The Bible is sexist.

And now, my final argument! Don’t worry, your last round was good, but you did put more detail and effort into this one, which I am grateful for. This round, I’m going to give a rebuttal, then a conclusion, which is a quick summary of how the debate went from my perspective, along with some final thoughts for the voters. Just something I like to do. Con can do the same if she chooses.Continuing the Genesis argument, you say that Adam’s punishment was meant for men because we, in general, are stronger and better built for work. But take a look at the passage again. The labor God describes is related to gathering plant life for eating. In hunter-gatherer societies, which Adam and Eve would have been (if they existed) since they had not yet discovered agriculture, the gathering is almost always done by the women. [1]One of your points has to do with moral objectivity. I’ve already explained why that topic is irrelevant to our debate. I don’t like having to do this, but I’ll refer you to what I said in Round 2:“This debate isn’t about who decides what is good or evil, or even whether sexism is good or evil. This law from the Book of Deuteronomy is sexist, because it is prejudiced and discriminatory against women.”Please point out to me where I said, at any point, that Biblical law isn’t “acceptable” or “right”. I know the word “sexist” has a negative connotation, but it has a clear definition, too. My passion causes me to interject my opinions here and there, and I probably shouldn’t have, because my idea of right and wrong has no relevance to this debate. Nor does yours. I’m trying to prove that the Bible meets the definition, nothing else. Personally, I believe that morality is obviously subjective, and if you want to take that on in a later debate, I’d be happy to let you. But not right now.So, we’re not required to convince the other whether sex before marriage is good or bad. I shared my beliefs, so you have every right to share yours, as you did. I apologize for going on about sex so much. I had forgotten that you were a child, and might not be very knowledgeable about these things. I’ll have to keep talking about adult-themed topics for the sake of the debate, but now I will keep your age in mind.You say “Both men and women are punished for this”. Are they? I can’t find any Biblical punishment for non-virgin men. Much less death by rocks. Deuteronomy 22:13-21 is anything but equal. And I never said that men weren’t punished for sexual “immorality”, but their punishments are comparatively light. All three of those verses you cited for me are condemning adultery. I know you’re young and may not know this, but there is a difference between adultery and fornication. Adultery is betraying your spouse to be with someone else. Fornication is simply not being married at all and being with someone at the time. The Bible makes a big deal out of female fornication, while almost turning a blind eye to the men.No need to apologize about the sources, you’re completely fine. Just know that voters take sources pretty seriously. If you’re going to give information, usually tell your opponent where you got it from. You can even say “I learned in Sunday school that men and women sat on different sides of a church”. That counts as a citation. It helps me learn the facts that your argument is based on.You’ve sent me an interesting blog post about the verses from 1 Corinthians. I’d love to respond to it point-by-point, but simply don’t have the space. My abridged response is this: all this proves is that the Bible contradicts itself. Dr. Ellis doesn’t try to disprove the “no talking in church” rule, but rather, gives examples of them speaking in tongues anyway.I agree with the Dictionary.com definition you found. It’s more specific, and I will use it from now on. But we really are getting bogged down in semantics with “superior” versus “important” versus “valuable”, and so on. We have dilly-dallied and beat around the bush, but it’s the last round, so it’s time to settle this. If a husband “rules over” his wife, then he is superior. Just because we don’t see any Hebrew or Greek equivalent of the word “superior” doesn’t mean it isn’t implied. It doesn’t matter if God likes Christian men and women equally. All that matters in our debate is their status in the physical world of Earth. And according to the Bible, a family ought to be a hierarchy, with men at the top and women below. Yes, woman plays a different role, and by the Bible’s command, she plays the role of slave. You can tell me that the ideal godly woman is just as important as a man. But if his job is to be an active leader, teacher, warrior, and preacher, and her job is to obey him, the inequality here is clear as day to me. Feel free to disagree, but in the end, it’s up to the voters.And going back to the definition you gave us, I believe that the Bible meets those standards. Man rules over woman, as the Bible says in its very first book, and this is natural superiority. Men dominate the political life, because even putting aside the patriarchal society of the Hebrews, Paul says that no woman should have authority over a man. Men dominate the economic life, because they are allowed upward mobility into the priesthood, and are encouraged to go out and find opportunity while women’s first duty is to stay at home and take care of the family. And men dominate the social life, because they speak in church while the women sit in silence, and act as the kings of their own family unit.“...it doesn't meet the definition because these areas are not 'more important'.”Please explain your reasoning to me. And tell me how the Bible gives women equal opportunity to participate in politics, society, and the economy.“...would you argue that the boss in your example (the ‘superior’) is a more important person then the people beneath him?”You have taken a sudden interest in the word “important”. Why? Sure, it appears in the definition, but not in the context you’re making it out to be. Sexism isn’t the belief that men are more important than women. Importance has nothing to do with it. And to answer your question, I wouldn’t call the boss a more important person than his employee, I would call him a superior.You ended with an article commenting on 1 Timothy. The guy who wrote it, Dr. Moo, says “Paul’s concern in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is specifically the role of men and women in activities within the Christian community, and we question whether the prohibitions in this text can rightly be applied outside that framework.”This is very carefully worded, but he’s saying that if the entire world were Christian and fundamentalist, no women would be in positions of power. Which goes right along with my main argument. And that ends my final rebuttal. Apologies if it sounded curt at times, but...character limit.ConclusionCon made a valiant, clearly educated and well-read, defense of the Bible. However, there were problems. She fluctuated a bit, altering her opinion on why women aren't allowed to speak in church. We could never quite resolve the argument of "just different roles". Some of her points felt off-topic, such as equality not being sameness and men being stronger.My case has been the same from the very beginning. The Bible is sexist because it matches the definition. We have used at least three different definitions of sexism, and I have tried to prove all of them. Con was on the defensive, arguing against my points without building a case of her own. Notice that she didn't give any Bible quotes about gender equality. That would have helped her greatly.But Con is incredibly polite, and her grammar is stellar. So, all I ask the voters is that you give your vote to whomever you think made the more convincing argument. Good luck to my opponent, on her final round and in the voting stage! Thank you again for an awesome, challenging debate!Sources: 1. https://www.britannica.com...