The bible is not against Womens rights:

Opening Notes Regardless of my opponent's intent, he did not clarify that he was excluding the New Testament from this debate. Since the New Testament is part of the Bible, it's contents qualify for this discussion. The Right To Self-Ownership I'm dropping the argument about coveting thy neighbor's wife. To negate the resolution, I only have to prove one instance of ignoring women's rights or inhibiting rights on the basis of female sex in the Bible. Pro continues to insist that Exodus 21:7 is mistranslated, however fails to identify how this is the case or relevant to my argument. My argument was that while all slaves (including men) and indentured servants would be considered human property, women were considered property even when they were not slaves or indentured servants. For example, a man paid a bride price to a woman’s father for her hand in marriage – the father did not have to consider his daughter’s wishes in the man he chose for her. I've explained that property is bought and sold. Pro cannot contest this. Women were bought and sold like property; the Bible condones this. Furthermore, women did not have a say in whom their father chose for them to marry. On the contrary, men were not bought and sold as property.Pro dropped my argument that premarital sex was considered a property crime in the Bible. Pro dropped my argument that when a man had sex with another man's wife, both could be punished but it was in fact considered a property crime. Again if a married man had sex with a prostitute, the crime of whoremongering had been committed -- NOT a property crime. My opponent has ignored the fact that women were considered property in Biblical times, and the Bible condones this. Women did not have the right to self-ownership in the Bible. Again Pro insists that the Bible doesn't necessarily advocate the things it describes. However the Bible does in fact advocate the lack of women's autonomy and/or lack of equal rights. In the last round I 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 "doesn't have to do with anything" but clearly it does. Here we can see that men were permitted to have multiple wives and sex partners whereas women were not. And even if we accept that it was for the sake of procreation (which really doesn't matter or change the lack of equal rights) many times a man's infertility inhibits pregnancy, yet women were not allowed or Biblically condoned to pursue sex outside of marriage. Men were. Judges 19:1-30: details just one example of concubines in the Bible. Women could be taken as booty from a successful campaign and forced to become wives or concubines. Deuteronomy 21:11-14 describes the process.And David and Solomon were not the only ones with multiple wives throughout the Old Testament; Abraham and Jacob had multiple wives and concubines as well. Lamech married two women in Genesis 4:19. This proves the Bible consistently condones polyamorous sex - but only for men. Women did not enjoy the same sexual rights. No wonder Pro is dismissing this argument; it negates the resolution pretty explicitly. Keep in mind that according to Genesis 38:6-10, when a woman was widowed without a son it became the responsibility of the brother-in-law or a close male relative to take her in and impregnate her [1]. Women's status = baby makers. And again, Deuteronomy 22:28-29 describes how an unmarried woman who had been raped must marry her attacker. But more about bodily autonomy in a second. The Right To Bodily Autonomy Not surprisingly, Pro dropped every single one of my points regarding the value of a woman's virginity. This is because the Bible indisputably highlights the value of a woman's virginity (but not a man's), which is another indication of disparate sexual rights and responsibilities.Please extend my point from the last round -- "In the culture of the time [her] sexual purity was representative of the father's ability to raise her according to the laws of God... A man's reputation... could be adversely affected by the fornication of his daughter... there was every expectation from the bridegroom that she would be a virgin. If the contrary was discovered... this would bring great shame to the family and the community... to insure the integrity of the family and to remove the evil of adulterous/fornication from the community, stoning was advocated."The Bible advocates physical harm for a woman making her own sexual decisions. Once again I negated Pro's false argument that men and women were subjected to the same standards and punishment. I'll copy and paste yet another argument that Pro ignored -- "According to the Bible, men were permitted many wives and mistresses. It seems the only way a man could be an adulterer was if he had sexual thoughts or relations with MARRIED women (i.e. another man's property). But a women was an adulteress if she had relations with any man that was not her husband. A husband was forced to divorce an adulterous wife, but an adulterous man could remain married to his wife with impunity. Note 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." My opponent continues to insist that the Bible doesn't advocate rape and only describes rape or women as sexual conquests. That is 100% false and why Pro has not responded to these verses. "And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man" - Numbers 31:17-18 "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 22:23-24Pro completely ignored Judges 19:24-25 which blatantly advocates rape: "Look, here is my virgin daughter and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But as for this man, don’t do such an outrageous thing.” But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go.In fact Pro just repeatedly ignores every single verse that doesn't fit his narrative. I guess I will continue copy and pasting them. This verse (Samuel 12:11-12) doesn't advocate rape, but it clearly proposes women as property i.e. without bodily and sexual autonomy: “Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity on you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’”Zechariah 14:2: For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity...Deuteronomy 20:14: As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves.Women as ServantsI've already explained that Pro must defend the New Testament. Extend my arguments regarding Corinthians 11:2-10, Timothy 2:11-12, Colossians 3:18, Ephesians 5:22-24, Corinthians 14:34-36, Corinthians 1:11-3, Titus 2:4-5 and Peter 3:1. Regardless of Pro's intent, the Bible undoubtedly includes the New Testament -- that is an indisputable fact -- and since he made no disclaimer to exclude the NT from this discussion, the contender (myself) and audience had/have every reason to assume the New Testament qualifies for discussion. I had no way of knowing Pro's alleged intent before the debate began. Nevertheless, I've proven innumerable times over that sexism and the inhibition of women's rights exist throughout the Bible, especially in the Old Testament. Here's another argument I'll have to waste time and space copy and pasting because my opponent completely dropped it: "The Bible teaches that women must submit to the authority of men. When a husband uses the power God has given him, he supposedly blesses his entire family through his leadership according to Peter 3:1-6. But this type of authority would not be possible if women had EQUAL rights; indeed the Bible calls for the man to lead (regardless of circumstance) implying that men are automatically the superior sex/leaders." Women as More Dirty or Sinful Pro claims women were not considered dirty or unclean in Leviticus 12:1-8. He says this verse is simply about "giving women a break" after childbirth. I mentioned that female babies were considered automatically more dirty or detrimental than male babies, which highlights blatant sexism in the Bible and valuing the sexes differently. He claims this is because female babies weigh more than male babies. We have no reason to accept that without a source, especially since it's actually false and male babies weigh more [2]. My opponent has also decided to ignore my quotes citing BIBLICAL SCHOLARS who confirm my argument - that women are allegedly being punished (according to the Bible) on behalf of Eve, whom is blamed for the downfall of man/sin. Finally, extend my argument that sex in itself for women is described as shameful and dirty. This can be seen in Revelation 14:3-4, Galatians and Ephesians among other verses. Conclusion Most of this round has been spent copy and pasting arguments that Pro has dropped. Please extend. [1] http://www.patheos.com...[2] http://www.livestrong.com...