The Bible holds more virtue than any other book!

Going through Pro’s numbered list.1. Reaching people and transforming lives can be a positive or negative thing. Pro doesn’t use this claim of reach and transformation to support any of the ongoing arguments, and so this point can be discarded.2. Pro claims the world displays virtue written inside the Bible. Given the state of the world, I’d need to see evidence for this claim to accept it, and it borders on being a new argument in the final rebuttal round. Regardless, Pro doesn’t address the argument that writing words on an object transfers no virtue to the object itself, which is necessary to gain ground here.3. Pro claims the Bible gives unmeasurable hope and faith, but doesn’t elaborate on what argument this is relevant to or what aspect of virtue he hopes to prove by this. If Pro meant it as an argument for beneficial quality, he needs more support for why hope and faith is beneficial, as I can think of many instances where hope based on faith is problematic, parents praying instead of taking their sick children to a hospital, for example. They have unmeasurable hope and faith, but I'm doubtful that's a good thing. Of course, since Pro doesn't make a link between this and any aspect of virtue we're arguing about, it's irrelevant to a vote decision.4. Pro claims the Bible has given something for thousands of years before matchbooks existed. I’d first ask him to check his timeline, because ‘thousands of years’ seems slightly off. Beyond that, he doesn’t explain what it is the Bible is giving, why the length of time matters, or what relevance this has to the aspects of virtue under discussion. All of these items are too loosely connected to any of the ongoing arguments (what the aspects of virtue are and how they apply to the different books) to carry weight in a final decision. ConformityAfter that, Pro talks about conformity, and makes the argument that the matchbook cannot conform to standards because men conformed it. Unfortunately for his argument, he didn’t use a definition of conform. I define conform as “to be in agreement or harmony —used with to or with [1]. ” The matchbook is in harmony with the standards of safety and quality required of it. No action is required of the matchbook, conformity denotes a state of being that is applicable to inanimate objects, whereas other aspects of virtue’s definition were not applicable as they required actions. Whether you agree that those standards of safety and quality constitute a standard of right, please accept it as such for the purposes of this debate, given that it was never challenged by Pro. Pro suggests that many Bibles have conformed to Man’s will and not God's, but no examples or argumentation is present to support this. The only example Pro gave anywhere in the debate was the Bible conforming to standards of slavery and discrimination. If you accept this, then given our discussion of shared morals, it’s certainly not conforming to a standard of right. If you reject this, the Bible isn’t conforming to a standard at all, where the matchbook is. In either case, the matchbook wins the point. ConclusionConformity was the only aspect of virtue that Con identifiably challenged in R5, so extend my unchallenged arguments on all other points. Having countered the challenge on conformity, I repeat my summary from R4 of the six aspects of virtue. The six aspects of virtue:A conformity to a standard of right: The matchbook conforms to a standard of right, the Bible purports to set or be a standard. If the Bible does conform to a standard it isn’t a standard of right (at least as argued by Pro in this debate. )A particular moral excellence: Books cannot take morally correct actions and avoid wrong ones. N/AA beneficial quality: Completely subjective to the user/reader. The objects’ qualities are beneficial or not based entirely on how they are used or interpreted, they hold no such quality themselves. Manly strength or courage: A book cannot be courageous, N/AA commendable quality or trait: Redundant to beneficial qualityA capacity to act: A book cannot act. N/AThe matchbook beats the Bible in the aspect of conformity, and Con dropped the arguments against the other points in his R5. Thank you for reading, and please vote Con. [1]. http://www.merriam-webster.com...