The Bible should not be considered a reliable source to quote.

Throughout time people have quoted the bible.

Every person and religion has their own interpretation of the Bible. Even athiests believe in the Bible, they simply believe not to believe.

The Bible has been quoted to me too many times as proof of the existence of God, and in my opinion as a justification of religion, war, suffering, and ignorance.

The Bible should not be considered a reliable source to quote. In order to win this debate, MY OPPONENT MUST PROVE without a doubt that the Bible is reliable, and therefore can logically be used as a source in argument.

NOTE: You cannot use the Bible as a sole resource for your argument in this debate.

In order to win this debate, I must prove that the Bible is a reliable source to quote, however, with this terms alone, my opponent has placed himself in a debate which he has ABSOLUTELY no chance of winning.

First, I would like to point out that absolutely anything can be considered a reliable source, but whether or not it's reliability is applicable changes depending on what one is intending to prove. For instance, if I wanted to prove that George Washington existed, I could not cite the highest Super Bowl Win record as it's reliability in proving that the New England Patriots won the Super bowl three times in a row wouldn't help me in concluding that George Washington existed. With this noted, I have no doubt that my opponent (as well --you--the audience) sees where I am going with this.

In short, I submit that the Bible is quite a reliable to quote source when it comes to expounding on something that is written in the Bible (if merely one of the examples I give isn't refuted, I win automatically).

1)For instance, if I am writing an essay on one of the Biblical stories, my professor will no doubt have no problem with me citing the particular scripture that concerns one of the biblical passages.

2) When it comes to demonstrating whether or not there is anything written in the Bible, well, quoting is pretty much essential.

3) We can go about it Ragnar Rhals route as he is of the belief that the Bible disproves the christian God PERCEIVED in the Bible. Surely quoting the Bible would a good way to do this. Or you can go the opposite when it comes to negating his resolution.

4) If a preacher wants to give a Biblical based lesson, then it using the Bible as a source for quotes is pretty reliable.

Thus, I have fulfilled the burden given to me by my opponent and have henceforth won this debate.

That'll do it for now. I'll actually need to see some arguments from my opponent before I can delve any further.

I can't win this the way I worded it. I messed up.
I bet you can obviously tell that's not what I meant for the debate to be about.
oops.
I lose.

For R2, my opponent has conceded to my stance, thus, regardless of what my opponent may say next round, you ought to consider this particular action as reason enough to vote in my favor (oh yeah, and extend all arguments).

However, there is the matter of my opponent being confident in the argument which he chose to present in the comment section. Although I could very well in fact take the most efficient course of action and simply stick with what I've said above as well as cite formal proper formal debate conduct (not allowed to introduce new arguments on the last round and such), I'm going to rebut his argument anyway in case you don't buy the above.

REBUTTAL:

My opponent:" "NOTE: You cannot use the Bible as a sole resource for your argument in this debate."

In other words, I cannot say "The Bible says this, ergo, X is true." At no point in this debate have I done this; I have not once based one of my premises on what the Bible has said, thus, I have not violated the request in PRO's note.

My opponent: "re·li·a·ble
Capable of being relied on; dependable: a reliable assistant . . ."

My response: This very definition shows precisely why PRO loses this debate. His position is that the Bible is incapable of being relied on, yet as I show in my examples, it is indeed possible to rely on the Bible's quotes, therefore making the Bible reliable, by PRO's rendering of the term.

My opponent: "Every argument you have there is about justifying the bible with the bible, teaching the bible with the bible"

My response: Yes, and? Exactly what is so illogical about USING THE BIBLE to say TEACH ABOUT THE BIBLE? So then I would assume that by PRO's logic, it would be illogical to use the disease located in Timonthy Brodwell's body as a source in proving that Timothy Brodwell has a disease? After all, in that case, one would essentially be justifying the existence of Timothy Brodwell's disease with his disease? Another example? Sure thing. Lets say a mother ask her son for proof that he is bleeding. What is so illogical for the son to come up to his mother and show her that he is bleeding in order to prove that he is bleeding? It would seem that PRO has quite a tall order, one that I doubt he will be able to serve.

PRO likely did have something else in mind as I doubt he would purposely set himself up for an unwinninble debate. That said, I am not to blame for the fact that he didn't concoct his argument in such a way where it couldn't so easily be defeated by the argument I presented. In a game of chess, should I be condemning my opponent for the fact that he/she didn't make the moves that I wanted him/her to make and that I didn't anticipate his/her strategies? Of course not. It's no different here.

And that's all for now.

"my opponent has conceded to my stance, thus, regardless of what my opponent may say next round, you ought to consider this particular action as reason enough to vote in my favor (oh yeah, and extend all arguments)."
-True, however this is a debate and regardless of what I said before, the entire argument must be considered.
If I sufficiently prove my point in this round, they should still vote in my favor.

