The bible is not against womens rights:
Rule #2- Don't flake out/drop out of the debate because you're losing.
Rule #3- Respond to my arguments, you can't make up facts/ not respond to my arguments as was the case with my last debate on this subject.
Rule #4- This debate deals with the bible, referring to the Torah, not the Non-Testament and arguments including the Non-testament will not be refuted since everyone knows the Non-Testament is sexist. If you intend to prove that the Torah is sexist by bringing forth any form of proof other than actual Torah verses, this point will be counted as dropped.
Rule #5- Women's rights will be defined as the unalienable right to life, liberty, and property. If my opponent brings an example of a women right being violated he/she must also prove that this right is protected for men, but not women, as equality will be a subject of this debate.
Rule #6- We will have 3 days to respond to arguments, this does not include Shabbat, so If I post on Friday night, I have until Tuesday night to respond, which allows me or you to post a google document link 1 day before you intend to publish your argument.
Rule #7- If my opponent violates any of these rules, the voters must vote against the offender in the category coinciding with the violation, if you vote for him/her in a category which he/she violate a rule in, your vote will be reported for violation of these rules.
I await to hear your opening argument and answers to my questions.
And yes, the Torah, the OT.
Alright. Since you have not made your opening argument, I will make mine.
"To the woman he said, 'I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.'" - Genesis 3:16
I'd like to point out that before she ate from the tree Eve did not have the knowledge of good and evil and therefore none of her actions were her fault, but that is a separate debate topic altogether (and if you are up to it, I could challenge you to that debate). Why all women have to suffer because of Eve's "mistake" will always be a mystery to me, but Canaan had to suffer because of his father's wrongdoings, so inherited punishment is not specific to one sex. With that all out of the way, I would like to point to the sexist part:
"Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."
Maybe you think this is a reasonable punishment, but I do not. Through the perspective of an agnostic atheist, this story is not historical fact. This whole story is just an allegory for why women have to be subservient to men, and the sexism is blatant.
"Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof." - Genesis 19:8
Lot offers his own two daughters to a band of gang rapists to protect two men he barely knows. If you say this is hospitality, first off, it is hospitality gone too far. Secondly, I highly doubt Lot would have offered his son(s) if he had one/any.
"Then she arose and went away, and taking off her veil she put on the garments of her widowhood." - Genesis 38:19
Women who were widowed were required to wear special garments. The Torah states this, and not once condemns it.
"If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do." - Exodus 21:7
A female servant cannot hope for freedom as a male does. This verse is self-explanatory.
"Say to the Israelites: ‘A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period.'" - Leviticus 12:2
"If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding." - Leviticus 12:5
A woman is considered unclean when she is on her period, and she is not permitted to touch sacred objects while on it. She also must wait to be purified. Another note: If a woman gives birth to a male baby, she is unclean for one week. However, if she gives birth to a female baby, she is unclean for double the time.
"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." - Leviticus 15:19
"On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the tent of meeting. The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the Lord for the uncleanness of her discharge." Leviticus 15:29-30
It is quite curious that women are punished for simply having a biological function that God created. Why would God give women their period then deem them unclean? How is something she cannot control a sin?
"'If a priest's daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she disgraces her father; she must be burned in the fire.'" - Leviticus 21:9
Apparently unchaste sons don't have to be burned to death.
"Set the value of a male between the ages of twenty and sixty at fifty shekels of silver, according to the sanctuary shekel; for a female, set her value at thirty shekels; for a person between the ages of five and twenty, set the value of a male at twenty shekels and of a female at ten shekels; for a person between one month and five years, set the value of a male at five shekels of silver and that of a female at three shekels of silver; for a person sixty years old or more, set the value of a male at fifteen shekels and of a female at ten shekels." - Leviticus 27:3-7
The creator of the universe himself states that women are worth less than men. If that isn't sexism I don't know what is.
“When a young woman still living in her father’s household makes a vow to the Lord or obligates herself by a pledge and her father hears about her vow or pledge but says nothing to her, then all her vows and every pledge by which she obligated herself will stand. But if her father forbids her when he hears about it, none of her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand; the Lordwill release her because her father has forbidden her." - Numbers 30:3-5
To be honest, I was not aware we could use Google Documents. This will help me in the future. For now, I will quote you from the document and respond to your statements accordingly. To anyone interested in this debate, you may want to click on the link harrytruman shared during round three for context.
"The Torah says here that women will be subservient to men, not that they are lesser than men, this verse doesn’t advocate for women being subservient to men any more than Genesis 3:17-19 advocates for dumping thorns onto mens gardens."
Subservient means the following: prepared to obey others unquestioningly; less important; subordinate; useful in an inferior capacity; obsequiously submissive. Let's pull out some key words. Okay, so women are less important, subordinate, inferior, and expected to obey men eagerly without question. It sounds like according to the Torah, women are lesser than men. Being female myself, if I had read Genesis 3:16 and believed it to be true, I would feel lesser than men. Now, let's address Genesis 3:17-19, and compare it to Genesis 3:16.
"To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it, Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.”
To Eve, and by extent, all women, God says, "Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."
I have already addressed what this verse means. Moving on.
He says then to Adam, "[The ground] will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field."
The Garden of Eden was a paradise, and Adam and Eve did not have to work by the sweat of their brow to grow crops. The garden was abundant will trees baring fruit from them to eat. When God says the ground will produce thorns, what he means is that Adam and Eve will no longer be provided delicious food, and they will have to forage for wild plants such as thistles or work hard trying to grow food.
Do you see the difference? Genesis 3:16 is a command by God targeted towards women, while 3:17-19 is God telling Adam what he and his wife will have to do for food now that they are banned from the garden.
