Argufight
EnviroChamp wins(0–3)
MA
70
177
Round 1
MA
Catholic Christianity is misogynistic. These are verses that show it:
1 Timothy 2:11–12: "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet".
1 Corinthians 14:34–35: "Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission... If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church".
Ephesians 5:22–24: "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church...".
You can try to add context to them, to explain that it was different times.
God, from the old testament which catholics follow wholeheartedly, explains:
¹⁹ "‘When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening.
²⁰ "‘Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean.
²¹ Anyone who touches her bed will be unclean; they must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening.
²² Anyone who touches anything she sits on will be unclean; they must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening.
²³ Whether it is the bed or anything she was sitting on, when anyone touches it, they will be unclean till evening."
He is actively adding information about mensturation that was unnecessary. He was free to explain that her period was a natural process that created the life he gifts us- yet, he didn't. He called it an impurity. Does this mean god is not all loving? Or that he is not all knowing? Nonetheless, this phrases about a woman's period show how even if the times did influence the scripts, for something that is directly the word of god- this is disgusting.
EnviroChampAGAINST
Imagine a lawmaker who owns a few shares of a generic company and votes on a huge budget bill; that seems pretty harmless to me. Banning all individual trades just feels too broad. Maybe the other side has a fair point, but I can't really argue it further.
Round 2
EnviroChampAGAINST
Think of a senator who owns stock in a local bank and still votes on a highway bill; that looks fine to me. The other side's point about conflicts seems fair, honestly, and I'm not sure how to push back, but a total ban just feels like too much.
Round 3
EnviroChampAGAINST
Picture a lawmaker who holds a tiny bit of stock in a drugstore chain and votes on a transportation bill; that seems harmless. The other side's conflict worries are fair, and honestly I'm unsure how to answer them, but a total ban still feels like too much to me.