Here are my opponents points.

1)For instance, if I am writing an essay on one of the Biblical stories, my professor will no doubt have no problem with me citing the particular scripture that concerns one of the biblical passages.

-True, it would be an acceptable source, but that does not necessarily make it reliable.

2) When it comes to demonstrating whether or not there is anything written in the Bible, well, quoting is pretty much essential.

True, but that does not make it reliable.

3) We can go about it Ragnar Rhals route as he is of the belief that the Bible disproves the christian God PERCEIVED in the Bible. Surely quoting the Bible would a good way to do this. Or you can go the opposite when it comes to negating his resolution.

True, but that does not make it reliable.

4) If a preacher wants to give a Biblical based lesson, then it using the Bible as a source for quotes is pretty reliable.

True, it would be a good thing to quote. It is by NO MEANS reliable.

---
I think you can see where I am going with this. The debate topic clearly states: The Bible should not be considered a RELIABLE source to quote.

Yes, in those situations it would be acceptable to quote the bible, because those scenarios are all about supporting the bible, and teaching the bible.

--------
ASSUMING that the bible is reliable, this works.
But you know what happens when we assume don't you?
--------

To be reliable, something must come from a credible source. If you believe that the Bible was written by God, then I guess one may assume that God is a reliable source.

Also, to be reliable something must not negate or contradict itself.
Let me elaborate further.

The Bible is riddled with repetitions and contradictions.

For instance, Genesis 1 and 2 disagree about the order in which things are created, and how satisfied God is about the results of his labors.

The flood story is really two interwoven stories that contradict each other on how many of each kind of animal are to be brought into the Ark--is it one pair each or seven pairs each of the "clean" ones?

The Gospel of John disagrees with the other three Gospels on the activities of Jesus Christ (how long had he stayed in Jerusalem--a couple of days or a whole year?) and all four Gospels contradict each other on the details of Jesus Christ's last moments and resurrection.

The Gospels of Matthew and Luke contradict each other on the genealogy of Jesus Christ's father; though both agree that Joseph was not his real father.

Repetitions and contradictions are understandable for a hodgepodge collection of documents, but not for some carefully constructed treatise, reflecting a well-thought-out plan of God.
-----

The Bible, which claims to be the direct word of God, is obviously not a reliable source.

May I remind you of some of the characteristics of God, outlined within The Bible. God is a spirit. God is changeless. God is all powerful. God is all knowing. God is everywhere. Got is eternal. God is holy. God is righteous. God is love. God is truth. God is wisdom.

If god is all powerful, and all knowing, how come he wrote the Bible in a fashion that discredits itself?
If he is everywhere and eternal, why doesn't he just fix his mistake now and pretend like it never happened?

Obviously, the bible contradicts itself once again.

The bottom line is, you can use the bible as a source to explain things that pertain to it, however you cannot consider the Bible reliable, as this would just be foolish.

"True, however this is a debate and regardless of what I said before, the entire argument must be considered."

Debate relies moreso on the performance of the debaters and in this debate, you conceded to my case in the second round. To turn around and say "Hmm, well you know what, I don't concede" is very much bad form as I could have been debating you on these points in the previous round rather than be under the impression that you were conceding, hence, the debate was done. Essentially, I've been robbed of a good portion of this debate (in the previous round, all I could do is provide a preemptive strike) due to your behavior.

With that being said, I shall respond to what sums up my opponent's entire round 3 rebuttal:

"The bottom line is, you can use the bible as a source to explain things that pertain to it, however you cannot consider the Bible reliable, as this would just be foolish."

Translation: The Bible is a reliable source to explain things that pertain to it, however you cannot consider the Bible reliable, as this would just be foolish.

In other words, my opponent is simply contradicting himself. If he "OKAYS" using something as a source, then that means he considers the source to be reliable. Thus, he concedes that the Bible possesses reliability, which, as he pointed out in R1, is all that is needed for successfully negating the resolution.

As for all these contradictions and whatnot, the fact that my opponent came to the aforementioned conclusion even in light of all of these "contradictions" makes them all irrelevant. Glancing over them, it is abundantly clear what he considers is unreliable as a historical document (think back to the Super Bowl being unreliable as a means of proving that George Washington had existed), however, there are a infinite number of avenues when it comes to where reliability can be placed. Furthermore, if he were really going to uphold "If somethings contradicts itself, it's not reliable, then he would not have STATED that it's okay to use the Bible as a source even to explain itself.

WHY TO VOTE CON: PRO not only concedes that the Bible is a reliable source in R2, but even when abusively coming back to post a new argument on his final round, he yet again concedes that the Bible can be used a source. Therefore, great justice demands that you vote CON.