The Bible holds more virtue than any other book!

I appreciate Pro's response, but some of the formatting is difficult to follow. Perhaps better use of quotations could be used in the future?Outlinedefinition argumentsconformitymoral excellencerebuttalanswersDefinitionPro argues that the portions of the definition of virtue, “Manly strength or courage : valor” and “A capacity to act : potency” should be considered as there are stories about courage in the Bible, and the words of the bible are potent as shown by the number of believers.These arguments aren’t supported by the definition. That the the Bible contains stories about courage does not make the Bible courageous. If we took a coward and tattooed the story of a hero on his back, it would not make him courageous. The stories in the Bible do not affect whether the collection of books is strong or courageous. To have courage is to act in the face of fear. Inanimate objects do not have fears, so they cannot face them, thus they cannot be courageous. They might contain stories about courage, but they cannot be courageous themselves. Potency is used in this definition to mean “A capacity to act.” That’s why the entire phrase in the definition reads “A capacity to act: potency.” Inanimate objects cannot act on their own, thus they have no potency as used in the relevant definition of virtue. Pro also talks about faith as a component of virtue, which is nowhere to be found in the accepted definition.Conformity to a standard of rightIn my R2, I argue that the Bible does not conform to a standard of right, but instead attempts to create it’s own standard of right, thus not meeting this standard of virtue. In response, Pro attempts to have it both ways. He argues that the Bible is written to conform the standards of men, noting that the practices of slavery, war, and discrimination are allowed in order to conform to human moral codes. Pro also says, “The Bible gives a standard to live by, I agree with Con.”What Pro does not engage, is the argument that if the Bible creates its own standard, it does not conform to a standard of right, and isn’t virtuous in this sense. So to the extent Pro agrees that “The Bible gives a standard to live by,” the point is conceded. Nor does Pro challenge the matchbooks conformity to a standard of right.However, to the extent that the Bible conforms to the standards of slavery, war, and discrimination, those certainly aren’t the standards of right that I discussed sharing with Pro in my R2. Those are glaring violations of a standard of right. So if you agree with Con’s arguments, the Bible does not conform to a standard of right by virtue of its claim to set standards while the matchbook does conform.However, if you agree with Pro’s arguments it follows that the Bible does not conform to a standard of right by acceptance of slavery, war, and discrimination. Slavery is such a gratuitous evil that the matchbook should be considered more virtuous for not conforming to a standard which accepts it.Either way, Con wins this point for the virtuous matchbook and as the Bible will fail to gain ground on it in further arguments, the debate is won here as well.Particular moral excellence/Beneficial qualityAfter reading Pro’s rebuttal several times, I’m unable to find anything that addresses the thesis of this argument. While I encourage the voters to read the full version in my R2, the nutshell of it is, “Whatever moral excellence/beneficial qualities are thought to come from the Bible are really from the person interpreting it, and the Bible is in truth a blank canvass for the reader to paint his/her own virtues on, just like a matchbook allows for warmth or destruction at the hands of its user.”Pro actually relies on this subjectivity in his rebuttal, saying, “I think the Bible explains itself to why death, rape, and discrimination happens. These acts are strictly because men's desire.”However, other people think that death and discrimination happen because of God’s desire.Popular preacher Jerry Falwell said, “AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals.[1]"It’s not uncommon to interpret the Bible as God wanting women to be submissive to their husbands, who should be the spiritual and financial heads of their household.[2]”And of course, there are the Ann Coulters who see a religious mandate to attack enemies and “invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity[3].”Now, again, I’m not claiming these are majority or even representative interpretations. That’s because I believe that people are generally better than this. What we find is that once society accepts that slavery is wrong, or that women should have equal rights, then the Bible is interpreted to support that equality. However, until people come to those conclusions, the Bible is interpreted against that equality. We can watch this happening with gay marriage right now. The Bible has traditionally been interpreted as against gay people, but now as more people are accepting sexual orientation equality, more people are interpreting the Bible as accepting it.Pro argues that the Bible has the ultimate beneficial quality, that it allows the believer to acquire proof of God and allows Him to act through their lives. I certainly agree that it tends to allow the believer to think they have proof of a god, and gives them the moral certitude that their actions are endorsed by the heavens, but whether the actual outcome of that is beneficial or harmful is dependent on whether the reader is Fred Phelps or Christine Deponio[4].The Bible has no moral excellence in itself. It’s the morally excellent Christians who do.RebuttalPro’s argument in R2 comes in two parts.First Pro givens a selection of quotes from the Bible which promote a definition of virtue.Second, Pro gives a selection of Bible verses that promote what he believes are virtuous qualities. The first runs into the problems of creating a standard versus conforming to a standard that I discussed earlier. The second runs into the issue of selective interpretation. Pro reads the Bible as supporting actions that I agree with are moral, but other people emphasise other parts and so the Bible is used to support all sides of issues.None of this relates back to the definition of virtue that sets the standard for success in the debate. Neither the Bible’s definition of virtue, nor the selection of Bible verses are argued to meet the standards of virtue as defined in R1, and thus carry no weight in the debate.Additionally, Pro doesn’t distinguish between whether the Bible, as a collection of books, is virtuous as opposed to the stories told in that collection of books are virtuous. If I take a chisel and chip “honor, courage, and potency” on a rock, does that rock become virtuous? No, it doesn’t. The rock remains a rock to which virtue doesn’t apply. Just like this collection of books remains a collection of books, to which virtue only applies to the reader. Even if Pro makes an argument that the messages or stories are virtuous, he is faced with the fact that the stories are not the collection of books. Until Pro passes this hurdle, his entire approach must fail.Answers1.A man with a match is more potent than one without.2.Not to my knowledge3.To start with, 504.Demonstrable truth5.A good value for money6.Matchbook theology is especially fond of Judaism for its lamp-based holidays7.I gave it to my friend, Pyro Frank, and it ordered him to burn the liquor store*8.Yes, if you use it enough9.Not personally, but I can direct you to the local Scientology branch10. A bag of Doritos and a non-aquatic dolphin, but I’m prepared to settle for a win[1]http://www.brainyquote.com...[2]http://www.helium.com...[3]http://rightwingnews.com...[4]http://www.christiantoday.com...*Not really