I hope that the resolution is clear enough, but, for the record:
To accept the debate, Con will agree to work with the following definitions:
Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve equal political, economic, cultural, personal, and social rights for women. This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. (a Feminist is one who supports this overall movement)
Impede: delay or prevent (someone or something) by obstructing them; hinder.
Con may opt to use round 1 for acceptance, or may just get started.
BOP is shared.
Con will argue that Feminism should be impeded by Bronze Age texts, such as some parts of the Bible.
I guess I'm hoping that nobody accepts, but I'm thinking that some bible literalist might take this challenge on!
Thanks for accepting; let's get started!Short version:1
. Equal rights for women; that sounds good.2
. Bronze Age writings; they sound old.3
. Hard to see why anybody would think it a good idea for the latter to impede the former.Long version:1. Equal rights for women; that sounds good.
Let's start with quotations from the World Bank 
"Empowering women and girls is not only the right thing to do: It’s also smart economics and vital to ending poverty and boosting shared prosperity
"evidence shows that resources in the hands of women boost household spending in areas that benefit children
Or we might turn to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) 
"Closing gender gaps benefits countries as a whole, not just women and girls
Or perhaps you would accept the verdict of the UN 
"When more women work, economies grow
"increasing the share of household income controlled by women changes spending in ways that benefit children
"Increasing women and girls’ education contributes to higher economic growth
"A study using data from 219 countries from 1970 to 2009 found that, for every one additional year of education for women of reproductive age, child mortality decreased by 9.5 per cent
Poverty and gender inequality seem to be strongly correlated. Societies in which men have most of the power and women are seen as second class citizens are often the poorest; we must be careful not to fall foul of the "correlation does not imply causation" fallacy, but it seems to be a universal message from all the World's organisations who have seriously tried to tackle poverty: empowering women is one of the most powerful ways to help a region out of abject poverty.
I am firmly behind the feminist cause (both in the poorest and richest nations). I am partly proud to call myself a feminist because ensuring equal rights for women is the right thing to do, but also because it is the sensible thing to do.2. Bronze Age writings; they sound old.
Much of the bible was written about 3,500 years ago, in the Bronze Age; times were, as one might imagine, very different from today. Gender inequality was a way of life; women were considered virtually the property of their fathers until they were married, then they were considered virtually the property of their husbands - and it was absolutely clear what their "purpose" was, to provide their masters with offspring.
Things were so different than today; by way of example, I suggest that the gentle reader consider the situation of a married man sleeping with his neighbour's wife. How would we respond to this situation today? I imagine that the sympathies of the modern reader are foursquare behind the man's wife and the man's neighbour, who have both been cheated on. The view at the time was very different, seeing the woman as property whose offence was not to be considered (indeed, I don't think that the Bronze Age man would think that the wife would be offended that he'd slept about)... the biggest sin in Bronze Age eyes, of course, being that the man who was cheated on would not know whether any children produced by his wife were actually his. It is important to understand this World view when one reads Job 31:9-10 9 If my heart has been enticed by a woman, or if I have lurked at my neighbor’s door,10 then may my wife grind another man’s grain, and may other men sleep with her.
It strikes me, at least, that there is very little sympathy for the wife in this meditation of Job's. It seems that the wife must perform acts to atone for the Husband's misdemeanors (because this would hurt the husband). Now, it wouldn't be right to sit in judgement of morals from one hundred and seventy five generations ago, of course, but neither would it be right to adopt them today.3. Hard to see why anybody would think it a good idea for the latter to impede the former.
So, this is what I want to know (I feel confident Con is about to explain):
Why would anybody think that it is a good idea to allow what may well have been the pinnacle of philosophical, spiritual and moral thinking from over 3000 years ago in a small region in the Middle East to govern how we structure our modern societies today?
