There is at Least One Person on the Earth Who Believes that Parts of the Bible Are Despicable

Largely this has just been a repitition of what she's already said, without really engaging with my counter-arguments, just with a little more bold and ALL CAPS text to try and get voter's attention. If I was to claim "The Bible is offensive because it says I am ugly," then my opponent would believe I find the Bible offensive. What I'm actually finding offensive, though, is a hypothetical non-existant version of the Bible that says I am ugly. This hypothetical non-existant Bible can be distinguished from the Bible - just as fake Muslim Obama can be distinguished from Obama, and fake red Brocolli can be distinguished from Brocolli. You can't just invent attributes of the Bible to win the debate - you must actually argue against the real Bible according to the resolution. In the same way, you cannot claim your standard of morality is the harm principle, and then claim a creation story breaches your standard of morality. This is a contradiction because a creation story does not automatically breach the harm principle. If my opponent was to say "The Bible is offensive because the word 'Bible' offends me," you would be left with an absolutely absurd morality based solely on the need to win the debate, not any reasoning or logic, nor the harm principle. I never said the Bible is correct because God says so. That deals with this fallacious case. However, I stand by my deduction that my opponent must logically believe in God, not because she says so (and by the way, there really is no need to put that in all caps) but because otherwise some of her statements make no sense. I encourage her to actually read what I wrote. I also did not drop any of the remaining five points, as the answers to those follow logically from my opponent's rule (as I stated), which she is still ignoring. She already conceeded these four arguments to me in round one. Finally, my opponent states "just because people believe in a certain moral code does not mean that they will follow it," suggesting the Bible writers were lying, and gives an example. That's precisely what she said last round. Now, did she read my massive 3-paragraph section entitled "My Case" which deals with precisely this? NO! She hasn't rebutted or answered any of what I've said yet! She hasn't even read my arguments, and then goes on to the comments to attack me "ad hominum" instead! I refuse to engage with this. I've been rebutting all of my opponent's assertions and logic, and she's rebutted NONE of mine. I urge voters to penalise this lack of engagement and accept my argument as true, unless my opponent actually responds to what I have to say, just as I do to her. SlaveryMy opponent starts by repeating that the beating of slaves was permitted. I conceeded this, but explained that after the beating, Jewish law forced the slave master to free the slave - which, as I showed last round, involved giving the slave enough stuff to make them non-poor, which by the way is even better for the "slave" than it is for citizens of the modern world who suffer an assault. My opponent is yet to respond this. Secondly, she claims that any forced labor is against the harm principle. Well, since we're all forced to do labour in order to continue to survive (including such Herculean labours as eating and breathing) I suppose the only way to conform to pro's morality must be to die. I did actually respond to this last round, by the way, with my analysis on poor people in ancient societies vs slaves. The point is that not everything that's forced violates the harm principle - it must be unconsented (which I admit slavery SOMETIMES was) AND it must be harmful, according to my opponent's own retelling of the principle. She has not proven that it was more harmful to be a slave than what these people would otherwise have - being a slave was much, much better in Jewish society. Kings even called themselves "slaves" because of the fortunate position slaves occupied (according, again, to Peter Garnsey's book). So my opponent has not proven slavery is wrong and abusive - in many cases it was better than being free. Slave exploiters were put to death. No response from pro. Her Exodus analysis, by the way, only says the masters are not to be punished. Freeing a slave was not seen as a punishment because slaves usually cost more to keep than they produced - indeed, keeping slaves was compassionate, because you freed them from the poverty of their former lives. It was not uncommon for a freed slave to WANT to remain a slave. She reiterates that slave-girls were not in an arranged marriage. First, stop claiming that I dropped your passages when I didn't. If you don't refer to them by verse, don't expect me to. Second, the "only the man shall go free" applies to when one slave was married to another slave, not when she was married to the master or one of their sons - this would happen if, for instance, the person who the girl was supposed to marry died (people died young back then) or was otherwise unavailable for marriage. This still happens in modern arranged-marriage societies. If the union of slaves produced children, the woman would remain a slave and care for the children, so that the master could give the infants all the resources they needed. When the woman and children were later freed, the idea was that the husband would have established himself with his newfound middle-class status sufficiently to allow the children to have a good upbringing, and the woman to have a good home. Nothing about this brings harm to the children or the woman. Nothing about this therefore violates the harm principle. RapeOkay, so I'm apparently being sexist? My opponent's the one who's claiming women are inferior because they're unable to resist! Trust me - if I was to start coming on to my opponent - she WOULD resist. Even if unable to resist during the actual assaulting, you bet she would call the police at the first oppertunity! Why? She doesn't know me. Most rapes today are committed by people known to the victim, as her source says. This would not have happened in ancient Israel because if the laws of the Bible were followed, women would be carefully protected in their households. The only real way they could have male friends from other households is by sneaking out, for the male could not sneak in (and if he did, the woman would obviously raise the alarm long before any sexual assault could begin). The passage clearly refers not to a woman being raped, but a woman having an affair. This has been unresponded to. Furthermore, even if it did refer to rape, which it doesn't, this is clearly not a one-off incident. She must have had an oppertunity to tell somebody for this law to apply. And besides all of that - women in ancient Israel were trained to scream for help when somebody attempts to force them, from a very young age. This conditioning leads to the situation being much easier to deal with - very different from the conditioning girls are given today. The point is that a woman is just as culpable as the man if she, according to the best evidence available, was having an affair. By my opponent's harm principle, the violation had to be unconsented for my opponent to use it. Nothing about the passage indicates a lack of consent, unlike many other laws where lack of consent is explicitly stated, meaning lack of consent should not be assumed. Lastly pro goes on a massive all-caps rant that I lied about the RSV. There were more mistranslated passages than just the one from Isiah (actually there were several from Isiah, not to mention several from other books). I proved that the NSV, the newer version, contradicts the RSV, and that virtually every Bible since has accepted the correction. That's a fact. If it wasn't a mistake, why was it corrected? Also, none of this is rape, which is condemned in the Bible. Also, I said all this last round. I'm still waiting for my argument to be answered. Good luck for the last round!