Each of the Ten Commandments is either unnecessary or incomplete.

Worshipping one particular deity over another in no clear way benefits to your well-being. You could be an atheist who worships no gods, or a pagan who worships them all; it is simply unrelated to physical and mental health. And, of course, we can think of examples where this commandment is actually detrimental to well-being. For instance, if I had been born in certain places in the Middle East and worshipped Jesus instead of Allah, I could suffer horrible consequences such as execution. Revised version: "You shall have freedom of religion, and you may worship whichever gods please you, or none at all. "2. This one also seems greatly irrelevant to physical and mental health. There is no clear connection at all between not creating a likeliness of things in the ocean and well-being. In fact, by this standard, Finding Nemo is quite sinful. Revised version: "You shall have freedom of press, and you may make images of whatever you like, be them real or constructs of the imagine, to educate or entertain or anything in between or for no reason at all. "3. Screw this commandment and screw God. There. I feel no physical or mental harm from having typed that. In fact, I feel a little better. Revised version: "You shall have freedom of speech to say whatever you want. "4. For those who do not know, the sabbath is from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday. This means no one at all is allowed to work during this time. It is prohibited for teachers to educate, for the police to respond to calls, and for doctors to perform surgery. If you can't see why this is detrimental to our overall well-being, then I don't know how else to convince you. Revised version: "You shall have freedom to work whenever you want to or need to. Do not neglect your duties just for the sake of neglecting them. "5. Now we're past the silly ones. This commandment seems to be a good one on the face of it, but what of a child who's been abused (physically and/or sexually) by his parents? Should this child still honor his/her abusers? No; almostanyone can have a child, from pedophiles to sociopaths. This does not automatically place them on a high pedestal to be honored. Revised version: "You shall honor whomever you feel is deserving of your reverence, and if that means no one, then so be it. "6. This one appears to be solidly virtuous, yet is very much incomplete. I think we can all agree that killing people is generally not a good way to promote health. But what if someone attacks you or a loved one first? It should be within your right to defend yourself as necessary. Ideally, you would be able to stop your attacker without killing him, but that is not always a viable option. What if a rapist breaks into the apartment of an eighty-year-old woman who happens to keep a loaded gun by her bedside? I don't know what kind of grandmothers you've encountered, but most of the ones I've met have been, at the very least, unable to expertly perform mixed martial arts in such a way as to demobilize an attacker. Even more obviously, this ambiguous commandment completely rules out the very basic practice of hunting or killing for survival. Should we all follow this, we would have to mimic vultures and wait for our prey to die on its own. Revised version: "You shall not kill another human, unless it is necessary for your survival. "7. Again, another one which, on the surface, appears virtuous, but is incomplete. What if, for instance, you lived in a foreign country and were forced into an arranged marriage with someone who you've never even met. This would make you and the one who you actually love victims to a terrible scenario. Would cheating on your stranger of a spouse for the one you actually love be the appalling act this commandment would have you believe it is? I assert not, and this should be obvious to any morally-driven human being. Revised version: "You shall have freedom to sexually express yourself as you please with whoever is of age and consent. "8. Surely, this must be a perfect law, right? No one likes to have their stuff stolen, so therefore, no one should steal other people's stuff. Right? Not quite. I shall call the problem faced by this commandment the Aladdin Dilemma, and anyone familiar with the film may understand why immediately. Imagine you are homeless, and have been for awhile. You're hungry so you beg for change, but no one will give you even a nickel. There are no homeless shelters nor soup kitchens in the entire town. You could, perhaps, travel to a city that has one, but in which direction? Everyone is either unable or unwilling to point the way. You could dumpster dive for old scraps, but that might be even more harmful to your health than remaining hungry, considering the bacteria that certainly would have made the scraps their home by now. Your only option, then, is to steal food so that you don't starve to death. Is this, though, morally right, even if it is necessary for your own survival? After all, you are taking away food from potential customers who would have bought it. And the grocery store you stole from would not gain profit. It should be evident, though, that preventing your stomach from devouring itself does, indeed, have more benefit than harm. The potential customers who would have bought whatever you stole will not suffer nearly as much, as they can simply buy something else. Equally, the owners of the grocery store may take a small financial hit, but they will not suffer nearly as much as you would have by letting yourself starve to death. Now let's look at another dilemma presented by this commandment: what if someone broke into your home, stole all the money in your secret hiding place (say, six-hundred dollars), and made off with it without leaving any evidence for the police to prosecute him. You, however, knew the robber personally and knew that he had done this. He even admits it to you in conversation. I assert that, without any other option (as the police are unable to help you), it is not morally wrong to steal back the money that was rightfully yours to begin with. Revised version: "You shall not steal something that should not belong to you, unless it is necessary for your survival. "9. To "not bear false witness" is a particularly vague phrase (much of the reason why this commandment is incomplete). Many people interpret it to mean "not lie". However, we can think of a thousand or more examples where lying gives only benefit to any parties involved. Little white lies, such as "No, that doesn't make you look fat" or "Your baby sure is cute", are obvious examples. A more serious example could be when an atheist nurse is care-taking a very religious and elderly patient who begins to doubt her faith. "Do you think there's a Heaven," she asks on her deathbed. It is not morally wrong to lie in this situation, as it only makes the patient feel better in her final moments with no negative repercussions to well-being at all. Revised version: "You shall not lie, unless lying does more good than harm. "10. This commandment may be as silly as the first four. It states that if your neighbor has nice things, you shouldn't yearn to have them. I must say, I'm relieved the United States doesn't get its legal inspiration from the commandments, for capitalism would surely crumble quickly under a law such as this. Furthermore, this commandment condemns thought crime, something which harms utterly no one. Revised version: "You shall have freedom of thought and desire, and the freedom to strive to get the things you desire, if it so pleases you. "In conclusion, I have shown that each and every one of the Ten Commandments is either incomplete or unnecessary for morally guiding the lives of everyone. Unless my opponent can show why just one of my revised versions is not better than the original, your vote should go to Pro.