judicial system needs reform

//"Being on this subject I will further my claim by stating that the Tora, the Muslim bible, admits that the Christian bible is a work of god, It also states that Jesus did exist, but as a prophet not the son of God, I ask you if you have two religions on total opposite spectrum of today's date and time that agree on the validity of the Christian bible how can it or it's views be disputed."// I do not see how this relates to our debate but I will respond anyway. Islam and Judaism agree on a lot of things. They both agree that an all knowing , all powerful, and all loving god exists. Can they both be right? They also both believe that one's life is best lived in accordance with their specific holybook. This is contradictory though in that you stated that since they both believe something, it should not be disputed. However their views are hugely similar in that they are monotheistic religions. They are bound to share details but this does not validate either of their claims about Jesus Christ. //"The Christian bible is held in two eras, the new testament (current laws) and the old testament (old laws). I will grant my opponent one partial statement, Christianity did state that homosexuality should be punished by death, but I emphasize it did this in the old testament."// You have stateed that killing a person based on their sexual preference alone was once moral but now is not. Why is this? Is it because god says so in which case you are basing your proposed change on Christianity and thus the similarities in religions are meaningless. Or is it because it was simply a law handed down by a god, in which case it should certainly not be the basis of law for people today in that a lot of people believe in no god and just claiming that god says so provides no rational justification for the rule. //"first point: When you are married you are in a binding contract with the person in which you are married to, to prove this point I refer you to divorce, If marriage was not a legal binding document there would be no reason for a court hearing for divorce, a person who violates this contract is in fact breaking the law as all contracts are to be followed as such."// Now you are bringing divorce into this? Marriage is a legally binding contract but there are of course conditions. One is not forced by the state to stay married to an abuser or with a rapist. Divorce is entirely within the realms of modern law. //"second point: Adultery in the states of Wyoming, West Virginia, D.C., Utah, South Carolina, South Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, Hawaii, Florida, California, Colorado, Alabama, and Arizona has not been a punishable crime since 1965. and the United States adoption of the no fault divorce laws."// First, it is still punishable with a fine depending on what state you live in and I thought you were talking about adultery. No fault divorce laws have nothing to do with it. //"because they are not human they don't have to live?"// Fetus' are not alive until they are born. I made this claim already and it went uncontested so it may be accepted. If everyone has the right to live then masturbation should be illegal women should never not be pregnant in that you are killing millions of potential lives by masturbating and women's eggs decay until menopause in which they can not have children. If they aren't always pregnant then those potential lies are lost. //"B) Albert Einstein was crazy, Galileo was mentally unstable, Steven Hawking has a serious disability, there are people all over the world with deliberating conditions that are lived with and those people have some of the most extraordinary lives. I am sorry if I find this claim completely ridiculous."// I must ask my opponent to clarify on this point further. If he is pointing out that all life has potential then I refer him to my last refutation. My opponent then made a statement when bringing up a point he made about how everyone is born with the knowledge of right and wrong ingrained in them. When I pressed him for evidence he wrote this: //"I bring to you this point, If I were to ask 100 people if killing a person was wrong, how many would say yes? If I were to ask 100 people if stealing was wrong, how many people would say no?"// This is a logical fallacy. Argument ad populum. It does not prove that everyone is born with the knowledge of right and wrong, only that society teaches most that certain things are wrong. //"1) If a single person threatens the existence of humans this person has already violated the law, therefore the decision was made to protect those people, and who made that decision, well the people that were being killed, just so happened that we agreed, therefore fighting and killing the Nazi's was a punishment mutually determined by the victims, and approved by the world. hence world war 2."// My opponent claims that killing the Nazis was justified in that most people agreed it was right and it saved innocent lives. First, as I already pointed out before, popularity of an idea does not make it right and my opponent has yet to show why it is right. Second, my opponent is fine with killing to protect innocent life when it comes to war, but when it comes to where a mother will die if the baby is not aborted, my opponent stands strong in his conviction that it is immoral. My opponent lastly claims that because people have been falsely accused of crimes, it is legally permissable to lie under the law. Of course he did not show that it was legal, only that the state is very strict with child molestation cases as it should be. While unfortunate that this does happen, it is not actually legal to do so. I now await my opponent's responses.