Morality comes from evolution processes in society, not from the biblical God, Yahweh.

My opponent seems to not know his history about slavery. The fact that slavery is different back then than it was in the US is fact. This fact is external from the Bible, and if you take any world civ class you will learn this. Slavery dates back to human existence and it has changed over its course of time. The verses you gave me I put into context for you and explained the meaning. What can you NOT comprehend? You literally copy and pasted verses and I explained every one to you. This is not my interpretation but facts! I've told you 3 times now that slavery is very much different than it was in history. I've explained the verses to you, but you still haven't addressed it but simply claim it is wrong. Judges when you go to vote please keep this in mind : He has given me verses, and stated his claims. I refuted his claims and now he says its just my interpretation so I must be wrong. Yet he gives no evidence as to why my claims are wrong but they are based off of emotion. He wants the Bible to be immoral, not because it is immoral. The point of debate is provide evidence for your claim he has not done so. For an example in round 1 he gives me a few verses. (Deuteronomy 21:18-21), (Leviticus 20:3), and (Exodus 21:20). Note in round 2 I explain the verses, and I even tell him the historical context around the verses. He denies it by saying the Bible has too immoral teachings. I explain slavery to him in detail in round 3. He still claims its my own interpretation, but I gave him historical facts that are external from the Bible. He fails to know that the Bible is also a source of history, and from external sources they support what I've told you. http://www.historyworld.net... http://realhistoryww.com... https://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.freetheslaves.net... When presented with facts he will still deny it. I've said all I can say about slavery maybe hearing it from another source can reinforce my point. This debate has turned away from morality (which I was trying to remain) to a debate verses from the Bible. First of you, if you are going to put a verse down please get the correct you. I've refuted this claim many times so I know what verse you are trying to go at. 1 Timothy 2:12. In the case of 1 Timothy, Paul was writing a personal letter instructing Timothy about how to deal with heresy being spread by false teachers in Ephesus. Paul said : "As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer or to devote themselves to myths and endless geneaologies"They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm"" (1 Tim 1:3-4, -7) These false teachers were most likely men, much of the spreading of the false teaching was through women in the congregation. It is likely that most women in the Ephesian church had limited training in Christian theology and that their interest in false doctrine was proving to be dangerous. There is no evidence in the text that he was writing to establish a permanent restriction on all women for all time. It is also very important to understand that the Bible"s ascribing different roles to men and women does not constitute sexism. The Bible makes it abundantly clear that God expects men to take the leadership role in the church and the home. Does this make women inferior? Absolutely not. Does this mean women are less intelligent, less capable, or viewed as less in God"s eyes? Absolutely not! What it means is that in our sin-stained world, there has to be structure and authority. God has instituted the roles of authority for our good. Sexism is the abuse of these roles, not the existence of these roles. Matthew 5:27-3 is avoiding the sin of adultery. Again you must understand the context of the verse and the commentary. This is the sermon on the Mount and Jesus is talking to an audience. He begins to explain what the audience already knows about adultery. Jesus is asking his audience to consider that unfaithfulness begins not in the actual act of adultery, but when one looks lustfully at a woman. The word translated "lustfully" is related closely to the word "covet." So to look at someone with lust is to want, in some way, to own or possess them. To lust after someone is to view them as an object, an object that exists to meet your needs, rather than as a person to respect and honor as one of God"s very own children. Now you said this is a bit psychotic but in fact its logical. Its quite simple if you had an infected hand that was causing you pain would you cut it off? Jesus goes on to tell His listeners what they should do if some part of their body causes them to sin. He answer is very simple and straightforward. If your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. And what is the reason He gives for such radical behavior? Because "it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell." It is better, Jesus tells His listeners to love being righteous than to hold on to some old thought patterns, indulgences, manipulations, that we have come to think of as being a part of who we are. Cut out those things which are keeping you from experiencing the full life of Christ. Jesus" intention for us, God"s eternal purpose for us, is that we be truly and completely holy, whole, like Him. To be righteous is to be all one thing--full of the good life of God, every nook and cranny of our being filled with His joy and love. Who would want to cling to some destructive habit or indulgence and risk losing life itself? My opponent admits that I am right regarding western laws have developed from the Bible. Our basic laws and moral values developed from the Bible that I've given him quotes and examples of that he yet has to refute. Anyway he admits that Western law has basis on the Bible. When you go to vote please be reminded of this, he openly admits that I am right. He claims to demonstrate more knowledge than me on the Bible, but I yet he can't comprehend the core principles of the Bible. He still doesn't know who Jesus is or his relation to the world. I've explained every verse he has given to me, I've refuted everything. He claims everyone's interpretation is different of Jesus, but I see this is a cop-out. He can't explain his own interpretation or give any input on the topic. He claims our morals are terrible with God, yet how basic core laws of society stem from God. My opponent still has NOT answered my question. Judges take note I've asked him in round 1 what is the basis of moral value if not for God? And if there is no God, what moral accountability do we have? He has not answered these questions. My opponent goes in circles, he never addressed what I said about the verse but claim they aren't true. His claims are based off of emotions not facts. I give him the context of the verses but he ignores it and says its not true. This is a fallacy called Hitchens's razor. If you make claims based off of emotions and not facts I can dismiss them without facts or evidence. I've debated this with multiple atheists and they at least take what I say of these verses, and not deny it because they don't want to believe in the Bible. I recommend you watch a few scholars on this debate. Dr.James White is one I recommend you watch. It seems as though even if the truth smacked you in the face you would still deny it. You seem to be one of these atheists who can't stand the fact at being wrong. He still rejects that the laws are God-given and claims they can't be from the Bible because it is immoral. So let me refute this with the little bit of characters I have left. Civil Government is divided into Three Parts: The Bible: Isaiah 33:22 says The Lord is our "judge", "lawgiver", and "king" The parallel in our Constitution is that the federal government is divided into three branches: Judicial, legislative, and executive.No human can be trusted with all three functions, so our Constitution separates them into three branches, with each branch having checks on the powers of the other branches. Tyrants seek to exercise all three functions. Obama is making Congress irrelevant: When they refuse to pass a law he wants, he implements it by "executive order" or "agency regulation". He"s making the judicial branch irrelevant by ignoring their decisions which go against his will. He is a hypocrite, first he claims I am right about western laws being from God. Then he says they can't be from God because they are not moral? Which is it? Be consistent in your argument. Judges note the multiple fallacies in his arguments. Thank you for this debate! Up to the judges now. Good luck