To briefly focus on this debate’s resolution, note that I need only refute any argument that affirms the resolution. I could establish the positive effects of Christianity but it is not required here. Pro, however, must first establish how Christianity as an orthodox body of doctrine is negative in nature before it can be determined whether a negative act by a purported Christian/s is an actual negative effect of Christianity itself. Please note that distinction between Christianity vs a Christian. I need not refute an argument that solely relies on the acts of Christians as that is not the resolution of this debate. Any argument that affirms this will need to do proper biblical exegesis and cite good sources to support these claims since a majority of Pro's arguments are bare assertions.

C1
Sub 1a
Pro continues to beg the question in assuming that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. If Christianity is true, then its moral system is correct. Places where homosexuality is condemned as immoral would be justified and thus homosexuality would be immoral if Christianity gives us an accurate and true representation of reality. Pro needs to explain why homosexuality is "ok" for this argument to work. Yet, that issue is an entirely different debate. He continues to presuppose that homosexuality is ok and Christianity is wrong in condemning it as sin. If it's discrimination to judge something that is wrong, then I guess it's prejudice and discriminatory to judge pedophiles and rapists. Homosexuals are not condemned because of any inherent characteristics, but because of their immoral behavior.[1]

Sexism
I'd like to note that Pro has failed to address any of the arguments I provided and I wish to extend them. Furthermore, Pro failed to even substantiate his claims other than mere assertion such as when he says "At the point where the Bible is promoting what it condemns, it shows us that the Bible possesses contradictions therein." Can you explain this or give a clear example other than just making assertions?

Pro notes, "At the point where women are supposed to allow husbands to govern over them simply because of their status of being the wife, that already tells us that women are considered to be inferior in the eyes of the Bible" This is completely false. This does NOT mean women are viewed as inferior; I dealt with this last round. Moreover, the scripture Ephesians 5:22-29 demonstrates the type of relationship husbands and wives ought to have where respect and care from the husband towards the wife is likened to one who loves his own body: One who loves himself takes care to maintain and nourish their body. In the same way a husband must care for his wife.

Pro brings up 1 Timothy 2:9-15. Dorothy Patterson from The Center for Theological Research writes: "To equate feminine submission with slavery or racial injustice is to grasp at an emotional red herring at best and to embrace blatant distortion at worst. There is no theological or exegetical requirement in the text of Scripture for the establishment or continuation of slavery or racial discrimination. However, the Scriptures declare that women are to be submissive because of the order of Creation" [2]

Other Religions
In these scriptures, God is punishing a city who is "revolting from its allegiance to the God of Israel, and serving other gods." Matthew Henry's commentary notes how this process occurred in scripture: "thou shalt enquire and make search. They must not proceed upon common fame, or take the information by hearsay, but must examine the proofs, and not give judgment against them unless the evidence was clear and the charge fully made out…If the crime were proved, and the criminals were incorrigible, the city was to be wholly destroyed." Here, it's not so much "condemnation" of other religions, but judgment for abandoning and breaking God's law. Even in the execution of judgement, God gave multiple chances for repentance. [4]

sub 1b
What does the authors "qualified interpretations" have to do with anything? This is incredibly vague. What exactly needs interpreting? The gist of the article cited is about a system that seeks to show that the Bible was written by many different authors. Contained in the same article it's noted that "there's no reason why God could not write a book in different voices." This doesn't affect the Bible at all or damage the doctrine of inerrancy, which presumes that different authors wrote the bible.

C2
sub 2a:
It was legitimate to do science in the realm of a creator since Christians believed that they can "learn about [God] in two ways- by reading either the book of nature or the book of scripture." The book of nature corresponds to the fact that Christians "believed that God is loving and consistent rather than capricious and arbitrary. This meant that [Christians] could expect natural laws to remain the same forever," [5] thus giving natural philosophers the incentive to seek knowledge and truth of the world. Historian of Science James Hannam sums up the point about science and the church perfectly. Reflecting on the implications of the Condemnations of 1277 he writes: "It would be a mistake to see the restrictions that the 1277 condemnations placed on natural philosophers as evidence that the Church was anti-science. True, there was no such thing as completely free inquiry, but placing limits around a subject is not the same thing as being against it. The limits imposed on natural philosophy served a dual purpose. While they did prevent it from impinging on theology, they also protected natural philosophers from those who wanted to see their activities further curtailed." [6]

Pro argues that Christianity still inhibits science since "Christianity is refusing to allow knowledge to expand when it contradict their idealisms." However, If Christianity is true and if Christianity makes claims about the nature of the world, then it is not inhibiting science at all and it would be right to refuse anything that contradicts their ideals, since by definition those ideals would be false if Christianity is true. This is not about science vs religion. This is a philosophical battle between the presumptions of naturalism and theism. If Christianity is true and science is being held by a naturalistic philosophical foundation, it's the naturalists that are inhibiting knowledge and truth--christianity being truth--NOT the religion. J.P. Moreland sums it up: "God could exist and he could have created life in general and man in particular. But if science cannot in principle recognize this possibility because of its naturalistic assumptions, then science would be necessarily false if creationism is true." [7] One would have to deal with the claims made by Christianity on its own merits. This crucial point covers all the bases in this contention.

Sub2b:
How does it follow that this is hate? To say that "Groups A, B, and C do not go in accord with God and will be damned to Hell with murderers and rapists. That's still bigotry, " is just puerile. This gets into the doctrine of sin, justice, and punishment. It's not bigotry for God to punish sin, whether it's murder or adultery. How is it bigotry to believe someone doing something wrong is going to hell for it? Where is there hate in punishment? How does it follow that there is hate. We return to the distinction of Christianity vs the Christian. The orthodox doctrine and the person who claims to be a Christian carrying it out. The original Christian doctrine of sin, which covers many areas does not encourage hate. For Christians to take these doctrines as a justification for hate is wrong for that particular Christian, not the doctrine. There are numerous places where Jesus taught that we ought to not be hateful towards sinners and he condemned the religious leaders of his day for their hypocrisy[8].

sub 2c:
I understand my opponent's point entirely. But all my opponent did was throw around a bunch of assertions without any reasoning, support, or evidence. Please explain what it is about these issues that show that Christians were in the wrong or that it occurred as commonly depicted.

sub 2d:
This is extremely vague; What about the actions of the Republican party?

Contention 3:

This entire statement is vacuous. If Christianity is true, then you SHOULD conform to it's doctrines. If it's true that Christianity is false, then everyone should conform to that doctrine or ideal. There's not much to say to this.