Christian Ethics according to Liberal "Christian" Sects are unchristian.*

I appreciate that my opponent has come back in time to finish this debate. My opponent has the audacity to state that I have been discourteous and am worthy of losing the conduct point. 1. My opponent clearly failed to give a firm resolution in R1. It was vague and could have easily have been interpreted to pick only one contention from the list. Furthermore my opponent's argument that I should debate all 7 resolutions in two rounds (the last round of which should be a concluding round in which no new points are made is ridiculous. 7 resolutions in 2 rounds (1 if you properly use the last round). I merely saved the debate and my opponent has furthered in destroying it by wasting an entire round by forfeit, and even daring to declare that 7 resolutions could be possibly debated in 2 (really 1) round(s). 2. My opponent states: "The Reason their is Space for 5 is that all Propositions are negatable with ease. You failed the moment you except the debate." In the comments section which is extremely arrogant. "I suggest you select a second Motion." Same arrogance. 3. My opponent states: "Please don't use semantics. Example: "mankind doesn't mean human..."" My opponent predicts and expects me to use semantical arguments which is also insulting as I have not given any reason for him to put such a warning. 4. My opponent forfeited a round. For these reasons my opponent should clearly lose the conduct point. The fact that he claims I should lose one is laughable, furthermore the attempt to use his vague resolution as an attack against me is despicable. "Due to your Motion Selection theses definitions are Irrelevant" No, they are clearly relevant to the debate, as the two definitions are the two vague terms in your affirmation. ====Argument==== "The Law of Moses, is the code of Christianity" The law of moses was clearly disbanded when Christ came. See the following verses: Romans 10: 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. Galatians 3:23-25 (New International Version) 23Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law. Ephesians 2: 15 by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace Therefore my opponent's entire argument based on the old testament is irrelevant, vague and misinterpreted. It shows my opponent's clear lack of understanding of Christianity. This is also the reason that Christians are allowed to eat pig, and do many of the things that orthodox Jews aren't allowed to do. Furthermore Jesus states: Matthew 22:36-40 (New International Version) 36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[a] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[b] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." Clearly the claim that it homosexuality is a sin hangs on neither of these two commandments. My opponent has acted arrogantly, put forth a half hearted argument that misuses old testament law when it is clearly irrelevant, and has attempted to claim the conduct point as his own when he clearly deserve to lose it. I suggest you take this debate seriously and put forth an argument that is worth refuting. Thank you.