Resolved: That Atheism is more desirable to general society than Christianity.

Ladies and gentlemen, I believe this entire round has been debated through a misunderstanding by the affirmative. His examples used in each argument do not exemplify Christian teachings, but rather old Jewish laws. For this reason, he has not upheld the resolution. This will be discussed in this first negative constructive after the negative philosophy has been presented. The value of the negative in today's debate round is that of Morality. Since the affirmative did not provide an alternative, whoever upholds the value of Morality best truly wins the debate. The central idea of the negative case is that since Christianity provides a moral code, it is more desirable to general society than Atheism, which presents no moral code. This will be fully illustrated in later contentions. The criterion, or method of achieving this value, is that of Encouraging Christianity. This can be done by Christians and non-believers alike. Throughout this round, we will see that encouraging Christianity betters society because it lowers crime and influences non-believers and believers alike to remain good citizens. With the most fundamental thoughts presented, let's look into four main contentions, or reasons to vote for the negative side. Contention 1: A Moral Code Is Desirable to General Society A moral code presents an influence to humans to behave in good conduct, whether they are a Christian or not. In his book "More God, Less Crime", Byron Johnson illustrates through statistics that when a moral code represented within a society, crime is lowered. (1) A moral code, especially one stemming from Christianity, benefits society because of influence; when more people are doing good deeds and remaining righteous, others naturally follow along. Crime is lowered; families are stronger; and businesses can be more successful. Thus, a moral code is desirable to general society. Contention 2: Christianity Presents a Moral Code As explained above, Christianity influences society in a good way by lowering crime, strengthening families, and making businesses honest and successful. But, why is this the case? Where is the most basic Christian moral code? I think looking at the ten commandments is our best bet. "Thou shalt not murder." "Thou shalt not steal." "Thou shalt not commit adultery." The list continues. These basic "don't's" provide a foundation for a moral code upon which others can build. Christianity presents a moral code. Contention 3: Atheism Presents No Moral Code Because Atheists do not believe in a God, they have no source for a set moral code. Generally, any moral code they present is subjective to one's own opinion. However, morality, by nature, must always be true; it cannot be subjective. Otherwise, that which is right to one person might be wrong to another, like sexual acts outside of marriage and lying. Atheists cannot answer fully whether a true, consistent moral code exists or not, because morality necessitates a founder. Man cannot create morality, because we break it all the time. Morality must come from a source that does not infringe upon it; otherwise, morality is once again subjective. For Christianity, the source of our moral code comes from God the Creator. Christianity presents a consistent moral code, while Atheism fails to present any of which to speak. For this reason, Christianity is more desirable to general society than Atheism. With the negative contentions out of the way, I'll move on to refute the affirmative points. Refutation Contention 1: Old Jewish Law Is Not the Current Christian Moral Code The main problem with the affirmative is that every Scripture verse he counts is that of old Jewish law. None of the examples he gave in his last argument came from the New Testament, which gives us today's commands. Now, am I saying morality changed? Not at all, but the affirmative entirely misunderstood the context in which these verses were written. The verses he lists do not command us today to carry out these actions; they are a record of the Old Jewish law. If you have a problem with them, take it up with the Jewish congregation; they are not Christian laws. Also, these are, of course, extreme punishments, but they are still punishments for wrong-doing. We still have them today; murderers get life in prison or the death-sentence. Thieves get prison sentences. The difference is that the Old Jewish laws were far more extreme, but they still punished sin. To summarize, because the affirmative presented no real Christian principles that reject a moral code, he fails to uphold the affirmative side. Contention 2: "Christians" Aren't Christians He gave a few examples in his opening arguments of certain "Christians" or groups of "Christians" that did horrific things. However, this is not real Christianity. Whether they did it in the name of Christ or not, it isn't endorsed under Christ's teachings. An examples is Westboro Baptist. They claim to be people of Christ, and yet they spew hate. The Bible clearly says hate is murder, so Westboro is not upholding the teachings of Christ. That's why we must be careful in deciding who's Christian and who's "Christian". The true Christian upholds the teachings of Jesus Christ, where murder, greed, lying, and so many other acts "Christians" have done are entirely wrong. Furthermore, look at what true Christians do. They donate to charities. They love the sinner, hate the sin (homosexuals, sexually promiscuous, etc.). They bless those who curse them. They help people in need. They give to charity. The list continues. There is a difference between Christians and "Christians". The true ones follow the teachings of Christ, and the affirmative has not proven that true Christians harm society. (Also, God and science can co-exist, but that is a debate for another time.) Contention 3: No Reason to Prefer While he (inefficiently) argued against Christianity, he never provided any reason why Atheism is more desirable. He listed many things Atheists don't do, but he never provided any reason as to how Atheists benefit society and make it desirable. For all these reasons above, I ask for a negative vote. Source: http://www.amazon.com...