The Bible is Law and Should Be Followed Accordingly

I was going to spend an entire round refuting my adversaries contentions, but then decided not to waste the time. Almost everything she argued was not apart of the resolution that we are discussing. Thus it would be a waste of my time and character limits refuting all of them. I am going show how and why below. The first thing we need to address is what a law is. There are a variety of different types of laws and what type of law is not specified in the resolution. Even if we refer back to round 1 my adversary simply claims, she will be arguing against the "following statement". She says "following" but there was nothing to preceded this, so it is quite clear that she meant that she would argue the title of the debate and the resolution at hand. Which is "The bible is law and should be followed accordingly " P1) The bible is lawTypes of law/ By LawMy adversary states this. " However, this is irrelevant to this debate because personal views do not necessarily establish laws that are accepted by the community at large. To see this more clearly, let's expand on the meaning of Common Law by referring to the Wikipedia article "This is entirely false and was not specified nor stated in the resolution. There are laws that govern a community, a company, or even a church. There are regulations when you move into certain homes that require you to uphold home owner associations, there are laws that you have to follow when you become a member of some churches, and there a laws you have to follow when you get a job. Each act independently of each other. I do not have to argue this strictly from a federal perspective. I am simply showing that the bible is a law or (law) to most Christians. (a) Personal views can determine what is law. When a variety of people believe something is wrong or right, it is generally accepted as a law or implemented as law. We can clearly see this when we compare cultures. Take a look at gay marriage. A majority of America has this practice banned, while a majority of Europe accepts it. So what people believe personally does impact how a law is enforced(b) I do not have to defend nor argue that the bible should be a law in America or any other place, but simply show that it is a law for a certain group of people or even persons. She then states this" In essence, our debate term, "law to be followed", refers to a system of laws that the community accepts and adheres to by consensus."She is strictly citing this from a federal perspective. Again take a home owner associations. They have laws that interact independently of stuff that is federal. Not all laws have to be from an across the board perspective. Even in churches you have certain guidelines , laws, and rules that you are expected to follow or you could be asked to leave. Again this is acting independently of something that is federal. Take chick-fil-a, they can fire you from smoking outside of work and even try to limit your legal activities outside of work at the cost of your job. They use to make you sign a waver when you were hired that stated you would uphold yourself to a certain manner, and what that manner happened to be was at their discretion. " Getting fired for smoking is one thing, but what about smelling like smoke? It happened to a Minnesota woman. Six weeks after beginning a job as a receptionist, she says her supervisor told her, "We don't want you smelling like smoke when you come here," according to the local ABC affiliate. If employees believe tobacco — even the smell of it — is creating an occupation-related hazard, they can restrict legal activities outside of work. "[1]There could be a law among fraternity members. Such as if you do not attend a meeting you can be kicked out. This varies by fraternity and sorority. [2] Even churches have rules and laws that you have to follow. [3]Most commonly these are referred to as by laws. By-Law - a rule adopted by an organization chiefly for the government of its members and the regulation of its affairs.The thing to note is that this is the law of that community, such as a church or Christians. So in the Christian community the bible is in fact a law and rule that is followed despite what con claims. Most of her other contentions are irrelevant at this point, because she is trying to push that is should not be a law rather than the fact that it is a law. Stating that something should or should not be a law, does not aid her case. I can claim that gay marriage being illegal should not be a law, but it is. She is simply stating because of interpretation issues, that the bible should have no place as a law which is not the focus of this debate. The fact remains that following the bible is often a by-law of certain church associations and christian communities. Thus fulfilling the first premise in this syllogism. Almost all of my adversaries contentions are about the fact whether it should be law, not the fact that it is a law. There is no point to refute them. We can clearly see the bible is a law among church members and religious organizations. Members are often kicked out for now following the laws of that organization as well, which are generally the teachings in the bible. P2) It should be followed accordinglyThis follows from premise 1 but there is nothing much to argue from this one. If the bible is a law(which it is), and you are a member of the community and joined willingly that says they abide by that law, you should follow it ( or find a new community). This is almost self explanatory. ConclussionMy adversary has not even argued the resolution at hand and is trying to argue things that are not applicable to this debate.Such as(a) The bible should be a federal law or law that governs America, States, and other such places(b) the bible is a federal law (ibid)(c) The bible should not be a lawNone of this is applicable. The only argument she has presented is that it is not a federal law. A law does not necessarily have to be federal for it to be a law, it just has to be accepted and followed by a certain group of people. Which the bible is. She has not met her BOP and is trying to debate off topic. [1] http://news.discovery.com...[2] http://www.sae.net...[3] http://factn.org...