Joshua's invasion of Jericho was anti-Jewish

Final Rebuttals The Code of Hammurabi? Pro's argument that Joshua's siege and destruction of the city of Jericho was a violation of the Code of Hammurabi exposes how he fundamentally fails to understand, just as he attempted to do with the Ten Commandments, that the prohibition was against individuals committing murder and cannot be construed as a total prohibition on killing in warfare, in self-defense, or in carrying out execution. I addressed this attempt but was limited (character limitation) at the end of the previous round. The argument also fails historically meaning that he would be condemning Hammurabi himself considering his conquests and mass expansion of Babylonia by conquering cities and states such as Isin, Larsa, Eshnunna, Kish, Lagash, Nippur, Borsippa, Ur, Uruk, Umma, Adab, and Eridu. He also conquered peoples to the northeast such as the Elamites, Gutians and Kassites. He conquered states to the West including the Levant and the Kingdom of Mari. Of course being the victor he would seize the wealth of those he conquered and captives became slaves for the empire. If he'd properly place the law in context it applied to the civil society of the Babylonians instead of ridiculously conflating it to apply everywhere in the ancient world and being universal in it's application even though nothing in it precludes warfare, conquest, spoils, etc. It wasn't unusual for most of the men to be killed although a portion were taken as slaves and sometimes blinded and relegated to working grindstones or carrying water. Finally, it fails more miserably in it's application when you consider that before the fall of Jericho to the Israelites, the Babylonian Empire was in rapid decline following the passing of Hammurabi and the reign of his successor Samsu-iluna. In the end, Babylon was sacked and fell to the Hittite Empire. So the Code of Hammurabi no longer existed any way. To end, I will show some laws from the Torah that are similar to the ones he posted from the Code of Hammurabi. Exodus 21:16 - "Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death." Exodus 22:7 - "If a man gives to his neighbor money or goods to keep safe, and it is stolen from the man's house, then, if the thief is found, he shall pay double." Exodus 21:22-27 - "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake." So does the dead ruler of Babylon need to be put to death or be made to pay? You're clearly misconstruing to level an absurd charge. Genocide by the Angel of the Lord? I would much prefer to debate an atheist on this topic because my opponent harbors some rather bizarre and unsupportable theological beliefs that are entirely of his own creation. I have argued that the destruction of the Canaanites was necessary because of the extreme circumstances of their evil practices, systematic corruption, and utter depravity despite God giving them centuries to alter course and avoid judgement. In this instance Joshua was a servant of the Yahweh. My opponent cannot produce anything Jesus Christ said that contradicted this command written by Moses in the Torah as received by Yahweh. Conclusion My opponent has failed to defend the primary topic that Joshua, clearly being Jewish, was being "anti-Jewish" by laying siege to Jericho as instructed. It is patently absurd and he didn't attempt an argument or defense. I have refuted his assertion that he lacked a legal right in this round and point out he did have the legal right under the Torah. He failed on the assertion on Joshua lacking a religious right. He hasn't made a clearly coherent argument on moral right but he did charge it is genocide, but failed to address my moral arguments for it as explained in the previous round or it being moral on the grounds that it was at Yahweh's command as a punishment for exceeding sin and abomination. He failed in his assertion to that he didn't have a military right only referencing that Joshua was "in a hurry" without explaining why tat would be the case or how that contradicts a "military right." He failed in his assertion that Joshua lacked a political right. And his last assertion was a straw man of sorts but it failed given that the land was promised to Abraham and his descendants therefore you could very well argue it was being redeemed.