The 10 commandments are a JOKE!

My opponent is right (in a meandering, indirect way) that I have not yet made a positive case for my position. I will make a positive case this round. But, I want to be clear that I do not believe the burden of proof rests solely on me. It seems clear to me that my opponent does not believe the debate topic to be identical to the thesis of which we are either pro or con. So, he insists that while I am Con with respect to "The 10 Commandments are a joke," I am supposed to argue for the proposition that the 10 Commandments are worthy to be followed in today's society. I don't mind arguing that the 10 Commandments are worthy to be followed, but I don't think my opponent should be free of obligation to argue for the idea that the 10 Commandments are a joke. I would also like to point out that in Round 1, my opponent implicitly agreed that some of the commands are good. Now, amid my opponent's verbose, incoherent ramblings he has some sort of unclear objection to me using the debating convention of referring to him as "my opponent." Apparently, it renders him unable to read or understand any argument that follows. So, for his sake, I will address him directly for the rest of the debate. Before I make my case, I want to make clear what I am not arguing. I am not arguing that the 10 Commandments should be civil law. They were not civil law when they were given, they were moral law. The passages in which the 10 Commandments are given do not prescribe civil punishments. While some are reiterated in passages prescribing civil law, others are not. What I am going to argue is that the 10 Commandments are prescriptive moral obligations. I am also not going to argue for the 10 Commandments in a vacuum. They exist as part of the Mosaic law and I will take my understanding of them from the context of the Bible. Considering that the commands to have no other gods before God, to not make idols, and to not take God's name in vain are rooted in the idea of God - a specific God, no less - it seems that I simply need to argue for Christian theism. If Christian theism is true, the Ten Commandments are not a joke and are worthy of being followed. For this, I am going to argue along two related lines of thought. The first centers around knowledge: 1. If God did not exist, knowledge would not be possible. 2. Knowledge is possible. 3. Therefore, God exists. The second line of reasoning: 1. If God did not exist, then there could not be any moral facts. 2. There are moral facts. 3. Therefore God exists. Let's get into the detail of each of these. There are a few arguments for why God is the necessary precondition for knowledge, which work in tandem. Within the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, you have a plurality of persons and a unity of being. So, ontologically, neither unity nor plurality is ultimate. Rather, unity and plurality are co-ultimate. 1. The ontology of the universe is such that either (a) unity is ultimate and not plurality, or (b) plurality is ultimate and not unity, or (c) unity and plurality are co-ultimate. 2. If unity is ultimate and not plurality, then knowledge of the universe (even in part) is impossible. 3. If plurality is ultimate and not unity, then knowledge of the universe (even in part) is impossible. 4. Knowledge of the universe is not impossible. 5. Therefore, the ontology of the universe must be such that unity and plurality are co-ultimate. Additionally, if no one has comprehensive knowledge of the universe, then no one can have any knowledge of the universe. There are no "brute" facts. A fact can only be understood by understanding it in the context of its relationship to other facts. This means that the only way (apart from theism) that someone can gain knowledge is by understanding all of the relationships between all of the facts. If you were to try to start with a fact and relate it to another fact without comprehensive knowledge, you could not know if what you purported to be knowledge would be entirely undermined by relationships you had not uncovered. But, you cannot simply argue that the probability of your purported knowledge being overturned is low since your ideas about probability are likewise subject to this dilemma. Only God could have comprehensive knowledge of the universe, by virtue of having created it and defined the relationships between all of the facts. And God is able to create beings whose cognitive faculties implicitly take into account ideas that God alone can know. In this way, God can give humans a reliable way of knowing that they could not otherwise have. One such idea could be the uniformity of nature presupposed by inductive reasoning. Theism seems to be the precondition for knowledge. Naturalism provides insufficient conditions for knowledge. Alvin Plantinga has argued that proper function and a good design plan aimed at true-belief production is necessary for warrant: According to the central and paradigmatic core of our notion of warrant (so I say) a belief B has warrant for you if and only if (1) the cognitive faculties involved in the production of B are functioning properly (and this is to include the relevant defeater systems as well as those systems, if any, that provide propositional inputs to the system in question); (2) your cognitive environment is sufficiently similar to the one for which your cognitive faculties are designed; (3) the triple of the design plan governing the production of the belief in question involves, as purpose or function, the production of true beliefs (and the same goes for elements of the design plan governing the production of input beliefs to the system in question); and (4) the design plan is a good one: that is, there is a high statistical or objective probability that a belief produced in accordance with the relevant segment of the design plan in that sort of environment is true. Under these conditions, furthermore, the degree of warrant is given by some monotonically increasing function of the strength of ,S"s belief that B. This account of warrant, therefore, depends essentially upon the notion of proper function. (Plantinga, Warrant and Proper Function, 194.) Plantinga's notions of "proper function" and "design plan" succeed where naturalistic accounts fail because Plantinga's notions provide a teleological normativity that naturalism cannot produce. If naturalism were the case, then no human has cognitive faculties that function properly according to a good design plan aimed at true-belief production. Ergo, if naturalism is the case, no human has knowledge. Given that the reasonableness of the idea that we have some knowledge (for this debate to even happen, knowledge is required), then due to the implausibility of the alternatives, theism is the case. The more detailed version of the moral argument goes as follows: 1. If there are moral facts, then their basis is either natural or supernatural (where these two are construed as mutually exclusive categories). 2. The basis of moral facts is not natural. 3. Therefore if there are moral facts, then their basis is supernatural. 4. The most plausible way to think of a supernatural basis of moral facts is in terms of a supernatural person who brings moral facts about. 5. Therefore, if there are moral facts, the most plausible way to think of their basis is in terms of a supernatural person who brings moral facts about. In the end, if Christian theism is true, then the Ten Commandments make sense and are worthy to be followed.