The Social Effects of Sin in America

I will state that that my opponent says "I will... defend my position of apostasy" (emphasis added). To have a definition of your own added to an debate demeans the position of a person defending for, or arguing against a topic. It is true that "the dictionary does not take the viewpoint of a particular faith," but that is to make due a proper definition. While various religions have variable definitions on apostasy, the fact remains that apostasy is defined by a dictionary, and not a biased view of religion. As for the final comment in Pro's R2 argument on a synonym of "sin," words to replace such are transgression, violation, or wrongdoing. [1] I would like to iterate In R1 of this argument, I used the "ideas behind homosexuality and conversion" as an example in order to further my argument. The presence of homosexuality in this argument remains, yet the idea of conversion does not, for my opponent has diverged to apostasy; the two definitions by which I clearly defined in R2. I agree with Pro on the basis that these ideas are not important to further this discussion, for they lie under the premise on what are constituted as sins and what are not. However, my opponent - in the same paragraph - states the difference between certain premises that are viewed differently from other religions. I fail to see how these ideas pertain to this argument of "The Social Effects of Sin in America." The idea behind sin in society is "detrimental," but my belief is that sin is not what religion is led to make, but rather - as I stated in R1, "any act regarded as such a transgression.." As mentioned in this round, I have made it clear that synonyms for sin can be constituted as a "transgression, violation, or wrongdoing." The reason that sin has an effect on society is not because of its detriment that pertains to society, but because of the strong, negative connotation that religion has given it - especially on premises of homosexuality and conversion (which are merely two examples). To further delve into the points that Pro has made, "it is religions that define sin and not Oxford linguists" is very much a psycologism. Under what regards do religions define sin (making sin of multiple definitions) and Oxford linguists (creating a single definition of sin) do not? Sin is regarded differently under various religions and to claim that "religions define sin" is inaccurate. To finalize this point of the debate, the claim where Pro states "For my side of this debate to be considered upheld it is enough to prove that in principle sin is bad for society" is really not "enough" to "prove" your "principle." The relevancy that I make is based on your statement in R1 where you claim "[judgment of God] is irrelevant to the case at hand, which is whether or not it affects society" to which I responded by giving you a parameter through which I mentioned the idea of bullying that I did not expand upon because it would prove ineffective to this debate if I did such. By responding in this manner shows that the rise in homosexuality with the rate of suicide is directly correlated. The estimation of how many of these suicides are in tandem with the idea of God's judgment is unknown, but based on the example I gave you, it is prevalent that it is affecting society and its views on this matter.To clarify, my opponent in R1 under his first point thoroughly describes the premise on how homosexuality is a sin by stating that "sex draws a couple closer to together" and "has the potential to create new life" and to "remove sexuality from this context goes against its true meaning and is therefore considered to be sinful" where he claims that "homosexuality is such as case." Later, my opponent then claims "If it is true that homosexuality is a sin, then the promotion of that sin is contrary to the greater good of that society..." (emphasis added). This clarification shows that while my opponent first claims that homosexuality is a sin and later denotes that "if it is true that homosexuality is a sin..." (emphasis added), thus contradicting his two points based on his argument of how sin is viewed. To further this, I would like to point out the example Pro gives on sexuality. To make the argument that something is true - in this case homosexuality - and to say that "society accepts this as true [and] does not put undue pressure on innocent people for their sexual orientation..." is highly fallacious. Based on this, the claim that society accepts the Christian faith as true and they do not put "undue pressure on innocent people" for their religion. As for the latter half, to claim that listening to Britney Spears when you have the option of listening to Jimi Hendrix may be the other way for some and to make this statement is very egotistical. Yet, the difference between bad choices and sin are being argued against here, not in music. [1] http://thesaurus.com...