Christianity is wrong

I will argue that Christianity is morally good. Christianity teaches that it is a good thing to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This is from The Sermon on the Mount: http://en.wikipedia.org... Note in particular the Beatitudes: http://en.wikipedia.org... The beatitudes present in Matthew and Luke are: The poor (Matthew has "poor in spirit"). The text says that theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Mourners (Luke has "those who are weeping"). The text says that they will be comforted (Luke has "will laugh"). The hungry (Matthew has "hunger and thirst after righteousness"). The text says that they will be filled (Luke has "be satisfied"). Those persecuted for seeking righteousness (rather than righteousness, Luke has "followers of the Son of Man"). The text says that theirs is the kingdom of heaven. The beatitudes only present in Matthew are: The meek. The text says that they will "inherit the earth". The merciful. The text says that they will "obtain mercy". The pure of heart . The text says that they will "see God". The peacemakers. The text says that they will be called "the sons of God". This is a pretty powerful moral teaching. Christ didn't say much about dinosaurs anyway or even about seven days. My opponent will say that's not what I meant by "wrong." So we have two definitions of "wrong." I will argue that my definition of "wrong" supports values which are superior to those of my opponent, if any. My opponent will argue that it is not fair to let me take a stand just like the other guy. I quote from http://wiki.idebate.org... Rules During Lincoln-Douglas Debate 1. Each debate involves two debaters, one of whom argues the affirmative side, the other the negative. The affirmative speaker must present a position agreeing with the resolution. The negative debater must disagree with the resolution's statement. (1) In circumstances where a resolution presents two alternatives, (e.g., "the sanctity of life should be valued above the quality of life') a negative side most commonly should argue the alternative to which the affirmative side has given second priority (i.e., 'the quality of life should be should be valued above the sanctity of life'). (2) A negative may choose a third option and argue both alternatives provided by the resolution. (3) A negative debater can also argue a "critique" against a resolution in its entirety. Because productive conflict, or 'clash,' is key to a Lincoln-Douglas debate, each debater should be able to make a positive case for their position and values, as opposed to a purely negative attack on those of their opponent. 2. Lincoln-Douglas is a fundamentally value-oriented (as opposed to policy-focused) debate. Judges must remember that debaters are not required to propose 'plans' for dealing with given situations. The role of debaters is to argue a moral position, and to use logic and ethical reasoning to do so Also note that my opponent should go first with a little bit more coherence and lucidity. Quoting now from http://www.farragut.cps.k12.il.us... Criteria: There a several interpretations of criteria in LD. There is no definitive answer... In any case, by definition, a criteria is a standard, the real question, and one that should be debated in every round, is what it is a standard for and of. It is also critical to know how the value and criteria are intended to relate. Regarding my opponent's thesis: One thing is lacking here, and it is a good point and one made frequently in debating: Who cares? So what? What value do you attach to pursuing this matter? Why are you bringing this up anyway? What is your agenda? Put your cards on the table. Any court of law is going to want to know where you are going with this, and it is important to know why. It is not because we don't want to waste the court's valuable time. It is because the withholding of that information is not fair to your opponent. What you are doing is concealing an agenda. If your opponent does not know what you intend to prove down the road with this conclusion, in debating terms it is like posting an incomplete opening argument that does not attach any value to itself. It cannot be countered with opposing values because there are none to oppose. In layman's terms, so what? Quoting now from http://www.wcdebate.com... There is no question that the way people perceive the world is very different. In many cases, people's refusal to attempt to understand these differences is the cause of much conflict. The kind of questions that I believe L.D. should address are the kinds of questions that everyone should think about because it is these questions that call into question the fundamental assumptions that make us see the world in the way that we do. By calling into question these assumptions, people are better equipped to understand that there are different ways of viewing the world, none of which is fundamentally more legitimate than another. By placing these issues into the framework of debate, L.D. forces young people to expand their own thought processes. This is the aspect of the event that I would like to see grow and in the end, I believe that if this type of L.D. debate becomes more common, people will begin to recognize the value inherent in the activity.