The Instigator
harrytruman
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

The bible is not against Womens rights:

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Danielle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/3/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,062 times Debate No: 90417
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (38)
Votes (1)

 

harrytruman

Pro

If you accept this debate you must debate the subject, not forfeitr and not flake out f you cannot respond to my arguments, if you cannot do this don't accept.
Danielle

Con

Opening Notes

Many thanks to my opponent for beginning this debate.

1. The resolution is presumably about equal rights for women. However in this discussion, I will contend that the Bible denies some basic rights for women as well.

2. The Bible includes both the Old and New testaments. Both the Old and New testaments contest women's rights.


The Right to Self-Ownership

The most basic human right is the right to self-ownership. This refers to the concept of property in one's own person; in other words the idea that you own and have sovereignty over yourself [1]. However the Bible suggests that a wife is her husband's property: You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor. Exodus 20:17

Further, the Bible condones daughters being bought and sold, i.e. being treated like chattel and becoming another person's tangible property: If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. Exodus 21:7 Even worse, a raped daughter can be sold to her rapist: If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 As you can see, women have no say in whom they marry or divorce.

An additional sign of women as property is that collecting wives and sex slaves was considered a sign of status: He [Solomon] had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray. 1 Kings 11:3

Moreover, the Bible says that a woman's word is not binding unless her father/husband agrees on her behalf. Men have total say over women's vows; women are not considered autonomous beings who have the right to make binding covenants with other persons: A woman’s vow is meaningless unless approved by her husband or father. But if her husband nullifies them when he hears about them, then none of the vows or pledges that came from her lips will stand. Her husband may confirm or nullify any vow she makes or any sworn pledge to deny herself. Numbers 30:12-16


The Right to Bodily Autonomy

Sadly, many verses in the Bible also reject a woman's right to control her own physical person.

It is repeated that women are to remain virgins and non-virgins are dirty and full of sin. This supposes that women's bodies exist for the pleasure and utility of man, since a man's value is not based on their sexual engagements whereas a woman's value is. This means that men are free to make sexual decisions about their bodies largely without strong consequence, whereas women are not only shamed but often killed for having sex: Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. Numbers 31:17-18 Additionally, Deuteronomy 22:22 condones stoning women (not men) for adultery, though there are plenty of double standards to choose from.

The Bible goes so far as to say that "used brides" deserve death, thus the Bible does not respect the most inherent right to all people - the right to life: If, however the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. Deuteronomy 22:20-21. Another example is: And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire. Leviticus 21:9

Verses like Judges 19:24-25 promote raping women, and sadly so do Numbers 31:7-18, Deuteronomy 20:10-14, Deuteronomy 22:28-29, Deuteronomy 22:23-24, Samuel 12:11-14, Deuteronomy 21:10-14, Judges 5:30, Exodus 21:7-11, Zechariah 14:1-2 and more. That's at least 10 verses completely neglecting a woman's right to govern her own body!


Women as Servants / Submissive / Inferior

Innumerable quotes throughout the Bible posit that women are to be submissive servants to men. This is because they are inherently inferior according to Scripture. Corinthians 11:2-10 notes that women are created for men, and therefore women have to cover their head whereas men do not. Men are described as being "the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man." The verse goes on to say that woman came from man and thus men are superior.

The Bible constantly commands female submission. Timothy 2:11-12 says, "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." Colossians 3:18 also tells wives to submit to their husbands, as does Ephesians 5:22-24, Corinthians 14:34-36, Corinthians 1:11-3, Genesis 3:16, Isaiah 3:12, Titus 2:4-5, Peter 3:1, etc. In many of these verses, women are described not only as inferior to man, but commanded to be his slave. Thus women surely do not have equal rights or arguably many/any rights at all according to the Bible.


Women are Inherently Dirty or More Sinful

Women are repeatedly blamed for "the fall of man" because the Devil allegedly tempted Eve, leading to the creation of sin for all mankind. Apparently Adam's submission to Eve's temptation is irrelevant; women are forever to blame for sin according to Biblical literalists. Ecclesians 25 emphasizes blaming all women for humanity's downfall. Perhaps that is why women's bodies are shamed throughout the Good Book. For example, the Bible describes childbearing as a form of atonement. Matthew 24:19 and other verses mention that pregnancy is a punishment.

Levitivus 12:1-8, Psalms 51:3-5 and more suggest that women who give birth must be isolated so as to not contaminate others, and pay priests to make them less unclean. Worse, the Bible claims that women are automatically twice as unclean if birthing a girl vs. birthing a boy. This proves that being "unclean" isn't just a physical description but a spiritual one as well, which is explained in Leviticus 15:19-30.

