The 10 commandments are a JOKE!

Are the 10 Commandments a joke? What does my opponent mean by this? I do not think he means that Moses was pulling a prank. I think, rather than trying to say Moses was not serious, that he means that we should not take the 10 Commandments seriously. At the end of the first round, he says that it is my job to prove that the 10 Commandments are worthy to be followed. While that isn’t quite the same as taking them seriously (which is what I take to be the negation of the thesis of this debate), it is at least related. What are my opponents objections to the 10 Commandments? My opponent objects that the reason there are 10 is that they are "artificially inflated" to "sell better." He speculates that some religious leaders met in a tent and created this list because people are stupid and would believe anything they are told. He never gives any reason to prefer his speculation to the biblical narrative. After asserting his speculation, he speculates further on why there are ten commands instead of some other number. My opponent thinks ten is a good marketing number. Of course, he lives in a society which places a high value on the number 10 and uses a base 10 numbering system. But, it seems like seven could have been the more likely choice in the ancient Hebrew society. Every 7 days they observed the Sabbath. Every 7 years they had a Sabbath year. Every 50 years there was the year of Jubilee. This was the Sabbath of Sabbaths, the year after 7 times 7 years. Animals went onto the Ark in sets of twos and sevens. Jacob worked 7 years for each of his wives. When Joseph was in Egypt there was 7 years of plenty and 7 years of famine. The Feast of Unleavened Bread lasts 7 days. It was to be after 7 days that a male child would be circumcised. I could go on and on. It is not the case that 10 played no role of importance in that culture. There were the 10 plagues the were brought on Egypt. The Day of Atonement was on the tenth day... of the seventh month. But, it is not obvious that the 10 commandments are 10 because the number 10 sounds important or official. So, if he is going to build some sort of case from this, he needs to show that the number 10 would make marketing sense in ancient Israel and not the present-day U.S. But then again, so what? Suppose it was put in the form of 10 commands for the purpose of making it easy to remember or to emphasize it's importance. That does not prove my opponent's speculation that they are contrived as a form of securing power, let alone that they are "joke" or unworthy of being followed. My opponent that the first three commands consist of "spooky language" designed to scare and control people. My opponent dismisses these as having to do with "superstitious mumbo jumbo" but gives no reason for us to think of Christian theism in this way. Christian theism has been well defended and argued for. It will take more than a label and a "pppppffttttt" to show that these commands are a joke. My opponent says that the command to honor your father and mother is designed to control people and that most parents do not deserve respect. This objection comes from a loaded and oversimplified understanding of biblical ethics. It is generally a good thing for you children to obey their parents. You children may not be able to understand dangers or consequences that their parents can. Generally speaking, this could be true of older children as well. Generally, parents seek the well-being of their children. But, the objection comes in when parents are bad and not seeking the well-being of their children. Or, perhaps in instances when otherwise good parents break character and do not seek the well-being of their child. What are the children supposed to do? Are they just supposed to obey, to their own detriment? This objection hinges on the idea that "honor" should be taken to mean "unconditionally obey." But the text gives us no reason to think that this is what it means. And looking at the whole of the Bible, you'll see that it is full of examples of civil disobedience and the idea that unconditional obedience is reserved for God alone. What happens if a parent tells their child to steal? Are we to believe that the child must break one of the commands. I imagine my opponent might think this. But there is no need to except under the unwarranted meaning my opponent is forcing on the text. My opponent wants to combine lying and stealing into the category of dishonesty. I don't know why my opponent wants to combine commandments. Even if you can boil down the 10 Commandments into 2 commands, it does not invalidate them, make them a joke, make them unworthy to be followed or make them in any way bad. I would say you can sum up them up in two commands: You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. You shall love your neighbor as yourself. When you summarize or give the principle they are derived from, you don't make them a joke. Nor do you make them unnecessary or superfluous. How do you love God? Don't follow after other gods or take his name in vain. How do you love your neighbor? Don't steal his things, don't sleep with his wife, etc. Expanding on ideas or detailing them is not bad. As far as I am concerned, this is a wasted effort on the part of my opponent. If he was more familiar with the Bible, perhaps he would know that Paul does this in Romans 13:9 when he says, 'For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”' But Paul is not disparaging the commands he lists, even inadvertently. My opponent likewise wants to combine adultery and coveting your neighbor's wife, but in a way that makes it mainly about adultery. I've already addressed the idea that combining commands doesn't discredit them. So, I'll address the idea that we shouldn't have a command not to covet your neighbor's wife. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (Matt 5:27-28) My opponent agrees with Jesus when he says that coveting your neighbor's wife is marital infidelity, just in your mind. But, consider that this lust is the natural precursor to adultery. Adultery typically doesn't happen without it. So, perhaps my opponent is wrong to dismiss this aspect of it. My opponent makes an error here about what the 10 Commandments are. He says, "I don't think you should outlaw fantasizing about someone else's wife." If he means we should not criminalize it, which is what I take him to mean, then he is right. But the 10 Commandments are not purely criminal law. They are at least moral law, but not all of them are civil law. In the passages where the commands are given there are no civil penalties attached. And, even though some of the commands are reiterated elsewhere in more detail and given civil penalties, not all of them are. Coveting is never "outlawed" in the sense that it is criminalization or given a civil penalty. My opponent says coveting your neighbor's goods is what drives the economy and creates jobs. Suppose I go to my neighbor's house and he shows me some sort of tool that he has that simplifies his life. Suppose I think to myself, "That is a nice tool and it would help me to have one too. I should look into buying one." Is that coveting? No. But it does affect the market since it will likely result in me purchasing the tool. Coveting has to do with desiring something that is not rightfully yours. The commands concerning coveting all involve things that belong to your neighbor. The passage begins by talking about his house. This is probably something that, at the time this was written, was fairly unique to your neighbor. Ideal Homes (or any other builder) were not cranking out houses that are exactly the same. It doesn't forbid wanting a home. It then moves to his wife. As my opponent has acknowledged, this is a specific married woman. It does not forbid wanting to find a wife of your own. The same things can be said for the male servants, female servants, oxen, and donkeys. This isn't about wanting things that are for sale on the market, but about wanting the specific things your neighbor owns. Just as coveting your neighbor's wife is related to adultery (which my opponent acknowledges), coveting possessions is related to theft. My opponent objects that "religion has never really had a problem with murder." My opponent claims that according to religious folk, murder is negotiable. He then throws a variety of events together and tells us religious folk are actually okay with murder. But notice what he doesn't do. He doesn't say that the command to not murder is bad. He seems to agree with it, he simply thinks people don't follow it. But that isn't a problem with the command but the people. I would make a couple more observations: The Bible prohibits killing but allows for special cases where it is okay. And, unless my opponent is an extreme pacifist who doesn't allow for self-defense, he allows for special cases too. Principle and practice are different. The whole notion of a hypocrite depends on this idea. The existence of someone who doesn't practice their claimed principles doesn't automatically invalidate the principle.