The feminism movement should not be impeded by Bronze Age texts

Closing Statements:1. On feminism.The irony of this debate is that, Christianity could be said to be one of the earliest proponents of feminism, in that, despite the cultural perspectives on women, Galatians 3:28 [53] epitomizes the view in Christianity that women are spiritually of equal worth to men. Whilst, conversely, in "Politics", Aristotle states that, "The same holds good of animals in relation to men; for tame animals have a better nature than wild [...] Again, the male is by nature superior, and the female inferior" [68], in which he reflects the Greco-Roman attitude of the inherent inferiority of the female sex, in comparing them to animals, in a section of the book wherein he is justifying slavery of those who are inherently inferior – coincidently to this debate, the American slave industry used similar justifications for their treatment of black slaves [69]. Which brings me back to round 2, in which my opponent suggests that economic prosperity is an indication of goodness, which is a weak argument, since once again, similar arguments would have justified the transatlantic slave trade, as slavery was a vital part of the economic system at the time [70]. And, one has to scrutinize the destination of the feminist movement, wherein feminists openly acknowledge the fact that feminism has not made women happy, rather it has caused a negative impact on women's happiness, with the justification being that unhappiness was to price paid for freedom [71]. However, the question arises on whether society has gone from an Orwellian pre-Suffrage system of oppression, to a Huxleyan system of oppression which gives women an illusion of freedom and choice, within the three waves of feminism [72]; which as Peter Hitchens wonderfully illustrates started forming during the second wave of feminism in the 60s, leading to a society in which women are encouraged into wage slavery to be exploited by the corporate machine [73], in the name of freedom, with the benefit of increasing taxable persons and state influence on children, by destabilizing the family unit – all of which has only progressively worsened with 3rd wave feminism. My opponent also off-handedly mentions that poverty and lack of sexual equality seem to be linked, whilst he himself admits that causation does not equate to correlation, he also misses the possibility that this situation may be explained by the fact that developing societies require male-dominated systems to progress, which unless we are provided with contrary evidence we can assume it to be so, seeing as no societies have developed with a female-dominated system [74]. Outside of round 2, my opponent has failed to provide arguments for his resolution in relation to feminism, and why it should not be impeded, whilst I have throughout this debate provided sufficient support for a case against my opponents resolution, in my criticisms of feminism; in fact my opponent has conceded to my argument against the feminist ideology holding any transcendental nature from other ideologies, rather he has simply denied and later ignored my conclusion in round 2.2. On Bronze Age texts.On the case of Bronze Age texts, I have not only provided the basic argument against Bronze Age texts inherently lacking value and consequently the right to be used to impede feminism, by confronting ideologies that may arise out of feminism, with the ideologies that may be contained within Bronze Age texts, but I have given an example for a case wherein a piece of Bronze Age literature should be used to impede feminism. Once again, in this case, my opponent has not only failed to provide any sufficient refutation against my basic argument against my opponents resolution in regards to Bronze Age texts, but he has also failed to provide sufficient arguments against specific examples of Bronze Age texts, to length of ignoring many of my rebuttals of his claims against Bronze Age texts, namely Biblical texts, despite the fact that some of the original arguments from my opponent were not even of the strictest relevance. Not only has my opponent failed to meet his resolution or refute my arguments, but he has consistently made baseless claims that Bronze Age texts are outdated in their ideological content without providing any arguments or citations for such claims, in a means to argue against the validity of Bronze Age texts; that is, to the point of repeating the same generalized claims, despite the fact that I had previously refuted said claims, such claiming that women were universally only perceived as property, and in particular incubators, in Bronze Age societies, despite my refutation of this claim in my 6th rebuttal, in 4th round. He has also continually made the claim that due to sociological and technological differences in modern and ancient societies, that Bronze Age texts are somehow invalid, without actually making the link between the two things, let alone providing citations to support his argument. Also, my opponent, has stated that Christian (or Jewish/Muslim) texts should, along with feminism, not be above scrutiny, something which I'd obviously agree with on extra-Biblical Jewish/Muslim texts; in fact, I'd agree with him on Biblical texts also, since without careful examination of the Bible, aberrant and heretical doctrines can become manifest as seen in many religious communities, or seen in my opponents provided passages, which out of context supported his arguments, but scrutinized within their entire context were shown to reasonable.3. On conclusions.In conclusion, my opponent has failed to meet the BoP of his resolution given my arguments in round 2, as clearly illustrated throughout this debate, and furthermore, he has failed to give sufficient rebuttals against my arguments for my assertion that feminism should be impeded on the basis of Bronze Age texts, in specific regards to abortion rights. I have given sufficient arguments to support the position that morally, open access to abortion should not be legal, with Biblical foundation, which would impede feminist movement in regards to the woman's right to choice in abortion; to which, my opponent has failed to provide any refutations, but rather he has simply chosen to ignore my arguments because "in [his] opinion", my arguments were not strong enough, without actually justifying his position. To sum up, my opponent has failed to provide any sufficient argument for his case, and has generally failed to refute my arguments, and has ignored my rebuttals, especially so in regards to the arguments which I provided in round 4, in support of Biblical texts. I would like to close with a verse from the Bible, Psalm 51:5 [75], "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.", which once again affirms the personhood of a fetus in the Bible, which in relation to Exodus 20:13 [10], would provide a Biblical argument against abortion.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Due to unforeseen circumstances [76] my previous round was forfeited, however I had posted it online externally [77], and mentioned it in the comments section.Thanks for reading; vote Con if you believe I have given adequate support for my position.[68] http://classics.mit.edu...[69] [70] http://news.nationalgeographic.com...[71] http://thoughtcatalog.com...[72] http://womenshistory.answers.com...[73] [74] http://www.britannica.com...[75] https://www.biblegateway.com...[76] http://i.imgur.com...[77] http://pastebin.com...