Not surprisingly, menstruating women are repeatedly condemned throughout the Bible (despite this natural occurrence of womanhood that allows for procreation), specifically in Leviticus though in many other Books also. In fact sex in itself for women is described as shameful and dirty. This can be seen in Revelation 14:3-4, Galatians and Ephesians.


Conclusion

The Bible consistently degrades motherhood, marriage, female sexuality and women's reproductive functions. In addition to repeating that women are inherently dirty and inferior to men, the most basic fundamental human rights to self-ownership and bodily autonomy are not acknowledged for women in the Bible. This is seen across the Old and New testaments, and cannot be misinterpreted as symbolic. Both the literal and figurative interpretations of Scripture negate women's rights.


[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Danielle

Con

Opening Notes

Pro did not present a disclaimer against the NT before the debate; therefore the claims made in the New Testament qualify as being part of the Bible [1]. I will reiterate how the Bible inhibits women's rights throughout the Old and New testaments alike. In order to negate the resolution, I must only prove the Bible is against women's rights (on account of being female) in ONE instance. Therefore I will focus on the most blatant or important examples.


The Right to Self-Ownership

Pro claims that laws against coveting thy neighbor's wife are merely laws against jealousy. However the text specifies nixing jealousy regarding anything that "belongs" to thy neighbor, implying that wives belong to their husbands. This idea of a man’s wife being his property is confirmed by other teachings of the Bible:

"A man paid a bride price to a woman’s father for her hand in marriage – the father did not have to consider his daughter’s wishes in the man he chose for her.

A man paid the bride price to a woman’s father if he had pre-marital sex with her, and the father still had the choice of whether he would give his daughter to this man in marriage. Pre-marital sex was considered a *property crime* against the father of the virgin that had been defiled.

When a man committed adultery with another man’s wife, he and she could be executed. This was considered a *property crime* against the woman’s husband. However if a married man had sex with a prostitute, this was NOT considered adultery, but rather the sin of Whoremongering as no *property crime* was committed" [2].

Pro claims I have misinterpreted Exodus 21:7. He states that since men could also be slaves, women did not have less rights than men. That is patently false. While all slaves would be considered human property, women were considered property even when they were not slaves. In Exodus 21:9-11, the Bible states a female slave sold as a wife must be given the full rights of a daughter and a wife, even though she remained human property.

Property is bought and sold, and we can see women being sold into marriage (regardless of their will) throughout the Bible:

* Genesis 12:14-16
* Genesis 24:51-53
* Genesis 29:18-30
* Deuteronomy 22:28-29
* Exodus 21:7, etc. because again women were sold into marriage; men were NOT sold into marriage.

Pro falsely claims that God condemned Solomon for having many wives, when in fact God condemned Solomon for following other gods - not for having many wives. In fact, God says (speaking through the prophet Nathan) in 2 Samuel 12:8 that if David’s wives and concubines were not enough, He would have given David even more. And David and Solomon were not the only ones with multiple wives throughout the Old Testament: Abraham and Jacob did also [3]. Lamech married two women in Genesis 4:19.

Finally on this point, Pro has not proven in any way whatsoever that there is a "mistranslation" of Numbers 30.


The Right to Bodily Autonomy

Pro states that a mistranslation of Numbers 31:17-18 suggests the Bible ISN'T against stoning non-virgins, but that simply isn't supported and he has not proven as such. Virginity was highly valued (particularly for women) at the time. Pro says, "The reason why it says to kill all the women who aren’t virgins, is because if they aren’t virgins, it means they were involved in this evil [Pagan] ritual." But that does not reveal the true nature/symbolism of a woman's virginity.

"In the culture of the time [her] sexual purity was representative of the father's ability to raise her according to the laws of God... A man's reputation... could be adversely affected by the fornication of his daughter... there was every expectation from the bridegroom that she would be a virgin. If the contrary was discovered... this would bring great shame to the family and the community... to insure the integrity of the family and to remove the evil of adulterous/fornication from the community, stoning was advocated" [4].

Pro says Deuteronomy 22:20-21 states, "Women who have sex outside of marriage should be stoned, the same punishment is set for a man who has sex outside of marriage." But according to the Bible, men were permitted many wives and mistresses. It seems the only way a man could be an adulterer was if he had sexual thoughts or relations with MARRIED women (i.e. another man's property). But a women was an adulteress if she had relations with any man that was not her husband. A husband was forced to divorce an adulterous wife, but an adulterous man could remain married to his wife with impunity. Note the Rabbis of the Talmud said that four wives was the realistic maximum for a man, so that he could devote the proper amount of time for sexual relations with each of them [5].

