Human Propensity to "Sin"

Ladies and gentlemen, let me remind you of an all-important fact. This debate is not about whether humans have the desire to sin, or whether humans would have a tendency to sin if there were no consequences for it. This debate is about whether humans actually do have a tendency to sin. I will give an analogy for those who do not understand the difference. Consider a scenario where eating meat were made punishable by death tomorrow. Let's assume that people followed this law most of the time, and instances of eating meat became rare. Let's also assume that people still loved meat, and had intense cravings for it. It would simply be incorrect to say that these people have a propensity [tendency] to eat meat. Rather, they have a tendency to avoid meat, even though it's something that in one sense they desire. This is because in another, stronger sense, they desire not eating meat [due to the negative consequences of eating meat]. It should be remarkably clear now that an instinct or desire to commit sin does not fulfill the resolution. It is frankly irrelevant how much people have a low-level DESIRE to sin, or how much they WOULD do it if laws were abolished. Thus, the majority of my opponent's arguments are irrelevant to the resolution, and need not speak more on them. What if's don't matter - this debate is strictly about whether people actually DO tend to sin. My opponent asks how modern law arrived if not through modification of Mosaic law, so I shall answer. Modern systems of law are based far more heavily on ancient Roman and Greek legal systems, and on new ideas that have come about since then. Neither ancient Roman nor Greek legal systems have a basis in Mosaic Law, as Judaism had a very minimal impact in the early development of either nation. Allow me now to finish off with a bulleted recap important points I haven't went over yet this round. CONCLUDING POINTS * My opponent never demonstrated that there was such a thing as divine law. Thus, any voters who choose to hold PRO to the primary definition he gave for sin in R1 should vote CON, as PRO has necessarily failed to affirm the resolution by this standard. Note that all my other arguments were secondary arguments using an alternate definition of sin. * The only example of sin, using the secondary definition, given throughout the first two rounds of this debate was the example of crime. My opponent noted that every year, 11,877,218 crimes are committed in the US. I accepted this statistic as authoritative. Since this is the only statistic given and it was given by my opponent and I have no objection, we should provisionally accept it as representative of humans overall. * Using my opponent's own statistics, if we assume that crime only represents 1% of all wrongdoing in the US - an assumption quite in my opponent's favor when we consider that crime is the only example we've talked about - people seem to sin only an average of once every 100 days. This is extremely rare, considering the frequency with which we interact with one another. For every sinful interaction, there are thousands of non-sinful interactions. Sinning is simply not something humans have a tendency to do. It's a rarity, perhaps thanks in part to criminal justice systems, moral philosophies, good parenting, and perhaps even religion. Sin is not the norm, it's an aberration from the norm. It's not the rule, it's a rare exception to it. Thanks to the social devices in place combating sin, humans are inclined not to sin. And that's enough to negate the resolution. * Further, my opponent has not demonstrated that any desire to sin is hereditary, so even those who are unconvinced by my previous argument should not vote PRO. Ladies and gentlemen, I hope you'll join me in saying that the resolution, at least insofar as this debate and the definitions governing it, has been negated.