There is at Least One Person on the Earth Who Believes that Parts of the Bible Are Despicable

FrameworkIn my first observation,I discussed the fact that because hatred is based on perception, I have no obligation to prove that those passages actually mean what I think that they mean. I gave you the example of hating Obama because he is Muslim. Larz tells you that this is false because then I am actually hating the evil action and not the Bible itself. This response is inherently problematic because hatred is based purely on perception and not on truth. If I hate broccoli because I think it is red, it does not matter if it really is green because I am perceiving it to have a quality that I dislike. Thus, I only have to prove that I perceive the Bible to say the things that I think it says. In order for Larz to win, he has to actually dissuade me from believing those things, and since I hereby declare that nothing he says will convince me otherwise as long as I am alive, I find the Bible despicable. The impact is that you can vote affirmative based on this one observation. Nothing else that is said in this round even matters if you accept that this idea of perception is true.Even if you do not, I hereby declare that the Bible contains a Creation story in Genesis. I find creation stories despicable because they attempt to explain why man exists. Thus, you can affirm based on this if you do not buy the observation.My opponent agrees to lighten the burden that I present in my second observation. That is fine with me. My third observation was that if Larz wanted to say that the Bible is correct because “God says so”, he has to prove the following five things:1. God exists2. There is only one God and multiple gods cannot exist.3. God’s moral system is outlined in the Bible. All other religions are false.4. The Bible has not been altered in any fashion since it was written.5. Morality is internal to God. In other words, actions are not seen as good only because God says so, and there cannot be any external means through which actions can be judged.He responds to the first one by saying that I said that God exists. I NEVER SAID THAT GOD EXISTS. I SAID THAT HE HAS TO PROVE THAT GOD EXISTS. HE IS LYING ABOUT WHAT I SAID IN ORDER TO BOLSTER HIS OWN POSITION. Since he never proved that God exists, he cannot make this argument.He then claims that I am contradicting myself by claiming that he has to prove that there is only one God. This is also blatantly false because it assumes that morality is derived from gods and not from some other external source. In fact, even the Bible implies that some other source exists when it says in Genesis that God made fish, man, birds, etc. and “SAW that they were good.” The fact that he saw that they were good implies that he was using some external system in order to judge his actions. Larz also drops the final three points, so since he never attacked them, he never fulfills that burden.Finally, he discusses lies and deception. First, the Bible does promote lies, as evidenced by the fact that in Genesis, Jacob deceives Esau and steals his blessing and birthright and lies and steals from Laban. In addition, Abraham sells his wife into sexual slavery twice and lies about it both times, thereby condemning the people that he deceives to a curse. God never punishes these people for their despicable actions, so he condones them and thus promotes both lying and sexual slavery. Since lying is permissible in the Bible, we can assume that the people who wrote down the Bible were following their moral code when they wrote it.In addition, just because people believe in a certain moral code does not mean that they will follow it. Pope Alexander VI despised lying, adultery, rape, simony, bribery, and murder, and yet he was guilty of all of these things. So, just because people recognize that actions are against moral code does not mean that they will not commit them. This means that even if lying and deception are not permitted by the Bible, the people who wrote it down are not automatically blameless.Affirmative CaseFirst, he drops the entirety of my analysis about the Harm Principle and Contactarian moral theory. Extend this cleanly across the flow. The impact is that the inherent, universal moral theory that I am advancing is contractarian in nature, and is not the one being advanced by the Bible. Insofar as this is true, I believe that the Bible is despicable, so you affirm. Do not let him bring up new responses because that is cheating. He already conceded this analysis.SlaveryLarz then tells you that slavery in Israel was actually a good thing and that I am against the beating and rape of slaves rather than slavery itself. First, this is false. As I proved with this quotation from Exodus, slave masters in Israel were permitted to beat their slaves. ““If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.” Second, even if you do not buy this, look to the fact that I explained in my affirmative case why slavery itself is wrong. In my analysis of the Harm Principle, I explained that slavery is wrong because it forces individuals to work for others without their consent. Insofar as this is true, you can extend this analysis and vote affirmative because even my opponent is conceding that the Bible promotes slavery. I have not only proven that slavery exists in the Bible, but that slavery as an institution is wrong and abusive. He then provides you with a quote about compensation. Cross-apply my dropped Exodus analysis which explicitly shows that the Bible allows for beating slaves with rods and getting off scott-free. He next claims that selling girls into slavery is actually arranged marriage. This is false, as proven by the fact that this dropped passage: If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.This passage clearly implies that the enslavement of women is slavery, and not marriage. Even if you do not believe that, this type of arranged marriage is without the consent of women so it violates the Harm Principle and is also immoral. RapeHis response to the first passage about how women are also treated as culpable for the rape is a sexist argument that states if women do not scream, it was consensual. This is completely ludicrous because women are often psychologically unable to resist. According to Lynn Hecht Schafran the National Judicial Education Program, “Other women experience one of two terror-induced altered states of consciousness called dissociation and frozen fright which render them totally passive. For some victims of both stranger and nonstranger rape the psychic stress is so extreme that they dissociate during the Lynn Hecht Schafran Barriers to Credibility 4rape, saying later that they felt it was a terrible dream, or that it was as if the attack were happening to their body and they were watching it from the outside.. . .These phenomena of dissociation and frozen fright were critical issues in two recent state supreme court casesCommonwealth v. Berkowitz15 and People v. Iniguez,16 that illustrate how important it is that judges understand the operation of rape trauma during a sexual assault. “ (Source: http://www.ok.ngb.army.mil...) He responds to my second passage by saying that it is a mistranslation. THIS IS LITERALLY FALSE. THE PASSAGE THAT I CITED WAS FROM DEUTERONOMY, AS EXPLICITLY NOTED IN MY LAST SPEECH. THE MISTRANSLATED SECTION FROM FROM THE BOOK OF ISAIAH AND IS ABOUT VIRGINS, WHICH I DID NOT DISCUSS IN MY LAST SPEECH AT ALL. INSOFAR AS THIS IS TRUE, THE SECOND PASSAGE ABOUT RAPING FOREIGN WOMEN WAS COLD DROPPED IN THE LAST SPEECH. EXTEND IT BECAUSE IT PROVES THAT THE BIBLE PROMOTES RAPE. Since rape is despicable, you affirm.