Pro then tries to discredit some of the verses I mentioned. For instance he said Numbers 20:10-14 doesn’t condone raping women; it’s mundane. Indeed it is and I did not list that as a verse highlighting rape. This is the Numbers verse I mentioned, and readers can judge for themselves if it condones murder, rape or another violation of bodily autonomy: And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man (Numbers 31:17-18).

Pro claims Deuteronomy 22:28-29 and Deuteronomy 22:23-24 refer to voluntary sex (mutual adultery), thus men and women were both stoned to death. I'll post the quotes: If, however the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death... And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.

Pro ignored Judges 19:24-25 which blatantly advocates rape: "Look, here is my virgin daughter and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But as for this man, don’t do such an outrageous thing.” But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go.

This verse (Samuel 12:11-12) doesn't advocate rape, but it clearly proposes women as property i.e. without bodily and sexual autonomy: “Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity on you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’”

Zechariah 14:2: For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity...

Deuteronomy 20:14: As for the women, the children, the livestockand everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves.


Women as Servants


Pro must defend the New Testament. Extend my arguments regarding Corinthians 11:2-10, Timothy 2:11-12, Colossians 3:18, Ephesians 5:22-24, Corinthians 14:34-36, Corinthians 1:11-3, Titus 2:4-5 and Peter 3:1.

For Genesis 3:16, Pro says "This verse doesn’t say that women should be submissive to men, it only says that they will." In other words, he says the Bible doesn't say that women SHOULD be inferior to men; women simply ARE inferior to men and the Bible is merely pointing that out. Right.

The Bible teaches that women must submit to the authority of men. When a husband uses the power God has given him, he supposedly blesses his entire family through his leadership according to Peter 3:1-6. But this type of authority would not be possible if women had EQUAL rights; indeed the Bible calls for the man to lead (regardless of circumstance) implying that men are automatically the superior sex/leaders.

Women as More Dirty or Sinful

Pro claims women were not considered dirty or unclean in Leviticus 12:1-8. I mentioned that female babies were considered automatically more dirty or detrimental. Here's what it says:

"If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days... And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled. But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks."

Extend my argument that the Bible notes women are allegedly being punished on behalf of Eve's win, which many Biblical scholars confirm:

"In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children — With more pain than any other creatures undergo in bringing forth their young: a lasting and terrible proof this that human nature is in a fallen state... Thy desires shall be referred or submitted to thy husband’s will and pleasure... Thou shalt now be brought to a lower degree; and whereas thou wast made thy husband’s equal, thou shalt henceforward be his inferior, and he shall rule over thee — As thy lord and governor" [6].


Furthermore, extend my argument that sex in itself for women is described as shameful and dirty. This can be seen in Revelation 14:3-4, Galatians and Ephesians among other verses.


Conclusion

Pro claims that because some women in the OT had authority, and because the Bible does command respect for women in some regards, that this somehow means women in the Bible had (equal) rights. First, I have demonstrated that the NT ought to be considered in this discussion, so Pro must address those claims. Second, I've proven that women were considered inferior and lacked basic rights thrughout the entire Bible.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] https://biblicalgenderroles.com...
[3] http://www.gotquestions.org...
[4] https://carm.org...
[5] http://www.libchrist.com...
[6] http://biblehub.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Danielle

Con

Opening Notes

Regardless of my opponent's intent, he did not clarify that he was excluding the New Testament from this debate. Since the New Testament is part of the Bible, it's contents qualify for this discussion.


The Right To Self-Ownership

I'm dropping the argument about coveting thy neighbor's wife. To negate the resolution, I only have to prove one instance of ignoring women's rights or inhibiting rights on the basis of female sex in the Bible.

Pro continues to insist that Exodus 21:7 is mistranslated, however fails to identify how this is the case or relevant to my argument. My argument was that while all slaves (including men) and indentured servants would be considered human property, women were considered property even when they were not slaves or indentured servants. For example, a man paid a bride price to a woman’s father for her hand in marriage – the father did not have to consider his daughter’s wishes in the man he chose for her. I've explained that property is bought and sold. Pro cannot contest this. Women were bought and sold like property; the Bible condones this. Furthermore, women did not have a say in whom their father chose for them to marry. On the contrary, men were not bought and sold as property.

