Human Propensity to "Sin"

General Rebuttals/Responses: * The Mosaic code has not been demonstrated to be of divine origin, and it is certainly not the oldest code of laws. Hammurabi's Code predates Mosaic Law by several hundred years, as do Cuneiform Law, the Code of Urukagina, the Code of Ur-Nammu, the Laws of Eshnunna, the Codex of Lipit-Ishtar of Isin, the Code of Nesilim, and the Hittite laws[1]. * Systems of law today do not rely heavily on mosaic law. There are no longer laws against working on the sabbath, or eating shellfish, or wearing clothing of two different types of cloth, or any of the other uncommon laws found in Mosaic law. Modern law codes call for very few offenses to be punishable by death, in contrast with Mosaic law. The parts of Mosaic Law that are also a part of modern codes of law tend to be laws that have been prevalent throughout the history of law, even before Mosaic law. * My opponent has not provided sufficient reason for us to "suppose" that the Bible is the divine word of a god. Thus, unless my opponent is willing to substantiate his claims, my Contention 1 succeeds. However, many voters will look to the other definitions of sin, so I will continue to argue on other grounds using the secondary definition of sin. * We cannot be morally perfect because while we do not tend to sin, we are capable of it by pure chance we would all commit wrongdoings several times throughout our lives. I am not arguing in this debate that we do not sin, I am arguing that we do not have a propensity for sin. A twenty-sided die rolls ones occasionally, but it does not have a propensity for it. * As noted above, my opponent's arguments that we aren't "guiltless" are irrelevant. I am not claiming that we are guiltless. * It is irrelevant that we "struggle" with peer pressure and with whether or not we should commit wrongdoings. Peer pressure may in certain social circumstances lead to immoral behavior, but in many other situations this regard for what others think about us is a great motivator for moral behavior. Further, the plain fact remains that wrongdoings or "bad actions" are rare events compared with neutral and good actions, it seems the overall winner of the struggle is not sin. * The very establishment of moral codes within a society is part of human nature, so it is irrelevant to take a hypothetical look at what humans might have a propensity for without those codes or any other rules of society. Further, there is much disagreement as to what the long-term outcome would be in a world without laws; there are many who believe that society would end up better off for not having laws - most anarchists hold this position. * Small children are prone to immoral behavior because they are ignorant of right and wrong, of the expectations set on them, and of the consequences of wrongdoings. Thus, it cannot be said that they are committing intentional societal wrongdoings, and therefore this is not an instance of sin and does not show that sin is hereditary. Ironically, what COULD be considered hereditary are the moral values and decency that parents instill in their children - the very things that make sin rare. Responses to numbered points: 1: Millions of felons is not indicative of a propensity to sin in humans. It is not even indicative of such a propensity in those millions of felons. It is merely indicative of the fact that at least once in their lifetimes, those people committed serious wrongdoings. However, even those felons likely were decent in most of their interactions with others, and wrongdoings were likely still rare. My opponent cites a statistic that 11,877,218 crimes are committed per year in the United States. I officially accept this statistic. There are over 310,000,000 people living in the United States[2]. Most people take a large number of actions every day. Let us provisionally make the extremely conservative assumption that people take, on average, one action per day. This results in over 113,150,000,000 actions being taken per year. Given that I am accepting my opponent's statistic for the number of crimes committed as being authoritative, this leads to the conclusion that just over ONE IN EVERY TEN THOUSAND actions is a crime. When we take into consideration that people tend to take far more than one action per day, we see that crime is even more rare than this. This matter of factly IS the exception and not the rule. One in every ten thousand actions is not the norm, it is a deviation from the norm. 2: Crime exists because people have needs, and every once in a while people will resort to unlawful means to fulfill those needs. However, as noted above, crime exists as a very small portion of the actions humans take. 3: Laws were created because people who took control of societies and realized there needed to be standard punishments for misdeeds, rather than allowing for whatever form of retaliation a victim decided proper. As I noted already, though, laws are now a part of the very nature of human society, along with language and many other things our extremely ancient ancestors may not have had, so it is irrelevant to consider a time before laws. My opponent cites some statistics of those who are affected by wrongdoing across the globe. These are all completely irrelevant. We are not arguing whether there is a propensity among humans for being affected by wrongdoing, or whether wrongdoing often has major negative consequences. Wrongdoing certainly is a major problem in society, but that is not what this debate is about. As an aside, it's quite ironic that my opponent chooses to cite slavery as a major example when it is not condemned, and in fact is explicitly allowed for, in the Mosaic law he was attempting to use as an example of divine law. Having responded to my opponent's claims, I will leave it at that, as I have addressed my opponent's relevant concerns. I cede the floor to my opponent. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.census.gov...