Adam and Eve should've eaten the whole tree.

I will start by addressing his case. My opponent's first contention, the basis of his entire case, relies on a faulty semantic interpretation of the bible. Note counterexamples to my opponent's generalization: the apple tree, the plum tree, the mango tree, the banana tree, the avocado tree, and the almond tree. Obviously, fruit-bearing trees tend to be referred to by their fruit. Therefore, a tree of knowledge of good and evil would bear the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, and as one doesn't have to eat the entire apple tree to have an apple, one doesn't have to eat the entire tree of knowledge of good and evil to gain the knowledge of good and evil. My opponent's second contention is reliant on his first, but he also provides additional evidence that, upon review, is irrelevant. It refers to a separate tree, and certainly does not infer that any benefit would come of eating more fruit of the same tree. "And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. " Genesis 2:9 . http://www.biblegateway.com... Therefore, my opponent's evidence is entirely irrelevant to the debate at hand outside distinguishing spiritual and physical death, which I will prove is also irrelevant. My opponent's third contention, that no one has knowledge of good and evil, is a direct contradiction of the rules of this debate, that bible is to be deemed fact. "And the LORD God said, 'The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever. ' " Genesis 3:22 . http://www.biblegateway.com... Therefore, man does know good and evil. My opponent's observation, therefore, must be a flaw in his interpretation. My opponent's fourth contention, that God was referring to spiritual death, is correct on the grounds of the otherwise contradicting conditions of the two fruits, not because Adam and Eve didn't die instantly after eating the fruit: God does not assure instant death, but death. However, this distinction is only evidence for my case. My opponent's syllogism fails in the ways I've already described, with the addition of the non-sequitur that consuming more of the fruit, even if it did grant more knowledge, would somehow remove the condition of death to the human race. Because my opponent's proposal would have had the same result as what happened historically, with the addition of more effort, it is less preferable to what happened historically, and the resolution is negated. Because the resolution considers what Adam and Eve should have done, I will offer some viable alternatives: 1. Adam and Eve should not have eaten any of either of the trees. This would remove the spiritual death that is worth more than the knowledge of good and evil. Ignorance is bliss; in this case, ignorance is life. 2. Adam should have used Eve as a "Guinea Pig" for the consumption of the fruit. Because Eve had already consumed the fruit at the point he became involved, he should have sat and waited for the fruit to ingest and note the consequences. 3. Adam should have turned Eve in. By tattling on Eve and refusing the temptation of his godless wife, Adam would have won the favor of the most powerful entity in existence and escaped the bickering of women and the toil of work for the whole of eternity. All of these scenarios are better than what happened. Because my opponent is proposing has an equal result to what happened, all of these scenarios are better than what my opponent proposed. Therefore, the resolution is negated.