Pro dropped my argument that premarital sex was considered a property crime in the Bible.

Pro dropped my argument that when a man had sex with another man's wife, both could be punished but it was in fact considered a property crime. Again if a married man had sex with a prostitute, the crime of whoremongering had been committed -- NOT a property crime. My opponent has ignored the fact that women were considered property in Biblical times, and the Bible condones this. Women did not have the right to self-ownership in the Bible.

Again Pro insists that the Bible doesn't necessarily advocate the things it describes. However the Bible does in fact advocate the lack of women's autonomy and/or lack of equal rights. In the last round I explained that God says in 2 Samuel 12:8 that if David’s wives and concubines (mistresses) were not enough, He would have given David even more. Pro says this "doesn't have to do with anything" but clearly it does.

Here we can see that men were permitted to have multiple wives and sex partners whereas women were not. And even if we accept that it was for the sake of procreation (which really doesn't matter or change the lack of equal rights) many times a man's infertility inhibits pregnancy, yet women were not allowed or Biblically condoned to pursue sex outside of marriage. Men were. Judges 19:1-30: details just one example of concubines in the Bible. Women could be taken as booty from a successful campaign and forced to become wives or concubines. Deuteronomy 21:11-14 describes the process.

And David and Solomon were not the only ones with multiple wives throughout the Old Testament; Abraham and Jacob had multiple wives and concubines as well. Lamech married two women in Genesis 4:19. This proves the Bible consistently condones polyamorous sex - but only for men. Women did not enjoy the same sexual rights. No wonder Pro is dismissing this argument; it negates the resolution pretty explicitly.

Keep in mind that according to Genesis 38:6-10, when a woman was widowed without a son it became the responsibility of the brother-in-law or a close male relative to take her in and impregnate her [1]. Women's status = baby makers. And again, Deuteronomy 22:28-29 describes how an unmarried woman who had been raped must marry her attacker. But more about bodily autonomy in a second.


The Right To Bodily Autonomy

Not surprisingly, Pro dropped every single one of my points regarding the value of a woman's virginity. This is because the Bible indisputably highlights the value of a woman's virginity (but not a man's), which is another indication of disparate sexual rights and responsibilities.

Please extend my point from the last round -- "In the culture of the time [her] sexual purity was representative of the father's ability to raise her according to the laws of God... A man's reputation... could be adversely affected by the fornication of his daughter... there was every expectation from the bridegroom that she would be a virgin. If the contrary was discovered... this would bring great shame to the family and the community... to insure the integrity of the family and to remove the evil of adulterous/fornication from the community, stoning was advocated."

The Bible advocates physical harm for a woman making her own sexual decisions. Once again I negated Pro's false argument that men and women were subjected to the same standards and punishment.

I'll copy and paste yet another argument that Pro ignored -- "According to the Bible, men were permitted many wives and mistresses. It seems the only way a man could be an adulterer was if he had sexual thoughts or relations with MARRIED women (i.e. another man's property). But a women was an adulteress if she had relations with any man that was not her husband. A husband was forced to divorce an adulterous wife, but an adulterous man could remain married to his wife with impunity. Note the Rabbis of the Talmud said that four wives was the realistic maximum for a man, so that he could devote the proper amount of time for sexual relations with each of them."

My opponent continues to insist that the Bible doesn't advocate rape and only describes rape or women as sexual conquests. That is 100% false and why Pro has not responded to these verses.

"And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man" - Numbers 31:17-18

"If, however the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death... And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire" -- Deuteronomy 22:28-29 and Deuteronomy 22:23-24

Pro completely ignored Judges 19:24-25 which blatantly advocates rape: "Look, here is my virgin daughter and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But as for this man, don’t do such an outrageous thing.” But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go.

In fact Pro just repeatedly ignores every single verse that doesn't fit his narrative. I guess I will continue copy and pasting them.

This verse (Samuel 12:11-12) doesn't advocate rape, but it clearly proposes women as property i.e. without bodily and sexual autonomy: “Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity on you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’”

Zechariah 14:2: For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity...

Deuteronomy 20:14: As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves.


Women as Servants

I've already explained that Pro must defend the New Testament. Extend my arguments regarding Corinthians 11:2-10, Timothy 2:11-12, Colossians 3:18, Ephesians 5:22-24, Corinthians 14:34-36, Corinthians 1:11-3, Titus 2:4-5 and Peter 3:1.

