The Bible is an immoral bit of utter crap.

"This is your argument that the Bible isn't an immoral bit of utter crap? Insufficient death?" We look at genocide differently now than we used to. Today, the most recent genocides are the slaughtering of millions of innocent people at the hands of their own government. In those times, it was just the spoils of war. There IS a difference. "However, I am simply expressing a simple truth about a horrible book." No, the book is not horrible, and it does cause resentment and displeasure, whether you like it or not; thus, it is offensive. "Our government and our morality today are largely secular and we are better for this." Again, our government is not based off of the history part that you seem to have obsessed yourself with. It is based off of the moral part. "The only redemption of these immoral claims are their falseness." Murdering is not acceptable, as it violates a commandment. Stop contradicting yourself by saying that the commandments contradict themselves. "I didn't bring up slavery as some distant bit of trivia." Slavery as a result of war is different from slavery as a result of oppressive behavior. Don't forget the story of Moses freeing the UNFAIRLY enslaved Israelis. War and peace are not easily comparable when it comes to... anything. You claim that Exodus has been proven wrong by archeology, yet you cite nothing. Yes, the Bible supported slavery, as a spoil of war. However, we were not at war with Africa, and God did not support such racial and cultural discrimination leading to slavery, as shown by the story of Moses, so the two cases remain incomparable. Yes, the oppressors in such a racially discriminative case were wrong, in both the Bible and the history textbooks. Spoils of war make a completely different story, which you haven't really addresses AT ALL. "I have it on good authority that not a jot or tittle went away." The unclean laws were based on blood sacrifice necessary to remove the state of being "unclean", which Jesus repealed by making himself the ultimate, permanent blood sacrifice. "The idea that homosexuality is a sin, that being different is being wrong, that loving is evil is completely immoral..." The idea of going against nature with such love can be considered immoral in some cultures. Many Debate.org users are still against gay marriage, which means that it is still part of their morals, so anti-gay marriage is not immoral for them. "My point isn't that it ended but that the very *idea* of blood sacrifice is immoral." The blood sacrifice was of animals, and willed by Jesus. Contrary to what the PETA may tell you, animals are ours to use for our own purposes, which includes blood sacrifice. "The rules to keep the sabbath is more than attending a Saturday service (though Sunday is far more typical)." Whoops, sorry, I meant Sunday. Church service is still keeping the most important part of the Sabbath (worship), and in some translations of the Bible, the Sabbath commandment changes from no work on the Sabbath to worship on the Sabbath. "True. It is able to copy good rules. Just as it copied down some good proverbs. The fact that this is so, doesn't make the Bible moral. It means that the good parts have nothing to do with the Bible." Christianity is also not the only culture that had many of the "immoral" things that you mentioned. And yet, you act as if that is the core of the Bible. The Bible supports moral proverbs, so it is moral. If I wrote a book that used all of the moral proverbs in the Bible, it would be moral, even though it "copied" the ideas. Anything written in ink in the Bible can be said to have SOMETHING to do with the Bible, and that includes the "good parts." You can't just cut them out because they've been done before. A movie that used great scenes copied from previous movies is still great. Your argument for discarding Proverbs makes literally no sense. "The punishments for violating the commandments is death." Only in Israel, at those times. The punishments have slacked off since, and women suffrage has come about, but the basic jist of the Commandments, that it is advisable to follow them, and they will generally make your life better, wiser, and more moral. "We chose to be a secular nation..." http://en.wikipedia.org... Christianity still influenced our government, as its most important commandments are now laws. We tolerate other religions, but that doesn't make us secular. How do you think "under God" got into our Pledge of Allegiance? http://en.wikipedia.org... "To cite the facts would take more than 50 minutes. The Bible is written largely as self-aggrandizing etiology to glorify the past. Most of it is completely false." You continually refuse to cite ANY "facts" from your source. You give no reason for me to watch the video. I just asked for important facts that you wished to use in your arguments. If it would take more than 50 minutes to source the facts you wish to use, you're using too many facts, and violating your character limit. You can't just extend your argument into a video without focusing on key points, especially when it is 50 minutes long. I declare your videos irrelevant, as you have refused to specify key points in it, and expect me to watch the entire thing, which is beyond ridiculous. "You can beat children with it and make them cry..." You give no reason to not assume "metaphoricalness". Crying might just be protest against harsh discipline. "Actually many of those proverbs would get me arrested." Again, different times, and besides, you could still apply them METAPHORICALLY. http://en.wikipedia.org... "Even when the women were gathered up and defenseless and slaughtered?" Yup. When they were at war, they were very complete with it. "The Bible isn't the complete set of utter crap, it's simply a bit of utter crap. Surely you've heard this part of speech before." You give no reason to say that it is not a complete set. Anyways, my opponent has focused his entire argument on the immoral part, and has not even followed his own definition, in which he must prove that the Bible is either pointless, senseless, insolent, or meaningless, and thus has failed to properly affirm the resolution. The holes in my opponent's arguments: 1. The quotes from the Bible were God's instructions, not the Bible's. 2. The quotes were taken out of context; it makes much more sense when you realize that war and peace are different, and they are at war. 3. Times were different in the days of the Bible; the Bible is both history and morals, yet my opponent only cites the history, which had laws that reflected its own times, while proverbs are timeless. 4. Slavery as a spoil of war is different from oppressive slavery against an entire race or culture, which the Bible openly opposed with the story of Moses. 5. My opponent has not actually cited any facts to back up archaeological evidence against the Bible, and demands that the readers and I must pick out the facts ourselves, which is not proper debating. 6. Our government is not secular; it merely allows religious freedom and tolerance. 7. The Ten Commandments do not currently demand for death, but are today simple guidelines for how to get to heaven. 8. Just because something was used in a previous culture, doesn't mean that it can't be used again to live up to its full morality. 9. The Bible is neither pointless nor senseless nor insolent nor meaningless, and my opponent has given no reason to think so. 10. Just because a statement doesn't address you directly, doesn't mean that it can't cause discomfort and/or resentment, and thus be offensive. Thus, the resolution and the side-point are clearly negated. It is in order to vote CON. Thank you for this debate.