Faith is virtuous.

Pro states "becouse I am also aloud to set the standards of the debate as 1rst round is Acceptance and you forfeit the match if you refuse my request, thats a reason." Rounds were not mentioned in the agreed rules, only characters. Therefore you cannot claim any round is an acceptance round as there are no rounds per the rules of the debate, only characters. This was an attempt to eliminate the "forfeiting a round gesture" to get conduct points, and inspire more convincing arguments. Also, shouldn't you just set the standards in the comments section so you can get more space to argue your points in the actual debate? Ironically the person arguing for faith has forgotten the "spirit" of this debate. Great. Oh and logically, your permission to set standards of the debate that may lead to my forfeit isn't a reason to consider anything the bible says to be authoritative on matters of high moral standards. So nice dodge. Pro then says " the 10th commandment is not a thought crime as God is not Big Brother or a goverment... It would be a sin at heart," So you really believe that when you are envious of someone or something your heart is the culprit? If that were true, people who have had the emotional side of their brain damaged by stroke or trauma could still exhibit feelings of envy; due to their brain damage, they lack envy and other emotions. http://www.msktc.org... Conversely, a person with a damaged heart could still envy another person's healthy heart. Thus envy is not a construct of the heart, but the brain. The brain uses thoughts to construct envy. Envy is a crime in the eyes of Christianity. Envy is a thought crime, recognized by god. God punishes you for said crime. This is why the tenth commandment is not virtuous, because even if god isn't Big Brother, he still punishes people for thought crimes. The very idea of a thought crime should send an immoral signal to any human's brain. Pro adds "and [god] does not judge by somebody simply thinking something he judges by your obsession of it..." Obsessions are still just ideas and thoughts that preoccupy people's minds. https://www.google.com... So to examine the deep structure of Pro's quote, god does not judge by somebody simply thinking something, he judges them by their preoccupying thoughts and ideas of it. Contradiction. Does god judge our thoughts or our actions? Given the ten commandments, the answer is both, because envy is a thought crime and commandments 1-9 require your actions to commit. Pro goes on to proselytize with scripture, to which I feel no need to respond, because Pro never addressed my question of Why should I consider anything the bible says to be authoritative on matters of high moral standards? Also the scripture is just a bunch of claims of god judging things, and saying it's righteous or true without demonstrating why or how these things are righteous or true. God is the perfect judge, and that's it, no PROOF necessary. Believing any proposition because there is no proof is gullible and not virtuous. Pro states "Your neighbor has a car you like, and you want a car just like it is not coveting" That's exactly what coveting is. Let's use your analogy. Suppose you never saw your neighbor's car. Would you still want a car just like it? You couldn't, because you never saw the car to be able to want a car like it. So it was your neighbor's possession that made you long for something like it. Sounds like coveting. Then Pro tries to convert a particular preference into an idol by saying "perhaps your neighbor has an awesome boombox in the back of his car and you want just his car in particular it is coveting becouse you are practicing idoltry or the act of worshipping something." So I am worshiping the car, because I prefer it over the boombox? Preferences need not be idols. I prefer water over soda, but I don't make an idol out of water. Pros says "beside the fact you are debating with emotion rather than looking at the situation and using opinion rather than an actual arguement that would be acceptable " Pro's demonstration of Con debating with emotion is that I said punishing people for thought crimes does not show high moral standard. So here's an analogy. You're the principal of a school and two students misbehaving in class are brought to you for their punishment. One of the kids had been stealing other students' pencils, and one of the kids simply wanted other students' pencils because they looked fun to play with. If not wanting others' possessions is a commandment then this principal should surely punish both students equally. Right? Doesn't just thinking about someone's possessions warrant a punishment? Does the principal show high moral standard by punishing the student for thinking about pencils? To me this is devoid of emotion, and should serve as an analogy for why punishing people for thought crimes--a christian virtue--is not of high moral standard. Then Pro creates a false excluded middle "Chastity is a virtue becouse again lust is a sin" This is saying that Chastity is virtuous because its negation is sinful. Pro needs to demonstrate that Chastity, irrespective of its negation, is virtuous. The problem is that Pro never provides reasons for why Chastity has high moral standards or why lust does not have high moral standards. Nice conduct Pro "How would you like it if anouther man slept with your wife when you wern't there?" Hahah. The implication of your question is that if I were there I might like it... I would personally not like that, so for it to happen would be against my and my wife's consent, and therefore not of high moral standard. Pro continues "lust is a sin and having sex out of marriage is considered having sex with anouther man's future/current wife and in all reality is having sex with anouther mans wife" But suppose I were a man who actually enjoys another man having sex with my wife, and my wife also enjoys having sex with another man. How is this sinful? Just because people want to have sex? If wanting to have sex is sinful then god sure picked an awful mechanism for procreation. Thanks for congradulating (purposefully misspelled) me condescendingly when you said "Yes, congradulations you understand that be each of [virtues] can be practiced without spiritulaity but that is a Red Herring debate as that is not the arguement presented." The argument presented is whether or not faith is virtuous. Faith was defined in the rules as belief with spiritual apprehension. Being that faith is one of the christian virtues and the topic of the resolution, it follows that faith's use of spiritual apprehension in contrast to the other christian virtues is related to this resolution and certainly not a red herring. Pro admits "but my Faith is a complete trust or confidence in someone or something, as I feel doctrine does not contradict fact at all." Complete trust/confidence in someone or something isn't faith, because that definition lacks the "trust without proof" clause or the "trust with spiritual apprehension rather than proof" clause. Whether or not doctrine contradicts fact isn't dependent on whether or not you feel it. Pro claims "sience I have already rebuttled your previous claims you lack any substancial evidence beside opinion to back this arguement and therfor have consented to my arguement as I have one more round I will explain Christain faiths virtue's next round." Merely rebutting claims does not make evidence unsubstantial. Though I am not admitting to using opinions for my arguments...using opinions as backing for an argument is not consenting to your opponent's argument. Lastly Pro concludes "So CON has the 'burden of proof' to say without a doubt Christain values are not virtueous" Wrong. You are the Pro of a positive claim and by definition have BoP. I am the con, I simply reject your positive claim and you either meet your burden of proof or you do not. But I will conclude my 10,000 characters with the following: *Pro is attempting to dodge the question "Why should I consider the bible authoritative on matters of high moral standard?" with an appeal to authority that he sets the standards in round 1, which is non existent per the rules, so I must then consent to the bible being authoritative. *Pro attempts to change "no coveting" from a thought crime to a "sin of the heart" to make it seem like god doesn't punish us for thought crimes. Coveting is a construct of the brain, created by thoughts that are punished by god...punishment for thought crimes is not of high moral standard as evidenced by the student/pencil analogy. *Pro's analogy attempted to show a non example of coveting by having you want a car similar to the one your neighbor has. However, this was an example of coveting. *Pro's analogy also attempted to make an idol out of a preference by having you prefer the car over the boombox, and just saying that is worshiping something or idolatry. *Pro attempted an ad hominem by asking if I would want a man sleeping with my wife, to demonstrate his point that lust was sinful. *Pro provided a false excluded middle claiming that chastity is virtuous because its negation (lust) is sinful. *Pro never responded to Con's question about Liberality's and Prudence's contradiction with each other. Again, if spending freely is a virtue, then why should I be careful while spending? or If being careful is a virtue, why should I spend freely? *Pro has yet to demonstrate why belief based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof is of high moral standard. Given the agreed upon definitions, the resolution, and currently Pro's failure to meet their BoP, I continue to reject the claim that faith is virtuous.