Regardless of Pro's intent, the Bible undoubtedly includes the New Testament -- that is an indisputable fact -- and since he made no disclaimer to exclude the NT from this discussion, the contender (myself) and audience had/have every reason to assume the New Testament qualifies for discussion. I had no way of knowing Pro's alleged intent before the debate began. Nevertheless, I've proven innumerable times over that sexism and the inhibition of women's rights exist throughout the Bible, especially in the Old Testament.

Here's another argument I'll have to waste time and space copy and pasting because my opponent completely dropped it: "The Bible teaches that women must submit to the authority of men. When a husband uses the power God has given him, he supposedly blesses his entire family through his leadership according to Peter 3:1-6. But this type of authority would not be possible if women had EQUAL rights; indeed the Bible calls for the man to lead (regardless of circumstance) implying that men are automatically the superior sex/leaders."


Women as More Dirty or Sinful

Pro claims women were not considered dirty or unclean in Leviticus 12:1-8. He says this verse is simply about "giving women a break" after childbirth. I mentioned that female babies were considered automatically more dirty or detrimental than male babies, which highlights blatant sexism in the Bible and valuing the sexes differently. He claims this is because female babies weigh more than male babies. We have no reason to accept that without a source, especially since it's actually false and male babies weigh more [2].

My opponent has also decided to ignore my quotes citing BIBLICAL SCHOLARS who confirm my argument - that women are allegedly being punished (according to the Bible) on behalf of Eve, whom is blamed for the downfall of man/sin.

Finally, extend my argument that sex in itself for women is described as shameful and dirty. This can be seen in Revelation 14:3-4, Galatians and Ephesians among other verses.


Conclusion

Most of this round has been spent copy and pasting arguments that Pro has dropped. Please extend.


[1] http://www.patheos.com...
[2] http://www.livestrong.com...
Debate Round No. 3
harrytruman

Pro

I was unable to finish my response during the weekend, so I will ppost the link now and it should be available by 2pm tomorow.
https://docs.google.com...
Danielle

Con

The Right To Self Ownership

Pro says, "Women were never considered property unless they were slaves, and this was only for 7 years and only under certain circumstances." FALSE. Slaves in ancient Israel were emancipated after 6 years only if they were Jewish. This also excludes Israelite daughters - who were sold into slavery by their fathers - from such automatic seventh-year manumission. Said daughters were bought to be betrothed to the owner or his son. Pro claims girls had a choice in their marital partners which is simply NOT TRUE; arranged marriages were the norm [1].

Pro keeps repeating that men were sold into slavery as women were, but this ignores the disparity in release terms for men vs. women. This also does not address my point from the last round: that women were considered property even when they were not slaves. This is evidenced by the fact that they were bought and sold (often against their will, as evidenced by arranged marriages). Men could be slaves, but were not forced to have sex like concubines were and they were NOT SOLD into MARRIAGE. Pro has not disputed this because he cannot.

Pro writes, "She claims that the Torah authorizes a man to sell his daughter as a wife... while this is nowhere in the entire Torah." I have outlined the verses that explain where men are permitted to sell their daughters. In addition, I've explained why this debate is NOT limited to the Torah. Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25 are specific examples describing the selling of daughters. In the last round, I also outlined these verses:

* Genesis 12:14-16
* Genesis 24:51-53
* Genesis 29:18-30
* Deuteronomy 22:28-29
* Exodus 21:7, etc.

Exodus 21:7-11 -- If a girl was sold into a family, she was not to go free because working to freedom was never the intent. An Israelite father could sell his unmarried daughters into servitude, with the expectation or understanding that the master or his son could eventually marry her. It is understood by Jewish and Christian commentators that this referred to the SALE of a daughter [2].

Pro repeats that girls were not sold into marriage, but that is simply not true. "A father might sell a daughter to benefit the family or to improve the girl's prospects... Although abuses undoubtedly occurred, the intent was to improve the girl's future. Every girl in that culture faced an arranged marriage; if she was sold, she moved into her husband's house earlier than usual and was provided for long before her wedding" [3]. Pro cannot rewrite history nor the Bible. Remember:

"And if a man sells his daughter to be a female slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who has betrothed her to himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt deceitfully with her. And if he has betrothed her to his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. If he takes another wife, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights. And if he does not do these three for her, then she shall go out free, without paying money." -- Exodus 21

Keep in mind that I explained how premarital sex was considered a property crime in the Bible. I also explained that when a man had sex with another man's wife, both could be punished, but it was in fact considered a property crime (but not a crime if sleeping with an unmarried woman). Pro says that "this is not the Torah" and also that it's not true. He continuously accuses me of lying, despite the fact that I've provided cited sources claiming my arguments as true.