Please understand that I am not averse to taking the good bits
from this World view, of course, where they can be suitably ported to a modern setting; and yet I cannot conceive of any aspect of this ancient traditional view that could impede the progress of feminism and still be considered a good bit
. Over to you, Con!
1. Is feminism irreproachable?
The very least of my argument against pro's position would be, essentially, what is wrong with “delaying” the “definition” of certain women's “rights”, as per my opponents definitions?
Take consideration: an inappropriately defined right would respectively lead to said inappropriate right being established and achieved (by my opponents given definition, although such a case would not be much of an achievement in reality).
For example, would the establishment of “equality” for women in the form of having them perform alongside males in athletics be appropriate, on the inherent value of a skewed sense of equality? This isn't just a purely hypothetical scenario either, such cases are already being discussed , even on this very site, with certain justifications for yes votes reflecting the sad state of delusion left on society by feminism, such as “Gender Shouldn't Matter Gender should not be a factor in determining the opponents and teammates of an athlete. Girls are just as strong as boys, and with hard work and perseverance can train themselves to be better at their sport then the boys. It is sexist to use gender as a factor in determining the athlete's abilities, and demeaning to tell a girl "you can't play on the team, you aren't strong enough."” . The grandiose delusion I speak of in the aforementioned reference, is that males and females are on equal par in regards to physical abilities; anybody who has been through secondary education should have the knowledge that this is obviously erroneousness , although I wouldn't even patronise a young child by insinuating they did not know such a self-evident fact. Just in case there are any contentions about the fact that men and women are physically different, there are many scientific studies which attest to this fact (e.g. ), although a cross-examination of Great British powerlifting records show the disparity between the physical strength of men and women; for example, the record for the open 84kg weight class for females for open equipped squat is 212.5kg, whilst the record for the open 83kg weight class for males unequipped squat is 262.5kg, let alone the respective open 83kg weight class for males equipped squat being 342.5kg – not to mention that the women's weight class only extend to 84kg+, while men's extends to 120kg+ . Furthermore, more appropriately, cross-examination of world records in athletics clearly show a difference in the physical aptitude of males and females .
Another example could be endeavours to establish equality in conscription laws, which would see women being legally obliged to fight on the front line as infantry, all in the aims of equalising women's rights in relation to men's. Once again, this isn't an entirely hypothetical scenario, as Norway has already started “conscripting” women, although there conscription laws being liberal in these cases, with the female population of their military being only 9% , clearly showing the hypocritical lack of “equality” despite their misguided ideologies. All this, clearly shows that despite what ever intentions, feminism is not infallible and sometimes needs to be challenged. In a means to increase relevancy to the overall subject of the debate, I refer you to Numbers 1:2-3 “Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, [...] every male by their polls; From twenty years old and upward, all that are able to go forth to war in Israel” , illustrates that Biblically only men who were expected to be drafted to fight.
A final question at this point, that is, does my opponent believe there is any literature whatsoever that has a right to impede feminism?
2. Does the age of literature automatically void their worth?
The second area of my argument is simply a criticism of my opponents fallacious presupposition, given the resolution, that the fact that a piece of text is ancient is reason alone to dismiss it as a whole; there were many texts from antiquity , and to dismiss any arguments from all these texts simply due to their age is, well, silly. For example, take one of the Ten Commandments from Exodus 20:13 “Thou shalt not kill.” , which I think we can agree teaches a correct moral law, and then take Elliot Rodgers manifesto, which, once again I think we can agree, promotes immoral ideology, especially in reference to females ; doing so, we can evidently see that despite the antiquity of the former and the modernity of the latter, one is morally correct, whilst the other is severely lacking in morality. As a side note, I should also mention, that being a Christian, it is my view that the Bible is timeless, so criticisms on its antiquity is not pertinent – although I do not expect that my opponent will concede to this viewpoint.
