Each of the Ten Commandments is either unnecessary or incomplete.

Pro has declared that I have the burden of proof for each commandment, despite his very own words proclaiming the opposite:"If my opponent can convince the audience that just one of the Ten Commandments is complete and necessary for every moral person to follow throughout each of their lives, he/she wins."This quote is the opening paragraph of the resolution. I accepted my burden of proof within the confines of the resolution. My burden was to provide evidence for one commandment. I far exceeded my burden by tackling six. Pro is complaining about this in an attempt to attack my character, not my evidence. (Since he did not supply any sources or evidence of his own, at all.) 　 Pro said: You must prove one of the commandments is complete and necessary (which is what I meant by "infallible") If my opponent failed to properly define the rules for this debate, that's his problem. I followed the resolution. I have committed no offense against my opponent. In fact, he admits to carelessly compiling this debate. He said :"The structure is fairly loose on this one." I'm not sure if this was done out of hubris or apathy, but it only served to backfire. This is a debate, not a forum. You've drawn a serious opponent. I'd advise a little more clarity and a little less condescension for your next debate. Pro said that "Complete" means," for the purposes of this debate's proposition, is "not lacking anything important". " Excellent. That is synonymous with my definition of complete. Final draft, finished product, no more revision added. Pro said: "It should read "Honor thy mother and father, unless they cease to act honorably"." No, it shouldn't. The focus of this commandment is not the legalism. The focus is the word "honor". That's axiomatic. We don't need to add your amendment, because the word "honor" is in direct opposition to the principles of "abusive parents". Pro argued that the commandment states" thou shall no kill", rather than "thou shall not murder". I provided proof that he was wrong. To which he claimed: "Completely irrelevant." False, good sir. It is completely relevant. That proof decimated Pro's argument in it's entirety. In fact, he had nothing more to say about it, aside from red-faced, angry objections. Pro said: "hypothetical scenario depicts the problem this commandments faces when met with an arranged marriage." That's the best argument Pro could provide. If a woman was forced to marry a man, it would be moral for her to cheat on him. Perhaps Pro doesn't understand morality. If this scenario was real, would it not be moral for the wife to abstain from sex with another person, so that she could confront her husband in divorce court without having charges of infidelity brought up against her? In addition, he made his radical assumption without providing statistical evidence that arranged marriages lead to adultery, or that arranged marriages are unhappy marriages. My argument stands unchallenged. Adultery is immoral in every conceivable situation. Pro said: In many cases, reclamation can also be stealing. And my opponent still has not addressed the starving family scenario. No, reclamation is never stealing. If it's truly your property, it's not theft to reclaim it. As for the starving family, you also haven't addressed it. I see no single source that claims stealing food is better than visiting the local food-shelf or (drum roll) your local church, who are honor bound to feed the hungry, the poor, clothe the naked..etc. My argument stands unchallenged aside from more angry protest.Pro gave a scenario about his friend being attacked. He asked if it would be immoral to bear false witness, in order to bring in the offender on rigtfull charges. Again, yes it's immoral. I have already answered this with a solid counter-argument. If the attacker is able to furnish proof that you have lied (proving you where absent from viewing the attack), then he has damaged the credibility of the victim. He will also be able to hold you in contempt of court, criminally charging you with false testimony. That's a felony. Your scenario remains silly. My argument stands unchallenged by any real objections. Pro claims: Thou shall not think what you want. My opponent doesn't address this one. I hate to sound condescending, but what are you talking about? Is this supposed to be a reference to "coveting your neighbors wife"? I addressed it in previous rounds and my argument stands unchallenged by anything of source or merit. Pro's only objection is, that he should be free to desire and acquire anything he wants, unrestricted by method. I clearly showed a victim group in this scenario and proving it immoral to live according to this doctrine of "absolute freedom". His only rebuttal can be summarized as:" Yea, but I still want to do what ever I want, so you're wrong." 　 　 Conclusion: My opponent made a lot of noise and used zero sources. Each of his objections were answered with counter-argument and supporting evidence. I provided proof that his morality creates a victim group in every instance. My burden of proof stands fulfilled by the mere fact that they stand unchallenged by any argument of substance, source or merit. I thank the voter for reading this debate material, and I thank my opponent for a truly entertaining debate. I have enjoyed this debate topic immensely.