I've also explained innumerable times why this debate is NOT just about the Torah. The Bible = Old and New Testament. Period. End of story. Pro is completely responsible for defending the New Testament in this debate. Nevertheless, here are 3 additional sources citing adultery as *property* related crimes in the Old Testament [4, 5, 6].

Pro continuously ignores the fact that women were considered property in the Bible, because doing so negates the resolution very matter of factly.

I've repeatedly explained that God says in 2 Samuel 12:8 that if David’s wives and concubines (mistresses) were not enough, He would have given David even more. Pro says this "only refers to his kingdom and riches," but this is patently false. It literally specifies multiple wiveS in every single translation of the text. So no, the text is not only referring to riches but also multiple/more women. Collecting wives and sex slaves was considered a sign of status.

Pro repeatedly calls me a liar instead of addressing the verses and quotes I outline. He also relies on fallacious straw mans. For example, I said Judges 19:1-30 details just one example of concubines in the Bible. Pro responded that Judges 19 doesn't advocate rape. As you can see, I DID NOT say it advocated rape; I said it advocated concubines. I specified that women could be taken as booty from a successful campaign and forced to become wives or concubines. Deuteronomy 21:11-14 describes the process. Pro says "No it doesn't say that!" but doesn't provide a quote or context, whereas I did outline the quote and context.

Regarding polygamy:

In Exodus 21:10, a man can marry an infinite amount of women without any limits to how many he can marry.

In 2 Samuel 5:13; 1 Chronicles 3:1-9, 14:3, King David had six wives and numerous concubines.

In 1 Kings 11:3, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.

In 2 Chronicles 11:21, King Solomon's son Rehoboam had 18 wives and 60 concubines.

In Deuteronomy 21:15 "If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons...."

Pro says "Just because the bible records something repetitively doesn’t mean it’s being advocated for." But despite all of these Bible verses referencing polygamy, the Bible doesn't explicitly condemn it. Why not?

Note women were not allowed to be polygamous; they did not have equal rights and social status with men.

The most important point, however, is that Pro keeps ignoring this: the Rabbis of the Talmud said that four wives was the realistic maximum for a man, so that he could devote the proper amount of time for sexual relations with each of them. Jewish scholars acknowledge that polygamy was not condemned in the Torah and that it was permissible for various reasons [7].


The Right To Bodily Autonomy


The Bible advocates physical harm for a woman making her own sexual decisions. Pro says these are "lies!" Meanwhile I quoted the Bible proving this to be true:

"If, however the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death... And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire" -- Deuteronomy 22:28-29 and Deuteronomy 22:23-24

Women are *stoned and burned to death* for making their own sexual decisions in the Old Testament. Pro is the liar.

Pro says, "My opponent again ignores my responses from the previous rounds, this was a mistranslation and only said to spare the women and children, except the women who participated in the pagan fertility festivals, men, on the other hand were all killed because 100% of men were involved." He says this in reference to Deuteronomy 22:28-29 which states:

"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

This has nothing to do with what Pro said. This is supposed to "protect" a woman by saying if a guy rapes a woman, then he has to marry her. But really what it does is forced the woman to not only endure rape but marry her rapist.

Pro continuously claims all of my Bible quotes proving him wrong are "mistranslated." I keep wasting character space c/p them and he ignores my arguments. He must prove they are mistranslated.

Women captured by Israelite armies could be adopted forcibly as wives, but first they had to have their heads shaved and undergo a period of mourning according to Deuteronomy 21:10-14 -- which is another breach of bodily autonomy.

I've outlined that concubines were popular. The master may have given concubines to provide more children for his household. Using women as baby makers is a violation of one's sexual and reproductive rights -- yet another example of inhibited bodily autuonomy.

Israel's family life was dominated by the husband. In marriage, the husband took his wife from her home and "ruled" over her, following the pattern of Genesis 3:16: To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pangs in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you." Because the husband was the dominant member of the family, he was given the title of lib (Ba'al) which meant "lord," "master of the house," and "leader of the family circle. But why would women need lords, masters and leaders (even figuratively) if they had equal rights and equal authority over their own persons and families?

Pro continuously lies and says that I have ignored his arguments, when in fact, he doesn't present any arguments. I've repeated multiple times that Judges 19:24-25 blatantly advocates rape: "...Do to them whatever you wish... So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night." Pro says God killed people for raping as God commanded. Pro must provide the quote to prove this is true.

