The bible is not against Womens rights:

Introduction / Conclusion In this debate, my spelling, grammar, organization and presentation have been superior to my opponent's. I've used 9-10 sources to back up my claims; Pro has ineffectively used just a couple. I've also had far better conduct. But most importantly, I have more than sufficiently met my burden in negating the resolution. First and foremost, Pro has repeatedly refused to acknowledge the New Testament. I've explained that the New Testament is definitively part of the Bible, and Pro never said the New Testament was to be excluded before I accepted the debate. Therefore, he is responsible for defending the New Testament as per the resolution. Yet Pro has ignored every single one of my New Testament quotes and refused to debate them. All of those arguments must be extended in my favor. I've also explained that I only have to provide one instance of women's rights being inhibited in the Bible on the basis of their sex. Throughout this debate, I've highlighted numerous Bible quotes (many from the Old Testament) and examples of women's rights being inhibited on the basis of their sex. I will outline them all once again. Arguments 1. Pro says both men and women were slaves in the Bible. While that is true, women were considered property even when they were not slaves. Further, men could be released after 6-7 years; there were disparate release terms for women, proving they had less rights than men in that regard (even as slaves). Israelite daughters were not given freedom anyhow. Proof is Exodus 21:7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do."2. Women were sold into arranged marriages. They did not have a say in who they married; I cited quotes and sources to prove this.3. I've quoted Biblical scholars confirming that women were bought and sold as property. 4. Even male slaves were not forced to have sex like concubines were, and they were NOT SOLD into MARRIAGE. Pro has not disputed this because he cannot. He repeatedly says that I am "lying" when in fact he has simply failed and given up on arguing against these legitimate points. 5. Premarital sex was considered a PROPERTY crime in the Bible. This is because women and their sexual and reproductive rights were considered male (their husband's) property. If women are property, they do not have equal or even basic rights. Here is yet another source confirming that taking virginity = property crime in the Bible, which Pro continuously ignores because it loses him the debate [1]. Likewise having sex with another man's wife = property crime. 6. Collecting wives and sex slaves was considered a sign of status. This makes perfect sense since women were considered property (see above). We can presume God was okay with this because God implies he would have given David more wives and concubines per his request; God allows polygamy in the OT without explicitly condemning it - whereas he explicitly condemns a lot of other things; and the Rabbis of the Talmud said that four wives was the realistic maximum for a man, so that he could devote the proper amount of time for sexual relations with each of them. Once again, Pro continuously ignores this because he has no good response. In the last round I cited sources proving that Jewish scholars acknowledge polygamy was not condemned in the Torah, and that it was permissible for various reasons... but ONLY for men. Women were not allowed to be polygamous, because women did not have equal rights. Their rights were inhibited based on their sex. 7. The Bible advocates physical harm for a woman making her own sexual decisions. Women are *stoned and burned to death* for making their own sexual decisions in the Old Testament. Pro calls me a liar despite the fact that I have copied and pasted the text as written, as well as asked him to correct the "mistranslations" which he has not. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 -- "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives." "If, however the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death... And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire" -- Deuteronomy 22:28-29 and Deuteronomy 22:23-24 Again, Pro says they were to be burned and stoned to death for being heretics, and all the male heretics were to be burned too. But this proves women's virginity and sexual purity was the expectation and standard. Therefore even if the male heretics were also killed, these verses prove my sentiments about women and women's sexuality (specifically) being a sign of property whereas male sexuality had nothing to do with property (even if it had to do with alleged heresy). 8. Women captured by Israelite armies could be adopted forcibly as wives, but first they had to have their heads shaved and undergo a period of mourning according to Deuteronomy 21:10-14 -- which is another breach of bodily autonomy.9. I've outlined that concubines were popular. The master may have given concubines to provide more children for his household. Using women as baby makers is a violation of one's sexual and reproductive rights -- yet another example of inhibited bodily autonomy. 10. Israel's family life was dominated by the husband. In marriage, the husband took his wife from her home and "ruled" over her, following the pattern of Genesis 3:16. I've elaborated on this in the last round, which Pro completely dropped. 11. I've repeated multiple times that Judges 19:24-25 blatantly advocates rape: "...Do to them whatever you wish... So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night." Pro says God killed people for raping as God commanded. In the last round, I said Pro must provide the quote to prove this is true. Of course, Pro completely failed to provide the quote and therefore we have no reason to accept his alleged defense of rape. He also failed to explain why God would kill people for raping people per God's very own request, but I digress. Conclusion My opponent has repeatedly failed to address my arguments. I've provided at least 11 examples and ways in which women did not have equal rights (or the basic rights to individual and bodily autonomy) throughout this debate. Once again, I only need to provide 1 example in order to negate the resplution. I have provided at least 1 explicit example of women being considered property and having little to no rights over their own person and livelihood. Pro meanwhile has called me a liar and repeatedly attacked me which is poor conduct, in addition to his ultimate failure at upholding the resolution as-written. Thanks for reading. [1] https://books.google.com...