3. Therefore, the pro resolution is essentially flawed.
We see then, in principle, given that feminism isn't infallible and irreproachable, sometimes it should be impeded in its goals, and since the age of a text is not indicative of its worth, there is no inherent reason to prohibit Bronze Age texts from impeding feminism. My opponent even concedes to this point where he states that “[he is] not adverse to taking the good bits from [the Bible]”, but that simply he “cannot conceive of any aspect of this ancient traditional view that could impede the progress of feminism and still be considered a good bit”, displaying that its not that he is arguing that Bronze Age texts should not impede feminism in essence, but that he just has not seen any reason as of yet for any Bronze Age text to impede feminism, which I would disagree with.
4. Why Bronze Age texts (namely the Bible) should impede feminism.
Now, to the crux of the issue, one example I would like to give as to how Biblical text should unquestionably impede feminism, is in the matter of abortion rights. Abortion is widely seen in feminist ideology as right of absolute free to all women , whilst the Bible takes opposition to such ideology, by declaring the sinfulness of abortion Exodus 21:22-24 “If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her [...] if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth” , and as such, I believe that in the case of “women's rights” to open access to abortion should be impeded on such grounds. That is not to say that I believe that those who take part in abortions should be killed, as the referenced scripture states, in light of further scripture in Matthew 5:38-39 “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil” .
I look forward to tackling my opponent specific contentions in regards to my stance on feminism and ancient texts – namely the Biblical texts.
I will be saving my rebuttals for the following round(s).
Con dedicates half his argument to the ridiculous idea that feminism is about convincing the World that women are as strong as men. This suggestion is a straw man argument designed to undermind both feminism and, to a degree, women. I am offended on their behalf. Let's deconstruct Con's argument:
1. Women have the "grandiose delusion" that they are as strong as men.
2. Feminism has pushed this agenda and "left a delusion on society"
3. Men are stronger than women.
4. Men are stronger than women.
5. Con "wouldn't even patronise a young child by insinuating they did not know such a self-evident fact"
6. Men are stronger than women.
7. Men are stronger than women.
8. Men are stronger than women.
It seems that Con really does believe that he must fight this insidious straw man that feminism is apparantly foisting upon society; so much so, in fact, that despite not wanting to patronise a young child, he is happy to patronise both the gentle voter and me!
Calm down, Con, calm down; don't worry, that scarecrow is dead. You killied it already. Stop kicking it! Don't worry, the scary straw man won't hurt you.
Con asks "does my opponent believe there is any literature whatsoever that has a right to impede feminism?" and my answer can only be "no"; I am not familiar with the practice of extending rights to literature. But hey, Con, if you're really passionate, perhaps you could make up a banner and go protest "rights for books" alongside all those weak women campaigning for "Women are as strong as men".
"Does the age of literature automatically void their worth?" - no.
"Therefore, the pro resolution is essentially flawed.
" - no.
We finally get, as Con says, to the crux.
"One example I would like to give as to how Biblical text should unquestionably impede feminism, is in the matter of abortion rights
This is exactly the sort of nonsense that I expected to have to address when I created the debate. Let's talk about that, then. I think that I've demonstrated enough of a positive argument in R2 to accept the proposition from a World-wide perspective and Con offers no objection, apparantly, to the idea of educating and empowering women in poor countries far beyond their status in the middle east in the late Bronze Age. Now, then, we seem to be focusing on one particular aspect of life in the developed World. Let's roll
In the Bronze Age, people had sticks and stones (and bronze swords). Bronze Age Man had to protect his womenfolk, for fear of wasting his effort bringing up somebody else's kid. Women were virtually property of their fathers until they were married, then they were virtually property of their husbands... and their "purpose" was really very clear: they were glorified incubators. In Con's bible passage, we have two men fighting, one inducing labour by punching the other man's wife in the stomach. Welcome to the Bronze Age. I imagine that Bronze Age Man would have been concerned not by the complex emotional response of Bronze Age Woman in the passage Con cites but, rather, by the fact that "Ug broke my incubator". This kind of thinking may (that's for another debate) have been acceptable at the time, but it's the sort of thing that may still go on in some places in the World today and I can't see any place for it. I wonder, when I see Con thumping his chest and flexing his big manly muscles how far we've really come from the Bronze Age.
