The Bible holds more virtue than any other book!

Thanks to Pro for continuing the debate, and while I criticise some tactics in this round, no offense is meant.DefinitionsPro and I agreed in R2 to define virtue as, “A conformity to a standard of right : morality b: a particular moral excellence. A beneficial quality or power of a thing. Manly strength or courage : valor. A commendable quality or trait : merit. A capacity to act : potency."Pro does not now get to claim that virtue has too many meanings to be properly defined. I protest that it is very poor form to quote me saying, “I accept Pro's definition of "virtue" as a multifaceted term meaning” as if I support the lack of a definition, when the omitted portion of that very sentence gives the definition we agreed to. This is quote-mining and misrepresentation, and it is not appreciated.Pro’s complaints that I am trying to “holdback some virtue and only allow certain types” are really complaints that I am holding Pro to the definition that he himself provided.Pro takes a creative approach with the definition of ‘holds’, claiming that it means “to be filled by: contain.” It makes more sense to use the definition from Pro’s same dictionary link, “To have as a chief characteristic or quality”. To “be filled with more virtue” or to “contain more virtue” makes no sense unless it is used in a metaphorical manner to mean the other definition (that is, if you turn the bible and shake it, virtue doesn’t actually fall out), and Pro can gain no ground from equivocating on the senses in which the term is used.Thus the resolution means, “The Bible has as a chief characteristic or quality more conformity to a standard of right, particular moral excellence, beneficial quality or power, Manly strength/courage, commendable quality, and capacity to act than a matchbook,” which is how the arguments have progressed to this point. Now, some of those elements are not relevant. As Pro says, “books are objects that are unable to move, speak, act, and have courage.” This eliminates strength/courage and capacity for action. That others can increase those qualities by using the book, doesn’t grant those qualities to the book itself.Conformity to a StandardPro continues to state that the Bible is god setting a standard without making an argument as to how it still captures this element of virtue. Pro hasn’t argued against the conformity of the matchbook. Con wins this point by default.Moral excellencePro asserts twice (once during the ‘hold’ argument and once in the final paragraph) that the virtue is part of the Bible, not the people reading it, but the argumentation to support these claims is lacking.The first time, he claims that since the words in the Bible might inspire people to be virtuous, the Bible is virtuous. I refer again to my argument of the carved rock. Placing words onto an object does not make that object virtuous. Otherwise the rock would be virtuous if we carved ‘virtue’ on it. Look at the definition of moral excellence, “the quality of doing what is right and avoiding what is wrong[1].” As we have established, books cannot act. They cannot do things or avoid things, and so, just like the rock, they cannot possess moral excellence.The second time, he asserts this inside his final paragraph about scheming sinners, bible stories, and link spam (the arguments inside those links cannot be considered as Pro’s). Pro talks about “this record” without establishing the record he refers to, and generally fails to link his claims here to an argument. I would like to highlight the final sentence though, referring to people who abide by the Law of the Bible wholeheartedly “These people did not put this in the Bible but pulled it from within the Bible,” as this flows into my next point.Beneficial qualityWhat’s interesting to me, is that the Bible is the purported Word of God establishing this Law of the Bible, but what is pulled from the Bible and believed wholeheartedly as Biblical law is constantly changing according to which person you ask in which culture at which time. Pro can look at the Bible, come up with a list of Bible verses that match what our shared culture views as desirable and say, “This is what God wants. The Bible is setting the standard that this is the right way to behave,” and I would be unlikely to have many objections to his proposed behaviors despite disagreement over their foundation.The problem is, Bible-believers have done that through every stage of development culture has gone through since there was a Bible, only they’ve picked different verses and interpreted them into different narratives and moral structures. Believers have sincerely claimed Biblical support for slavery and patriarchal dominance over women (as have their opponents), and while Pro denies that these things are “justified” per se, he agrees that slavery and injustice is Biblically “allowed to conform to man's moral codes.” The Bible sets the standard for behavior, but when it can be equally in tune with slavers’ morals in the ancient world as it is with egalitarians’ morals today, any beneficial qualities are a result of being read by the latter instead of the former.God never steps in to settle the matter or offer a definitive version, which leaves Pro’s claim that the beneficial quality of the Bible is being an extremely complex “Creator's instruction manual for a successful fulfilling life” rather lacking. Apart from failing to meet BoP for that claim, complexity by itself is not beneficial, and the Bible is certainly not written like an instruction manual. Rather, it’s a grand buffet of a read, where any instruction can be found, interpreted, or justified. It’s not an instruction manual, it’s a menu.Any beneficial quality from the Bible comes from people interpreting it in beneficial ways instead of non-beneficial ways, not from the Bible itself.Odds/Ends (Beauty and Polemics)Beauty as virtue is a new argument and should not be considered according to Pro’s rules put forth in R1. Even if it was considered, Pro doesn’t support that the Bible is beautiful, and it’s an entirely subjective evaluation. I deny the Bible is beautiful, and thus Pro’s argument is refuted.Pro’s virtue in polemics section is disconnected from this debate. Intellectual honesty in argumentation is desirable, but not a relevant point to make here.Summary:Here are the six aspects of virtue and how the debate stands at this point:A conformity to a standard of right: The matchbook conforms to a standard, the Bible purports to set or be a standard.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 leads on conformity.[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...