Women ought not to be the head in a ministerial role

Contention 1: Exodus verse rebuttal: my opponent says is that "God decided to use her as part of his Word. There's a difference between electing a woman pastor and God choosing a woman pastor." I think in this debate my opponent is getting confused about what we are debating. By his own admission about God choosing her to bring forth his word is proof that God used a woman in a ministerial role prooving my contention to still stand. God specifically summoned her by my opponents admission. And if my opponent is agreeing with me about God choosing a woman to be in ministry and it being okay, then he has conceceded the round validating my case. Judges 5 rebuttal: A wise man once said, "I will be referring a lot to the fact that there is a difference between the new testament and the old one." This wise man said previous, "...it was before the new testament." Oh wait! That was you. If u try and throw out my arguement about the prophetess in the Exodus verse because it was the old testament, don't for a moment try and quote old testament verses in this debate. You're contradicting yourself. IfI can't use OT verses you can't either. Also one more thing. I think you're getting you're history a little confused.Deborah didn't live in the time of Isaiah. Deborah lived in the time of Judges before there were kings in Israel and Isaiah lived under king Hezekiah. Two different books and two different times. You're getting your books mixed up there. Therefore everything you said in response to my Judges 5 example completely falls. Luke rebuttal: My verse for Luke still holds up. You can't be so ignorant that you want to throw out everything because there were "old testament" verses. If that was the case, you can therefore rip out the whole old testament from your Bible and get rid of it. Jesus said in Matthew,"I haven't come to abolish the Law." The old testament is still an important part of the Bible. Contention 2 rebuttal: The reason I quoted this verse is because God told women and men to both rule over, not only the animals, but the earth. That verse bascially says that He created them both in His image, meaning that God doesn't differentiate between the two. It still stands. Contention 3 rebuttal: I mention howHuldah was a prophetess consulted by both men and women. Also that Noadiah and Anna are also depicted as pophetesses who could teach. My opponent goes on to basically say that God appointed them so it's okay. He admitts it in his rebuttal. He basically completely agreed with my third contention therefore it still stands. We are not debating whether God or man choosing them is okay, we are debating if they should be in ministry at all. He did a poor job at refuting this. I also argue the second thing he mention under my "Luke rebuttal". Contention 4 rebuttal: Again my opponent does a poor job at refuting my point. All women pastors, or at least most of them, say that God called them into the ministry. And if you wanna condem their calling, take it up with God. Now on to my opponents case: -------------On to his case------------- For my opponents first contention he tries and justifes women not talking in church by quoting 1 Tim. 2:12. Since scripture provides examples of women violating the prohibitions there but be cultural reasons why Paul made these statements and there was so. Also he tries to quote 1 Corin.14:34. Concerning the Corinthian passage Paul saying women can't speak can't be taken as absolute for the simple reason that Paul earlier taught that women could pray and propesy in church as long as they covered their heads. How do we reconcile these statements? In one statement it's ok and another it's not? Obviiously he was dealing with a cultural approach to the Corinth church. My opponent does a poor job at refuting my case. It still stands and all he could provide us with was two scriptures that don't accurately depict his side. OT is still an important part of the Bible.