I have a question for you, Con:
Do you think that Bronze Age philosophy, spiritualism and morality might have been different if they had access to modern medicine? You know, contraceptives, morning-after-pills, scans, tech to assist in complicated births (infant mortality 0.5% not 50%), tech to predict illnesses, tech to tell if a woman has been raped, tech to tell who is who's father, tech to perform low pain, low risk abortions? Not to mention the cultural changes: liberated women who are allowed to vote, own property and choose where they go.
I propose that whatever thoughts Bronze Age Man had on abortion (and I assure you that the passage cited is not talking about abortion), we should not unthinkingly adopt them. I simply fail to see the point that Con is making.
I'll end by repeating Exodus 21:22-24 :If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
1. Men are stronger than women. Men are stronger than women. Men are stronger than women... Repetition ad nauseam is fun!
My opponent makes the claim that my the content of my first argument was a straw-man, but I cannot concede to such a claim; if my first argument was fallacious on the basis given by my opponent, than his first argument was also fallacious. This is due to the fact that he did not provide any real evidence for feminism being irreproachable, however, he simply argued that feminism "sounds good" because of a few seemingly positive examples, for example women's right to education, which he later on in this round insinuates that I am against, which is simply not true – which is in any case irrelevant to the overarching debate. However, the referenced segment of my argument, which he deemed to be a straw-man, was simply evidence for feminism not being infallible, as part of the holistic argument against pro's proposition that "feminism should not be impeded by Bronze Age texts"; in that since:
- Feminism is not irreproachable
- The age of a piece of text does not void its intellectual, ethical and/or social value
we are lead to the conclusion that the positive assertion of my opponents proposition, on an inherent basis, is invalid. Hence why my opponent has not actually refuted my argument, and it follows that in the very least my opponent has failed to meet the BoP of his proposition.
2. Bronze Age Man dumb. Today Man smart. (Woman incubator).
My opponent then decides to give an anecdote of "Bronze Age Man", who seems like an interesting character, but does not give any insight into the topic at hand. But, in all seriousness, my opponent reduces ancient people into cartoon-like stereotypes without providing any sources for his allegations; he makes baseless claims, on the basis of whim, as I quote "I imagine that". Not only does my opponent make unfounded generalisations, after providing his wonderful insight on Bronze Age man, all he does is suggest that such thinking has no place in modern society, which, given his caveman archetype who cannot string a proper sentence together, I would agree with him. Although the question arises over the relevancy of all this in the debate, as at best it seems to be be reasoning as to why anti-abortion perspectives are invalid, which even if we assumed that his universal description of Bronze Age man was correct, it does not diminish the validity of the anti-abortion viewpoint, as even a broken clock is right twice a day. Finally, he throws in an attack towards my person, in what I can only assume is a means to ridicule my argument, by ridiculing me to the audience. Oh, also, we still have sticks and stones, they are not just a feature of the Bronze Age.
3. Would Bronze Age philosophy, spirituality and morality have been different if they had access to modern medicine?
My opponent asks me this question, of whether or not I think that the existence of modern medicine would have made a difference to Bronze Age philosophy, spiritualism and morality, to which all I can say is, most probably. However, I do not believe that modern medicine would have made a difference to the philosophy, spirituality or morality of the Bible. This is because I believe in the that the Bible is from God , and as such do not believe that the societal factors would change the core truths within the texts. My opponent also off-handedly mentions cultural changes, but once again, I'm left questioning the relevancy of all this. He finishes by stating that the passage which I cited in my fourth argument, Exodus 21:22-24 "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her [...] if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life" , is not referencing abortion; whilst he may be right in the strictest sense, it still gives us an understanding that there are ethical qualms when it comes to a fetus' life, as we are given an illustration where given any harm to a fetus, they were to take "life for life". If this is not sufficient, I once again refer to Exodus 20:13 "Thou shalt not kill" , which clearly condemns the taking of life, and then to Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee" , which clearly shows that God knows a person before birth. The point I am making, for my opponent's sake, is that I believe that abortion is an immoral act, and as such feminism should be impeded on the grounds of establishing access to abortion.
