The bible is not against Womens rights:

The Right To Self Ownership Pro says, "Women were never considered property unless they were slaves, and this was only for 7 years and only under certain circumstances." FALSE. Slaves in ancient Israel were emancipated after 6 years only if they were Jewish. This also excludes Israelite daughters - who were sold into slavery by their fathers - from such automatic seventh-year manumission. Said daughters were bought to be betrothed to the owner or his son. Pro claims girls had a choice in their marital partners which is simply NOT TRUE; arranged marriages were the norm [1]. Pro keeps repeating that men were sold into slavery as women were, but this ignores the disparity in release terms for men vs. women. This also does not address my point from the last round: that women were considered property even when they were not slaves. This is evidenced by the fact that they were bought and sold (often against their will, as evidenced by arranged marriages). Men could be slaves, but were not forced to have sex like concubines were and they were NOT SOLD into MARRIAGE. Pro has not disputed this because he cannot.Pro writes, "She claims that the Torah authorizes a man to sell his daughter as a wife... while this is nowhere in the entire Torah." I have outlined the verses that explain where men are permitted to sell their daughters. In addition, I've explained why this debate is NOT limited to the Torah. Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25 are specific examples describing the selling of daughters. In the last round, I also outlined these verses: * Genesis 12:14-16* Genesis 24:51-53* Genesis 29:18-30* Deuteronomy 22:28-29* Exodus 21:7, etc. Exodus 21:7-11 -- If a girl was sold into a family, she was not to go free because working to freedom was never the intent. An Israelite father could sell his unmarried daughters into servitude, with the expectation or understanding that the master or his son could eventually marry her. It is understood by Jewish and Christian commentators that this referred to the SALE of a daughter [2]. Pro repeats that girls were not sold into marriage, but that is simply not true. "A father might sell a daughter to benefit the family or to improve the girl's prospects... Although abuses undoubtedly occurred, the intent was to improve the girl's future. Every girl in that culture faced an arranged marriage; if she was sold, she moved into her husband's house earlier than usual and was provided for long before her wedding" [3]. Pro cannot rewrite history nor the Bible. Remember:"And if a man sells his daughter to be a female slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who has betrothed her to himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt deceitfully with her. And if he has betrothed her to his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. If he takes another wife, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights. And if he does not do these three for her, then she shall go out free, without paying money." -- Exodus 21 Keep in mind that I explained how premarital sex was considered a property crime in the Bible. I also explained that when a man had sex with another man's wife, both could be punished, but it was in fact considered a property crime (but not a crime if sleeping with an unmarried woman). Pro says that "this is not the Torah" and also that it's not true. He continuously accuses me of lying, despite the fact that I've provided cited sources claiming my arguments as true. I've also explained innumerable times why this debate is NOT just about the Torah. The Bible = Old and New Testament. Period. End of story. Pro is completely responsible for defending the New Testament in this debate. Nevertheless, here are 3 additional sources citing adultery as *property* related crimes in the Old Testament [4, 5, 6]. Pro continuously ignores the fact that women were considered property in the Bible, because doing so negates the resolution very matter of factly. I've repeatedly explained that God says in 2 Samuel 12:8 that if David’s wives and concubines (mistresses) were not enough, He would have given David even more. Pro says this "only refers to his kingdom and riches," but this is patently false. It literally specifies multiple wiveS in every single translation of the text. So no, the text is not only referring to riches but also multiple/more women. Collecting wives and sex slaves was considered a sign of status.Pro repeatedly calls me a liar instead of addressing the verses and quotes I outline. He also relies on fallacious straw mans. For example, I said Judges 19:1-30 details just one example of concubines in the Bible. Pro responded that Judges 19 doesn't advocate rape. As you can see, I DID NOT say it advocated rape; I said it advocated concubines. I specified that women could be taken as booty from a successful campaign and forced to become wives or concubines. Deuteronomy 21:11-14 describes the process. Pro says "No it doesn't say that!" but doesn't provide a quote or context, whereas I did outline the quote and context. Regarding polygamy: In Exodus 21:10, a man can marry an infinite amount of women without any limits to how many he can marry.In 2 Samuel 5:13; 1 Chronicles 3:1-9, 14:3, King David had six wives and numerous concubines. In 1 Kings 11:3, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.In 2 Chronicles 11:21, King Solomon's son Rehoboam had 18 wives and 60 concubines.In Deuteronomy 21:15 "If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons...."Pro says "Just because the bible records something repetitively doesn’t mean it’s being advocated for." But despite all of these Bible verses referencing polygamy, the Bible doesn't explicitly condemn it. Why not? Note women were not allowed to be polygamous; they did not have equal rights and social status with men. The most important point, however, is that Pro keeps ignoring this: 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. Jewish scholars acknowledge that polygamy was not condemned in the Torah and that it was permissible for various reasons [7]. The Right To Bodily Autonomy The Bible advocates physical harm for a woman making her own sexual decisions. Pro says these are "lies!" Meanwhile I quoted the Bible proving this to be true: "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 22:23-24Women are *stoned and burned to death* for making their own sexual decisions in the Old Testament. Pro is the liar. Pro says, "My opponent again ignores my responses from the previous rounds, this was a mistranslation and only said to spare the women and children, except the women who participated in the pagan fertility festivals, men, on the other hand were all killed because 100% of men were involved." He says this in reference to Deuteronomy 22:28-29 which states: "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." This has nothing to do with what Pro said. This is supposed to "protect" a woman by saying if a guy rapes a woman, then he has to marry her. But really what it does is forced the woman to not only endure rape but marry her rapist. Pro continuously claims all of my Bible quotes proving him wrong are "mistranslated." I keep wasting character space c/p them and he ignores my arguments. He must prove they are mistranslated. 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.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 autuonomy. 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: To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pangs in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you." Because the husband was the dominant member of the family, he was given the title of lib (Ba'al) which meant "lord," "master of the house," and "leader of the family circle. But why would women need lords, masters and leaders (even figuratively) if they had equal rights and equal authority over their own persons and families? Pro continuously lies and says that I have ignored his arguments, when in fact, he doesn't present any arguments. 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. Pro must provide the quote to prove this is true.I have no character space left. I will address women as inferior/dirty in the last round.[1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...[4] http://tinyurl.com...[5] http://tinyurl.com...[6] http://tinyurl.com...[7] http://tinyurl.com...