Myth: The Ruler of Spirituality

Having completed his round of defense, Odysseus naturally could not let the matter rest. Merely unraveling the opponent's line of attack would only put him at a disadvantage, so he decisively turned defense into attack, shifting the topic from "the Justice of the Divine Court" to "why question the Justice of the Divine Court." Stay connected through My Virtual Library Empire

He argued that Andrea believed the actions of the Divine Court during the Bronze Age were unjust and that the allegations of injustice during the Bronze Age mostly elaborated on the broad extent of divine punishment and the many deaths. Later, Andrea even questioned him—if the gods were to also destroy the fourth generation of humans, would you still think that was just?

Odysseus believed that such speech was likely affected by subjective emotions. Did this prove that the reason Andrea wanted to prove the injustice of the Divine Court was actually due to concern that the deities would continue the destruction of humans, and that the accusation against the Divine Court was merely out of a sense of "hurt to one's kind?"

There was no need for this because the Divine Court was just, it had its reasons for destroying the Bronze Age, and during that age, the church of All Gods had deeply intervened in all aspects of human life. Humans could not understand "the justice of the gods," so the gods told humans what their "justice" was through the church.

Nowadays, the moral values and culture of humans have not escaped the influence of the gods; among the rulers of humans, there are few who rebelliously blaspheme against All Gods. Thus, the catastrophe of the Bronze Age was destined not to recur in this era.

This statement undoubtedly resonated enormously among the audience because, as the debate progressed, indeed some were starting to fear. Odysseus's words not only dispelled their doubts but also gave them a psychological suggestion—you have to believe the Divine Court is just, after all, a just Divine Court naturally would not bring down disaster indiscriminately, and what I'm saying is right, the fourth generation of humans will not be destroyed.

Conversely, if the Divine Court is not just, everything I say is wrong, and wouldn't that mean the fourth generation of humans is always in danger, potentially facing destruction at any moment? Under such psychological influence, even if it is out of avoidance, many people would subconsciously believe in the justice of the gods.

It must be said, in this classical age, it is rare to find someone who can create such psychological traps. This alone is enough to show Odysseus's ability to lead ordinary people. Andrea also noticed this, but she was not the least bit flustered.

If the opponent questioned whether she, as a debater, was objective or was influenced by emotions, she naturally could not admit it, but she would not get entangled with him over this. After all, the influence of emotions is too subjective, hard to find solid evidence to prove either way. If she really engaged in debate with him on this, that would indeed be stepping into a trap.

Therefore, the tone of the debate on the field shifted, as Andrea no longer eagerly discussed the justice of the Bronze Age's destruction, but began to break through Odysseus's psychological suggestion.

The opponent equated "the justice of the Divine Court" with "the safety of the fourth generation of humans," trying to guide the audience to believe "if the Divine Court is just, we are safe," "if the Divine Court is unjust, we are in danger," thereby under the influence of avoidance psychology convincing them to believe the Divine Court has always been just. There are, however, many ways to respond to this.

For example, the simplest one is that the fourth generation of humans is inherently different from those of the Bronze Age, and in the current world, if deities really wanted to destroy the world, it would be difficult to say whether they could succeed. However, such statements clash not only with most people's impression of "the mighty deities" but also tend towards unraveling the opponent's attack rather than establishing one's own advantage while doing so.

So, since Odysseus had used a psychological strategy, Andrea followed suit.

She suggested that Odysseus believed the deities told humans "the justice of the gods" through the means of the church, thereby influencing human thought and culture, which indeed exists. However, this not only failed to prove the consistent justice of the deities but on the contrary, it's a good counterexample.

The Divine King and the Queen of Gods preached human marriage, revealing what "fair marriage" looks like in the eyes of the deities. Yet the Divine King and the Heavenly Empress, who established this standard, did not adhere to the standards they themselves set.

On stage, Andrea listed the Divine King's betrayal of marriage and mentioned Hera, as the guardian of marriage, who, instead of turning the sword against the Divine King, perpetrated extensive harm on the women violated by Zeus.

The deities themselves invented the institution of marriage, yet while teaching humans to adhere to it, they themselves did as they pleased; doesn't this precisely demonstrate the difference between gods and humans?

If harmonious marriage is indeed recognized as "justice" by the deities, then reality has proven that the gods themselves can violate it. Therefore, no matter why the Bronze Age perished, it cannot guarantee that the deities won't destroy the fourth generation of humans.

If "the justice of the gods" is indeed incomprehensible to mortals, encompassing both "adherence to marriage" and "destruction of marriage," then Odysseus's argument is also debunked, because humans learned the "justice" from the gods that are wrong. Humans learning the wrong thing is just like what Prometheus taught about deceit, becoming the basis for the deities to mete out punishment, right?

In the course of the conversation, the psychological suggestion established by Odysseus was easily broken, even raising doubts about the justice of the deities among the audience.

Although injustice in marriage does not mean injustice in other matters, people are always willing to believe that a criminal has committed more than one crime.

Thus, standing on different perspectives, the debate between the two parties continued for several water clock times, and in this clash of thoughts and words, the audience present also felt the appeal of language.

A debate does not really need to result in a victory or defeat, unless there is a large gap in the level of the debaters, otherwise it is rare to see one party rendered speechless, and it is more about one side being forced to defend passively, being at a disadvantage during the exchange.

So ultimately, as time passed, this debate gradually moved towards its conclusion.

"Now, please give your final statements, and after this, the 183,000 strong audience present will make their choice, serving as judges, they will decide the champion of this debate."

The long-absent elder returned to the stage, and looking at his face, it was hard to hide his fatigue, he probably never did understand how the topic was changed.

But the matter being as it is, facing the audience and the debaters, he still showed a smile.

"Your splendid debates will surely be recorded in history, and this clash of wisdom will become one of the most brilliant pearls we offer to the Goddess."