I will quickly like to also point out that in this round my opponent agrees with my premises, but denies my conclusion of him not meeting his BoP, without providing justification for said denial.
He also goes on to state that he has presented a sufficient argument for the "world-wide perspective", although this implies some form of no true Scotsman fallacy within the constraints of the initial definition provided for feminism.
Gentle voter, when Con repeats "Feminism is not irreproachable", I think it is only fair to ask that he go into more specific detail: Con, we'd like to know (we shouldn't really have to ask) what you find reproachable about feminism. I do not claim that it is above scrutiny or criticism, I just think that you waving a stick around poking me with "feminism isn't perfect" doesn't serve to achieve much; were you to tell us exactly what was so reproachable about feminism, we'd be able to decide whether we agreed with you or not.
Con said "However, the referenced segment of my argument, which he deemed to be a straw-man, was simply evidence for feminism not being infallible
"; wow; you're going to go with that, are you? Do you honestly
believe that feminism is responsible for causing society to become deluded into believing that women are as strong as men? Because, I have to say, if that's what feminism was (or, rather, what it did) then I'd be the first person to want to rid society of any delusions; right now, though, it's you that seems to be delusional and I'd like to help you rid yourself of your own delusions!Feminism
is a collection of movements and ideologies that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve equal political, economic, cultural, personal, and social rights for women. This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. (a Feminist
is one who supports this overall movement).
Feminism is not an attempt to persuade right-thinking rational people that women are as strong as men.
Con says the following:"My opponent asks me this question, of whether or not I think that the existence of modern medicine would have made a difference to Bronze Age philosophy, spiritualism and morality, to which all I can say is, most probably. However, I do not believe that modern medicine would have made a difference to the philosophy, spirituality or morality of the Bible. This is because I believe in the that the Bible is from God [link to bible quotation], and as such do not believe that the societal factors would change the core truths within the texts."
One may believe that the Bible is from God if one likes, but citing the Bible as justification for this belief seems as farcical to me as the image of somebody pulling themselves out of quicksand by tugging on their own hair! If I was guilty of imagining without providing sufficient evidence of the gender inequalities of the times (here are some links about gender inequality over the ages [1
]), how much more is Con guilty of taking an idea on faith without providing evidence to support it. The claim being made is that the Bible is from God; different Christians believe that idea with different levels of force... most theologians allow for a very less-than-literal interpretation of much of what the bible says; I suggest that for Con's argument (that the philosophy, spirituality and morality of the Bible is independent of the state of science and culture at the time of its writing) is to take the idea of God as a literal writer of the Bible quite seriously.
In the light of Con's belief and because it seems that this belief is critical to Con's argument, I'd like to take a little bit of time to understand how Con manages to explain away some of the worse moral ideas contained in the Bible:Leviticus 25:44-46 
Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life.
Exodus 21:20-21 
Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.1 Peter 2:18-20 Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God.
So, Con, are these the words of a perfect moral being or must we sometimes
assume that ideas in the bible may come from the minds of men living in the Middle East during the Bronze Age? Do you not allow for any element at all in the Bible to be not directly from God? Might the state of culture, science and medicine at the time have had some effect on what we find today in the Bible?
Because I think that the cultural realities at the time informed the writings in the Bible and I hope that the gentle reader will agree with me at least that there is some element of truth in this.
"Judaism in the first century had emerged from the oriental patriarchal tradition in which women were considered the property of men with no rights, no role in society except childbearing, and no education.
