (since her sole source was an out-of-date Bible) should make that part of the vote fairly obvious. My wikipedia source states that there was controversy over the translation, and gives Isiah as an example of that. The RSV bible is exactly the one she's using, and the one that caused the controversy, but the error has been corrected long ago. Regardless of what verses evoked the most controversy, the fact remains that the Deuteronomy line was a mistake, and that was corrected. The fact is that what she is claiming is not part of the Bible. Anybody with an NSV or later bible can easily check that I'm telling the truth. Is the resolution true? Let's consider the facts for a moment: To win this debate, pro needed to convince you that she wasn't lying when she said she believes that parts of the Bible are despicable. I proved to you, in round two, that pro must be lying for her rules and position to hold true. She could not respond to this analysis - only reiterate her belief that the Bible writers were liars, and that's morally OK. Therefore - why does she have a problem with the Bible lying about morality, if she thinks that's OK? I said this in round 2. Therefore she's lying. She proved to you that slavery exists in the Bible. I have consistantly shown that "slavery," as stated in the Bible, was a good thing. She has not been able to argue that slavery is a bad thing, except for randomly linking the harm principle to libertarianism in round four. She has not proven why liberty is good or being a slave in ancient Israel bad. I have shown that any exploitation of slaves was "punishable" in the modern sense of the word. She tried to make a point about rape but didn't really. Her first subpoint was about affairs. Her second was a mistranslation. Therefore all her reasons for hating the Bible fail. It's hard to look at that and give the debate to pro. If I'm right on my logic on EITHER (or both) of these bases, I win the debate. I know this may anger many people, but remember, this is a debate. My opponent has not disproven what I've said. Pro has just repeated herself and not based her arguments on concrete Biblical evidence. For this reason, I urge all unbiased people to vote con. The resolution is negated.