Women ought not to be the head in a ministerial role

Contention 1. Exodus: Oh, so we're debating whether or not God has used women in the Bible? Well let's look at the resolution. "Women ought not to be the head in a ministerial role". Does the resolution say "God has used women therefore we can use women"? No. Don't try to change what the resolution says just so you can win. If you indeed by some wild imagination can interpret the resolution as "God has used women in the Bible", please vote Pro (me) because that would be an unfair resolution. (You can't deny fact in a debate round, can you? ) Judges: Doesn't matter that Deborah lived before Isaiah. Of course she lived before Isaiah. But it's an example that women leading was actually a punishment and it wasn't that great of a time for them. It doesn't have to be talking about Deborah specifically. Contradicting: No I'm not. I'm saying you can't use old testament verses for this specific topic, to prove your point. Why can I use them? Because I'm rebutting your old testament verse with an old testament verse. I'm not trying to prove using the Isaiah verse that women should not head a ministerial role. My opponent did not respond to the fact that Deborah asked the General to lead, so that flows through. That alone is enough to knock down the verse. Also, he/she did not contest that women leading was actually more of a punishment. That also flows to me. My opponent may not respond to dropped arguments. Luke: I'm not trying to discredit everything in the OT. I just stated that this specific topic cannot be proved using OT verses. Contention 2. Yes, God created men and women both in his image. That doesn't mean he doesn't differentiate between the two when it comes to ROLES in their relationship towards EACH OTHER. This is an invalid response to my point. Contention 3. Again, the resolution does not say that we're debating whether they've been used for a ministerial role. Also, the resolution by common sense is saying that we are debating whether they should be in a ministerial role NOW ADAYS, not back when God appointed them. My argument is that no, now adays they shouldn't be. Again, I can't debate against a fact. If you're saying whether they should at any time, you automatically win because God does not sin and he appointed them. That would be an unfair resolution. Contention 4. Ahahaha. So my opponent is trying to say that just because women pastors say they were called by God that they ARE. They only reason they say that is because they need some kind of excuse for being a woman pastor. This response is totally flaky. My own verses Timothy: Wow, that was a really bad response yet again. First, the point under that verse is not that women should never talk while in church or shouldn't teach other women. It's that they shouldn't teach men. "The scripture provides examples of women violating this" During the old covenant, yet again. My opponent must stop using old testament verses as examples. Until she provides a solid example from the new testament, I win this debate. Corinthians: All my opponent refuted was that this can't be taken as an absolute. I'm not trying to take it as an absolute. My argument is that it means women should not teach other men in church, not that they can't TALK or PRAY. Cultural approach: You need to provide evidence that it is a cultural approach. Actually, my opponent has done a poor job as well. He/she has only used old covenant verses to prove the point, which is invalid for this certain topic. Sure, old testament is an important part of the Bible, but we can't use it for this topic. My Isaiah verse was in response to your own OT verse, so it's fine. Also, the resolution clearly does not mean what my opponent has tried to make it mean in desperation. Don't let my opponent cheat on me by changing the meaning of the resolution in round.