Even if the bible spoke directly about abortion (which it doesn't, thank goodness) I propose that it would behove us to consider the issue to a greater depth than simply "the bible says this"; otherwise, I suggest, we'd be left in the unenviable position of having to adopt a pro-slavery stance.
Con suggests that we should think that "thou shalt not kill" should apply to abortion - but this is patently false, since this commandment only ever meant "thou shalt not murder" and has arguably been mistranslated [7
]. Thus we find ourselves in a worse position than women's rights today being limited by Bronze Age texts - we find that women's rights are potentially being affected by mistranslations
of Bronze Age texts!
cox.nulman forfeited this round.
I thank my opponent for an interesting debate; it'll be over all too soon.
Is Feminism a worthy cause? I believe so - having gender equality (to the greatest extent possible) seems to me both the morally correct ideal and the practically sensible way for a society to organise itself; it seems to me that this ideal is worthy both in the poorest and the richest nations.
Now, to Bronze Age texts: it may well be that those Bronze Age texts we have were the very pinnacle of Bronze Age philosophy; I certainly do not suggest that we should ignore wisdom from bygone ages. On the other hand, lots of things were very different, socially and technologically all those years ago; one of the key differences, socially speaking, was the lot of women: women were seen as chattel and, to a degree, as mere incubators for their male owners. I merely suggest that we shouldn't allow moral questions today to be settled simply by recourse to blindly following the advice of people from over 3,000 years ago!
Feminism, as a movement, is by no means above scrutiny; but then, neither should ancient writings be! Indeed, the vast majority of Christians do not take the bible to be literally true in all cases; I don't think that most Christians allow biblical writings to unduly influence their thinking today. However, it seems to me that some Christians (and Jews and Muslims) allow these ancient texts to inform their moral thinking directly and literally; this seems potentially dangerous to me!
I would certainly have found it interesting had Con provided any solid case that showed why Bronze Age writings were relevant today and, specifically, in contradiction to the feminism movement; I would have been happy to fight any individual case provided along these lines - however, apart from a very loose case suggesting that abortion should be banned based on ancient writings (a case that my opponent did not, in my opinion, make a very strong argument for), Con has singularly failed to provide such debate.
I'll leave it to the gentle voter to decide; vote Pro if you think that the feminist cause should not be blocked based on anceint writings!
1. On feminism.
The irony of this debate is that, Christianity could be said to be one of the earliest proponents of feminism, in that, despite the cultural perspectives on women, Galatians 3:28  epitomizes the view in Christianity that women are spiritually of equal worth to men. Whilst, conversely, in "Politics", Aristotle states that, "The same holds good of animals in relation to men; for tame animals have a better nature than wild [...] Again, the male is by nature superior, and the female inferior" , in which he reflects the Greco-Roman attitude of the inherent inferiority of the female sex, in comparing them to animals, in a section of the book wherein he is justifying slavery of those who are inherently inferior – coincidently to this debate, the American slave industry used similar justifications for their treatment of black slaves . Which brings me back to round 2, in which my opponent suggests that economic prosperity is an indication of goodness, which is a weak argument, since once again, similar arguments would have justified the transatlantic slave trade, as slavery was a vital part of the economic system at the time . And, one has to scrutinize the destination of the feminist movement, wherein feminists openly acknowledge the fact that feminism has not made women happy, rather it has caused a negative impact on women's happiness, with the justification being that unhappiness was to price paid for freedom . However, the question arises on whether society has gone from an Orwellian pre-Suffrage system of oppression, to a Huxleyan system of oppression which gives women an illusion of freedom and choice, within the three waves of feminism ; which as Peter Hitchens wonderfully illustrates started forming during the second wave of feminism in the 60s, leading to a society in which women are encouraged into wage slavery to be exploited by the corporate machine , in the name of freedom, with the benefit of increasing taxable persons and state influence on children, by destabilizing the family unit – all of which has only progressively worsened with 3rd wave feminism. My opponent also off-handedly mentions that poverty and lack of sexual equality seem to be linked, whilst he himself admits that causation does not equate to correlation, he also misses the possibility that this situation may be explained by the fact that developing societies require male-dominated systems to progress, which unless we are provided with contrary evidence we can assume it to be so, seeing as no societies have developed with a female-dominated system . Outside of round 2, my opponent has failed to provide arguments for his resolution in relation to feminism, and why it should not be impeded, whilst I have throughout this debate provided sufficient support for a case against my opponents resolution, in my criticisms of feminism; in fact my opponent has conceded to my argument against the feminist ideology holding any transcendental nature from other ideologies, rather he has simply denied and later ignored my conclusion in round 2.