I have no character space left. I will address women as inferior/dirty in the last round.


[1] http://tinyurl.com...
[2] http://tinyurl.com...
[3] http://tinyurl.com...
[4] http://tinyurl.com...
[5] http://tinyurl.com...
[6] http://tinyurl.com...
[7] http://tinyurl.com...

Debate Round No. 4
harrytruman

Pro

My opponent doesn't know how to debate apparently, because LITERALY EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT SHE MADE in this last round I already adressed each round for 4 consecutive rounds and she still has ignored LITERALY EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT I MADE! If my opponent would like to begin another debate, and respond to my arguments rather than ignoring them I would be more than happy to participate. But unfortunately, that is not the case with her, and just to demonstrate this, I will show for example Exodus 21:7, which my opponent cites every round, in round 2 I responded to it, and shew how it was a mistranslation and it actualy says that a female slave shall go free after 7 years just as the male slaves would, she ignores this and continues LYING.

Another example is Judges 19, my opponent claims in round 1 that it advocates for rape, while I responded to this, and it really was simple, it was never advocated for, it was rcorded, and the men responsiblew were slaughtered according to G-d';s command in Judges 20.

There are many more examples that I could bring up, but my oponent wouldn't respond to them anyway, so I'm only going to post my google doc for round 2 and my opponent can respond to that for the first time in the whole debate:
https://docs.google.com...
Danielle

Con

Introduction / Conclusion

In this debate, my spelling, grammar, organization and presentation have been superior to my opponent's. I've used 9-10 sources to back up my claims; Pro has ineffectively used just a couple. I've also had far better conduct. But most importantly, I have more than sufficiently met my burden in negating the resolution.

First and foremost, Pro has repeatedly refused to acknowledge the New Testament. I've explained that the New Testament is definitively part of the Bible, and Pro never said the New Testament was to be excluded before I accepted the debate. Therefore, he is responsible for defending the New Testament as per the resolution. Yet Pro has ignored every single one of my New Testament quotes and refused to debate them. All of those arguments must be extended in my favor.

I've also explained that I only have to provide one instance of women's rights being inhibited in the Bible on the basis of their sex. Throughout this debate, I've highlighted numerous Bible quotes (many from the Old Testament) and examples of women's rights being inhibited on the basis of their sex. I will outline them all once again.


Arguments

1. Pro says both men and women were slaves in the Bible. While that is true, women were considered property even when they were not slaves. Further, men could be released after 6-7 years; there were disparate release terms for women, proving they had less rights than men in that regard (even as slaves). Israelite daughters were not given freedom anyhow. Proof is Exodus 21:7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do."

2. Women were sold into arranged marriages. They did not have a say in who they married; I cited quotes and sources to prove this.

3. I've quoted Biblical scholars confirming that women were bought and sold as property.

4. Even male slaves were not forced to have sex like concubines were, and they were NOT SOLD into MARRIAGE. Pro has not disputed this because he cannot. He repeatedly says that I am "lying" when in fact he has simply failed and given up on arguing against these legitimate points.

5. Premarital sex was considered a PROPERTY crime in the Bible. This is because women and their sexual and reproductive rights were considered male (their husband's) property. If women are property, they do not have equal or even basic rights. Here is yet another source confirming that taking virginity = property crime in the Bible, which Pro continuously ignores because it loses him the debate [1]. Likewise having sex with another man's wife = property crime.

6. Collecting wives and sex slaves was considered a sign of status. This makes perfect sense since women were considered property (see above). We can presume God was okay with this because God implies he would have given David more wives and concubines per his request; God allows polygamy in the OT without explicitly condemning it - whereas he explicitly condemns a lot of other things; and the Rabbis of the Talmud said that four wives was the realistic maximum for a man, so that he could devote the proper amount of time for sexual relations with each of them. Once again, Pro continuously ignores this because he has no good response. In the last round I cited sources proving that Jewish scholars acknowledge polygamy was not condemned in the Torah, and that it was permissible for various reasons... but ONLY for men. Women were not allowed to be polygamous, because women did not have equal rights. Their rights were inhibited based on their sex.

