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

FrameworkThe only thing that he bothers to do with the first observation is rehash his argument about how I cannot hate something for false reasons. Since he completely drops my analysis about how hatred is based on perception and emotion, and I only have to perceive something to be true about an individual in order to hate him or her, you can extend it cleanly across the flow. The fact of the matter is that people hate Obama because they think he is a Muslim. Although he has proven that he is a Christian, this hatred continues to fester. Why? Because they perceive that he is not a Christian. This hatred is not based on fact; rather, it is based on a perception. The fact that these ideas are false is irrelevant because to that person, they are very real.He is going to tell you in the next round that morality is universal, so I cannot use this argument. Hatred and morality are not the same thing, however. I can hate someone for immoral reasons. For example, a rapist can hate a victim who pursues legal action against him, or he can hate her for resisting his advances. The fact of the matter is that since I have proven that I hate parts of the Bible, you have to affirm because I fulfilled my burden. This also solves the strawman that he creates with the Creation story. I do not have the creation story because of a moral principle; rather, I hate it because I find it idiotic. He is falsely linking together hatred and morality; do not let him get away with this. I do not believe in God and larz has not proven that God exists, so you can extend the third observation cleanly across the flow. He also concedes the analysis about how morality is external of God, so he cannot make any claims about how an action is moral just because the Bible or God says so. Now, he claims that I did not engage his case at all, but this is a blatant lie. I will quote the place where I engaged it, and then I would like you to affirm because he dropped the counteranalysis that I posted against his case and he lied about it. My counteranalysis in bold: “He then claims that I am contradicting myself by claiming that he has to prove that there is only one God. This is also blatantly false because it assumes that morality is derived from gods and not from some other external source. In fact, even the Bible implies that some other source exists when it says in Genesis that God made fish, man, birds, etc. and “SAW that they were good.” The fact that he saw that they were good implies that he was using some external system in order to judge his actions. Larz also drops the final three points, so since he never attacked them, he never fulfills that burden.Finally, he discusses lies and deception. First, the Bible does promote lies, as evidenced by the fact that in Genesis, Jacob deceives Esau and steals his blessing and birthright and lies and steals from Laban. In addition, Abraham sells his wife into sexual slavery twice and lies about it both times, thereby condemning the people that he deceives to a curse. God never punishes these people for their despicable actions, so he condones them and thus promotes both lying and sexual slavery. Since lying is permissible in the Bible, we can assume that the people who wrote down the Bible were following their moral code when they wrote it.”I urge you, the intelligent voter, to go back and do a search function on this webpage to check the veracity my claims to have refuted it. He dropped every word of this counteranalysis, so cleanly extend it across the flow and vote affirmative. If he brings up new responses to this in his last speech, he is cheating, so please do not permit him to do so. SlaveryContinue to extend the Harm Principle analysis because he dropped it.The first thing that he claims is that slaves can be set free. Now, he claims that I never responded to this, but this is actually false. In the first round AND in the second round, I quoted a passage in which female slaves who were married to male slaves of their masters (NOT THE “ARRANGED MARRIAGE” WIVES OF THE MASTER) were enslaved for life. This quote is from Deuteronomy: “If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.” So, even if male slaves were permitted to go free, the female, non-wife sex slaves of the master were not. He dropped this, so please extend it. Second, I posted analysis in Round 1 that explained that this only applied to Hebrew slaves. Foreign slaves were not accorded that privilege. From Exodus: 44 ” ‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.” These slaves are kept for generations and are not set free. He drops this, so extend it and vote pro. He then strawmans my position. Forced labor by nature does not violate the harm principle. As I explained, the Harm Principle is violated when SOMEONE ELSE, ANOTHER MORAL AGENT restricts your liberty without consent. Go back and read this uncontested analysis from Round 1. This takes care of his straw man that says that we all have to work to survive.He also drops the part of the analysis that states that Slave Exploiters were not punished because slaves were property, and then asserts that I dropped it. So, I will post it again in hopes that it will finally grab his attention. Please go back and confirm that I posted this: “If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property. Exploiting slaves by beating them so that they are not able to be revived for two or three days is exploitation. Vote pro. Finally, he makes up analysis in the end about how forced sexual slavery only occurred if the husband died. This is unsourced, so please do not buy it. In addition, EVEN IF IT IS ARRANGED MARRIAGE, HE DROPS THE ANALYSIS THAT SHOWS THAT ARRANGED MARRIAGE VIOLATES THE HARM PRINCIPLE. Extend that cleanly across the flow and vote pro. RapeHe next asserts that in ancient Israel, rape did not ever occur and that if a woman slept with another man, it was with consent. This is also false. The Bible itself discusses rape of women in Genesis when Jacob’s daughter is raped and when KING DAVID, OVERLORD OF ANCIENT ISRAEL, RAPES AN INNOCENT WOMAN. The fact of the matter is that the claim that women were never raped is absolutely preposterous considering that the Bible itself says it was rape. In addition, “having relations” simply means that they had sex. It does not imply that there was an affair whatsoever. All of this is unsourced conjecture by my opponent. Please look at my opponent’s own source. It explicitly states that the Isaiah source was mistranslated, and not the Deutoronomy passage that I quoted. In addition, my Bible was the Revised Standard Edition, which takes care of all of those problems. Even if his argument is true, it only applies to the previous edition. I hereby declare that I find parts of the Bible despicable. The resolution is true.