2. On Bronze Age texts.
On the case of Bronze Age texts, I have not only provided the basic argument against Bronze Age texts inherently lacking value and consequently the right to be used to impede feminism, by confronting ideologies that may arise out of feminism, with the ideologies that may be contained within Bronze Age texts, but I have given an example for a case wherein a piece of Bronze Age literature should be used to impede feminism. Once again, in this case, my opponent has not only failed to provide any sufficient refutation against my basic argument against my opponents resolution in regards to Bronze Age texts, but he has also failed to provide sufficient arguments against specific examples of Bronze Age texts, to length of ignoring many of my rebuttals of his claims against Bronze Age texts, namely Biblical texts, despite the fact that some of the original arguments from my opponent were not even of the strictest relevance. Not only has my opponent failed to meet his resolution or refute my arguments, but he has consistently made baseless claims that Bronze Age texts are outdated in their ideological content without providing any arguments or citations for such claims, in a means to argue against the validity of Bronze Age texts; that is, to the point of repeating the same generalized claims, despite the fact that I had previously refuted said claims, such claiming that women were universally only perceived as property, and in particular incubators, in Bronze Age societies, despite my refutation of this claim in my 6th rebuttal, in 4th round. He has also continually made the claim that due to sociological and technological differences in modern and ancient societies, that Bronze Age texts are somehow invalid, without actually making the link between the two things, let alone providing citations to support his argument. Also, my opponent, has stated that Christian (or Jewish/Muslim) texts should, along with feminism, not be above scrutiny, something which I'd obviously agree with on extra-Biblical Jewish/Muslim texts; in fact, I'd agree with him on Biblical texts also, since without careful examination of the Bible, aberrant and heretical doctrines can become manifest as seen in many religious communities, or seen in my opponents provided passages, which out of context supported his arguments, but scrutinized within their entire context were shown to reasonable.
3. On conclusions.
In conclusion, my opponent has failed to meet the BoP of his resolution given my arguments in round 2, as clearly illustrated throughout this debate, and furthermore, he has failed to give sufficient rebuttals against my arguments for my assertion that feminism should be impeded on the basis of Bronze Age texts, in specific regards to abortion rights. I have given sufficient arguments to support the position that morally, open access to abortion should not be legal, with Biblical foundation, which would impede feminist movement in regards to the woman's right to choice in abortion; to which, my opponent has failed to provide any refutations, but rather he has simply chosen to ignore my arguments because "in [his] opinion", my arguments were not strong enough, without actually justifying his position. To sum up, my opponent has failed to provide any sufficient argument for his case, and has generally failed to refute my arguments, and has ignored my rebuttals, especially so in regards to the arguments which I provided in round 4, in support of Biblical texts. I would like to close with a verse from the Bible, Psalm 51:5 , "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.", which once again affirms the personhood of a fetus in the Bible, which in relation to Exodus 20:13 , would provide a Biblical argument against abortion.
Due to unforeseen circumstances  my previous round was forfeited, however I had posted it online externally , and mentioned it in the comments section.
Thanks for reading; vote Con if you believe I have given adequate support for my position.