7. The Bible advocates physical harm for a woman making her own sexual decisions. Women are *stoned and burned to death* for making their own sexual decisions in the Old Testament. Pro calls me a liar despite the fact that I have copied and pasted the text as written, as well as asked him to correct the "mistranslations" which he has not.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 -- "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

"If, however the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death... And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire" -- Deuteronomy 22:28-29 and Deuteronomy 22:23-24

Again, Pro says they were to be burned and stoned to death for being heretics, and all the male heretics were to be burned too. But this proves women's virginity and sexual purity was the expectation and standard. Therefore even if the male heretics were also killed, these verses prove my sentiments about women and women's sexuality (specifically) being a sign of property whereas male sexuality had nothing to do with property (even if it had to do with alleged heresy).

8. Women captured by Israelite armies could be adopted forcibly as wives, but first they had to have their heads shaved and undergo a period of mourning according to Deuteronomy 21:10-14 -- which is another breach of bodily autonomy.

9. I've outlined that concubines were popular. The master may have given concubines to provide more children for his household. Using women as baby makers is a violation of one's sexual and reproductive rights -- yet another example of inhibited bodily autonomy.

10. Israel's family life was dominated by the husband. In marriage, the husband took his wife from her home and "ruled" over her, following the pattern of Genesis 3:16. I've elaborated on this in the last round, which Pro completely dropped.

11. I've repeated multiple times that Judges 19:24-25 blatantly advocates rape: "...Do to them whatever you wish... So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night." Pro says God killed people for raping as God commanded. In the last round, I said Pro must provide the quote to prove this is true. Of course, Pro completely failed to provide the quote and therefore we have no reason to accept his alleged defense of rape. He also failed to explain why God would kill people for raping people per God's very own request, but I digress.


Conclusion

My opponent has repeatedly failed to address my arguments. I've provided at least 11 examples and ways in which women did not have equal rights (or the basic rights to individual and bodily autonomy) throughout this debate. Once again, I only need to provide 1 example in order to negate the resplution. I have provided at least 1 explicit example of women being considered property and having little to no rights over their own person and livelihood. Pro meanwhile has called me a liar and repeatedly attacked me which is poor conduct, in addition to his ultimate failure at upholding the resolution as-written.

Thanks for reading.

[1] https://books.google.com...
Debate Round No. 5
38 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by harrytruman 6 months ago
harrytruman
I can respond to all of this but I'm busy so you're going to have to wait until I have the time for this nonsense, either way- to be fair I only asked him o review this debate, not vote on it, he did that himself, I shared this debate with him because I totaly did this fool, but you voted FOR the losing side, I really don't care.
Posted by Ragnar 6 months ago
Ragnar
Let's see...
1. Able to vote solely for debating harrytruman.
2. Votes solely on harrytruman debates for harrytruman.
3. Vote Bombs in harrytruman's favor (anyone who thinks that seven points wasn't a votebomb, is functionally retarded).
4. Makes up false stuff about other people's arguments, including delusional claims of forfeitures.
5. When voting includes argument details in favor of harrytruman, which harrytruman did not actually include in the debate.
6. Places harrytruman's argument on a pedestal, such as claiming "Pro, for example, disproved every aspect of cons arguments" when harrytruman had dropped every point about the new testament therefore was outright unable to disprove any of it.
7. Little to no other activity (since the suggestion was made that it's a slave account, there is a sudden surge of activity... this doesn't change the history).

You on another computer, or a friend you asked to come vote-fluff you, it's still an account unmistakable for anything other than an extra one under your control.
Posted by harrytruman 6 months ago
harrytruman
Those signs being?
Posted by Ragnar 6 months ago
Ragnar
Theguy1789 shows all signs of being a slave-account of harrytruman.
Posted by whiteflame 6 months ago
whiteflame
I honestly don't know how you'd come to that perspective. Ragnar posted multiple comments explaining his decision, addressing every point he awarded and going through the debate point by point. That's pretty detailed, well above anything required by the standards. Where do you perceive him falling short? And, if you think Theguy1789's vote should have stayed, then at least tell me how he meets the standards.
Posted by harrytruman 6 months ago
harrytruman
He doesn't explain nearly as good as @TheGuy1789, guess which vote got removed and which didn't?
Posted by whiteflame 6 months ago
whiteflame
No who doesn't? And doesn't what?
Posted by harrytruman 6 months ago
harrytruman
No he doesn't.
Posted by whiteflame 6 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Ragnar// Mod action: NOT Removed<

6 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter goes into more than sufficient detail to explain each of these point allocations, particularly arguments and conduct.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 6 months ago
whiteflame
I just explained how and why what this voter posted is insufficient. If you'd like to explain how any of what I said was incorrect, you can do so. If you have a reason why any of those 3 points isn't problematic enough to warrant removal, you can do so.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 6 months ago
Ragnar
harrytrumanDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.