Women should not play a ministerial role that consists of teaching men

My opponent's basic argument was that because 66 (not 66) % of the world is not Christian, assuming the Christian Bible is disregarding those religions and acting as if everyone is Christian. I have an easy response to this. The Budhists don't call the Pali Canon "the Bible". They call it the Pali Canon. The mormons don't call the book of Mormon "the Bible", they call it the Book of Mormon. The Muslims don't call the Koran "the Bible", they call it the Koran. The Christian Bible has no other name. It is just called "the Bible". What else am I to refer to it as? Thus by saying "the Bible" it's clear that all should know I am speaking of the Christian Bible because that is the only name for it. I did not "know what you mean" I am sorry to have to say this, but this statement means one of two things. Either Con is arguing that he's dumb, or he's lying. Note I am not calling my opponent dumb. He is capable, I am sure. But if he truly did not know what I meant by "the Bible", I am shocked. This sounds more likely to be a lie simply to add emphasis. It's as if I had a debate about adding higher character limits on debate.org and I purposefully used extra space and wasted characters so that I would reach the 8,000 limit and say "You see? I can't even type in 8k characters! Just the reason why!" I believe Con is merely pretending he did not know it was the Christian Bible. He more likely saw that word and decided to run a nasty semantic. I did not make this debate to do semantics, I made it to debate whether the Christian Bible advocates women teaching men in Church. Unfortunately, if you will not vote my opponent down for a rather silly semantic, then I am willing to stoop down to that level and "semantic him back". I have one more response to this claim. If Con truly didn't know what I meant, he should have checked my profile to see my religion. If he truly didn't know and wanted clarification, that's what he would have done. But instead, he defined it as something else so that he could win the debate. If he was still not clear even after looking at my religion, he could have asked what I meant. Defining it as the Pali Canon is obviously a tactic rather than a misunderstanding. If this is the case, Con flat out lied to you and me. Lastly, you are the voter. I made the prediction that you knew what I meant. Do you know what I mean? Did you assume it was the Christian Bible? If so I win on this point. Just tie in what I said about different religions calling their scriptures different names rather than "the Bible". Even if you have a different religion, it's likely you knew I meant the Christian Bible since that's the only name for it. Next, I did not refute your definition of church simply because it was not used in the topic OR the first round, and because I defined the parameters of this debate under the book of the pali canon, my opponents definition of church is null and void. My opponent has a misconception of what conceding means. He conceded EVERYTHING I said about the definition of Church. Including how I tied it in to the fact that that disproves him. By never addressing it, he conceded that since the Church is defined as Christian and Christians don't use the Pali Canon, we must speak about the Christian Bible. You can't just drop a point because it doesn't apply. You have to say it doesn't apply. Since Con didn't say it doesn't apply when he had the chance to, it's conceded and he can not brush it aside now. You as the voter are voting on what we have said, not on an assumed thought. You can't assume that he dropped it since it "doesn't apply". You can only vote on what he said and what I said. But if you're not even satisfied with that, I'll refute Con even though he stated this too late in the debate. This debate is clearly talking about the Church. I will define ministerial as "Of, relating to, or characteristic of a minister of religion" (The free dictionary) That translates the resolution to "Women should not teach men in Church". How does this tie in? Well, he said because this round is not about a church my definition does not matter. It actually does because this round IS about the Church. Remember, he can't even respond to this point since he conceded it. Con shouldn't have even brought it up last round since it was a done deal that it was conceded. It doesn't matter WHY he conceded it. It matters that he DID. I refuse to discuss the Christian religion with my opponent today simply because he established this debate on a blind, one-sided view of religion, and expected me as well as viewers of this debate to disregard 66% of the world. No, I simply wanted to debate whether the Christian Bible teaches this. I wasn't trying to debate whether all around the world in any religion a woman should teach a man in church because the Bible says so or doesn't say so. Rather, whether the Bible teaches this or not. I as the instigator am allowed to choose whatever I want. Con refuses to debate on my grounds so he should a. not have accepted this debate in the first place b. lose because of ignoring what I've said. My opponents arguments as well as his topic were based on a conceded and bias view of the largely universal term: Religion 1. Ahem? When did I define religion as Christian? 2. If my opponent is going to say that trying to make this a Christian debate is defining religion incorrectly, then I say the same for him. He wrongly defined the Bible as "Pali Canon", which only applies to one religion. And to go further, he abused the term even more than "I did". According to (http://www.adherents.com...), Buddhism is only 6% of the world. So Con defined Religion as 6% of religion, and I defined it as 33% of religion. Clearly I win on this. Those two responses cover both sides. If you truly believe Con that I wrongly defined Religion (even though I never did), then notice he did a worse job of it. But if you believe me that I never tried to define religion only as Christianity, then disregard this statement. Each of my responses is enough to take out my opponent's stance. But let's do one more which sweeps him off his feet without any of this other argumentation. Among the many things Con did not address and therefore conceded: Among the things Con conceded...Using the pali canon now = ignoring all of my points. (REFER TO ROUND 3 MY POST) He conceded that he should lose if he does not bring up Bible verses. In effect, Con is saying you should vote Pro! I would urge you to vote Pro because: 1. Con used a ridiculous semantic (and I believe you know this) 2. He refuses to debate on what I have set the rules to be 3. He has conceded many of my points, and he forfeited one round. Because he forfeited that round his definition falls apart. On the whole issue of defining the Bible: did you assume it was the Christian Bible when you read my first post? I believe you did. If so, you should vote Pro. Let's say you didn't assume it was the Christian Bible. My definition of Church and Con's concession of it clearly defines the Bible to be meant as the Christian Bible. At this point in the round, Con can not say anything to redeem himself. He has dropped so many crucial points and agrees that he should lose. No matter what he says next, he loses because of the three reasons I have set out and because he agrees he should lose. Again, please set aside personal bias on the issue when voting. (Only consider whether you assumed "the Bible" to mean the Christian scriptures.) Lastly, I would encourage you to read this post again after reading Con's last post. It will show you what he has failed to address. Thank you Con for accepting the debate, although it turned out to be unfavorable because of your definition of "the Bible". Thank you especially voters for reading this lengthy debate.