"Just because someone does something bad and the Torah records it happening doesn’t mean it is advocating for it, my history book records the Jewish Holocaust, but doesn’t necessarily advocate for killing jews, for if it did, I would throw it out the window immediately."
I would agree with you, if Lot wasn't portrayed as the protagonist. Even the angels, God's messengers, save Lot from the rapists by striking the rapists with blindness.
"How does this infringe upon a right though? Also, which verse says that women have to wear garments of widowhood?"
It is an historical fact that widowed Hebrew women had to wear special clothing.  The Torah references this fact: "she put on the garments of her widowhood."
If a woman who doesn't have a father or spouse is forced to wear clothes while a man with no father or spouse isn't, she doesn't have the same rights men do.
"Read the origanal hebrew, it actually says: ‘Iysh (man) makar (sell) bath (daughter) ‘amah (maidservant) yatsa’ (shall go free) ‘ebed (menservants) atsa’ (go free), or 'If a man sells his daughter as a maidservant she shall go free just as the menservants go free.'"
(Here is the website harrytruman sent me to: https://www.blueletterbible.org...)
The original Hebrew website you directed me to translates Exodus 21:7, but not in the same way you say the website does. Here is what it actually says:
"And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant she shall not go out as the menservents do."
I'd like to note that the Hebrew word meaning "slave" is commonly translated to "servant."  Take a look at what the Hebrew word for slave is:
After you've looked at that, take a look at the Hebrew word for slave and how it is translated on the website harrytruman directed me to:
I realize עֶבֶד can be translated both ways, but I just wanted to point out that masters could mistreat their slaves, as long as the weren't Hebrew.
"Number one this doesn’t constitute an infringement of any rights. Number two she is only considered ritually impure, and people don’t touch sacred objects all that often anyway."
You're right, it doesn't infringe on any rights. Just an amusing example of blatant sexism.
"It’s not a sin, they’re still impure for the moment though, it only means they shouldn’t be touching other people all that much, like falling ill actualy, lso, no rights are infringed here."
Actually, in Leviticus 15:29-30, when a woman is finished with her period, she is to bring two doves (or two young pigeons), and the priest is to sacrifice one as a burnt offering and the other as a sin offering. A sin offering is an offering made as an atonement for a sin.  I will ask you again, why would God give women their period then deem them unclean?
Requiring women to sacrifice two doves for a contrived reason is a denial of rights. Imagine if the was a rule where people who currently have prostate cancer have to sacrifice a pig every week. That law targets one sex and makes no sense, and would be unfair to men.
When I call Leviticus 21:9 to attention, you rebuttal by quoting Leviticus 10:1-2.
Nadab and Abihu were not burned for being unchaste, they were burned for offering God "profane fire" and worshiped God in a way God had not commanded them to do.  You are comparing apples to oranges.
"You weren’t allowed to work maidservants as hard so they pay less for them. Also, this is money paid for servitude, not their actual value."
This passage is not referring to servants. The worth given to certain groups of people is solely baised on how useful they are perceived to be.  I recommend going to citation five and reading up on vows.
"When a daughter is in her father's house that is, children are not given the same liberties as adults in the Torah, that much is clear."
A daughter in her father's house is not nessecarily a child, rather, an unwed female. A Hebrew woman in this time would live with her father until she is married.
"Yes, if one spouse makes foolish decisions, G-d gives the other authority over him/her, in Genesis 21:12 G-d gives Sarai authority over Avram because he made stupid decisions like marrying Hagar."
Genesis 21:12 is an instance where a husband listens to his wife, which is nice, and God himself agrees with her. This is, however, just one instance, and God never says a wife can always forbid her husband from making a vow. He bluntly says that a husband can always forbid his wife from making a vow.
"See here, it only says spare the women and children, “for yourselves” was not in the original hebrew. Also, see Genesis 34."
(Here is the website harrytruman sent me to: https://www.blueletterbible.org...)
Now this time I at least see where you are coming from. On this website, there is no root from Hebrew to warrent "for yourselves" being added on, but there is a reason why translators felt it needed to be encluded. Here is what it says in Hebrew:
"But all the women children that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive."
So why was "for yourselves" added? Well, why would the Hebrews save the virgins? So that they could have sex with them. That can be inferred. If the Hebrews were truely being merciful towards the forgein women, they would save them all, not just the virgins.
"Spare the women and children take the livestock as plunder is what he is saying."
No. Read it again. It doesn't say that.
"So? If a man commits sex outside of marriage he is stoned too."
Yes, but I don't think you understood my point. A woman has to prove her virginity, which means if a man accuses her of not being a virgin, she is guilty until proven innocent, which is not what I would call justice. The presumption of innocence is key to a fair trial.
"This one isn’t referring to rape."
I was going to respond to this in the same way I did when you said the women weren't being refered to as plunder, but instead, I'll just quote the passage you are responding to with key words underlined. Pay close attention:
"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
"Also, Genesis 1:27: 'So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.'"
A beautiful verse from the Torah, but I must say, this is a debate about whether or not women are denied rights in the Hebrew Bible. Despite the good moments, you cannot deny the bad ones.
"Yes! Why didn’t you?"
I would have now but honestly I'm running out of characters and it is midnight where I am. In the next round, I'll present more instances of sexism in a Google Document and refute your claims in the argument text box.
I apologize for being snarky. After all, I am a female.
(To note: In my Google Document, my citations have correct numbering, but are out of order.)
My opponent seams to be different than the last person I debated on this subject in that she is more focussed on what the truth is rather than on reinforcing her anti-Torah biased, my last debate on this subject didn't turn out this good.
corporealbeing forfeited this round.