Have dating apps ruined romance?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Have dating apps ruined romance?". Your opponent's style: Sherlock Holmes

The bible is true law, nothing else is true, Christianity is the truth.

You're asserting absolute moral authority based on one text, but that claim collapses under scrutiny. The Bible contradicts itself on slavery, gender roles, and capital punishment, yet you're picking which parts are "law" anyway. That's not submission to divine truth, that's you deciding which verses matter. If the Bible alone is law, why do you follow secular governments instead of Levitical codes? You've already rejected most of it. Real conviction means defending why *this specific interpretation* binds everyone, not hiding behind circular logic that the Bible is true because the Bible says so. What evidence would actually convince you otherwise, or is this unfalsifiable?

You claim I pick and choose verses but you did exactly that, with no context for them, you can't just decide it's a contradiction without context. As for your following secular government, I don't, I'll follow laws such as no stealing or no murder, which are laws in the bible, I will follow the laws that agree with the bible because they hold the truth of it, but other than that I think the whole basis of secular government is insanely stupid. As believing in the bible just because the bible says its true, that is not the whole reason I believe it. I believe it because some of the most prestigious minds that have tried to disprove it have in the end always found it to be true, and that's happened way too many times for it to be a coincidence. I believe it because it's so so old, yet the prophecies of the world today are so spot on, not a coincidence. And By the way I guarantee that if you explained the contradictions they would be ripped out of context and I could easily butcher your entire agument

You're naming prestigious scholars without evidence they exist or what they actually concluded. "Too many times" is not an argument, it's a feeling. On prophecies: vague predictions about human nature repeating itself aren't prediction, they're probability. Every era claims current events fulfill ancient texts because humans pattern-match desperately. You've already admitted you cherry-pick which laws bind you, then accused me of cherry-picking. That's not consistency, that's conviction without accountability. Name one specific scholar who disproved Christianity and converted, with their actual work cited. Until then, you're trading on reputation without substance. Can you actually defend a single prophecy precisely, or just assert they're accurate?

Global Preaching of the Gospel: Matthew 24:14 states that "this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come". With modern translation tools, global broadcasting, and missionary work, this verse is viewed as nearing complete fulfillment.

That's circular reasoning dressed as prophecy. "Preaching to all nations" was already happening in the first century through trade routes and Roman roads, yet Jesus said it would happen before "the end." Two thousand years later, you're claiming it's "nearing" fulfillment while the end hasn't come. If a prediction can be retroactively applied to any era indefinitely, it's not prophecy, it's unfalsifiable. You're also ignoring that Matthew was written *after* early Christian expansion, so the author could easily describe something already underway as future. Real prediction means specificity: exact dates, places, names. Vague social trends aren't proof. Why does every generation feel they're the final one?

as for the minds

You're deflecting. You claimed "prestigious minds" disproved Christianity and found it true, then offered zero names when challenged. That's not evidence, that's theater. If these scholars actually exist and their work is compelling, naming them costs you nothing. Instead you pivoted to Matthew 24:14, which suggests you know the scholar claim crumbles under scrutiny. Either produce the names with their actual conclusions, or admit you're repeating something you heard without verifying it yourself. You can't build an intellectual case on vague appeals to unnamed authorities. That's exactly the lazy reasoning you'd reject from anyone arguing against your faith.

Lee Strobel: A former award-winning investigative journalist and atheist who spent two years investigating the reliability of the Gospels and Christ’s resurrection to disprove his wife's newfound faith. Instead, the historical evidence convinced him, leading to his conversion and best-selling book, The Case for Christ.C.S. Lewis: An Oxford scholar and staunch atheist who spent years attempting to rationally refute Christianity. He eventually conceded the historical validity of the Gospels, documenting his journey in Mere Christianity.

Strobel investigated to *debunk*, then wrote a bestseller claiming he found proof. That's a commercial incentive, not independent verification. Scholars have systematically critiqued his methodology, noting he interviewed friendly Christian apologists, not skeptical historians. Lewis was never trying to "rationally refute" Christianity, he was intellectually wrestling with it, and he converted based on aesthetic and philosophical appeal, not historical "proof." Neither actually disproved Christianity then reconverted through evidence. They changed their minds, yes, but that's not the same as prestigious skeptics demolishing their own positions. You've just renamed the same fallacy: "smart people believed, so it must be true." Smart people believe contradictory things constantly. What specific historical evidence convinced Strobel that independent scholars accept?